Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Discussion in 'Science' started by Bowerbird, Apr 6, 2022.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Deeply flawed model.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are talking about one form of biomass - NOT biomass electricity generation in general.

    The article is about harvesting trees in the US and Canada, manufacturing wood pellets, shipping the pellets to the UK and then burning them in converted coal fired plants!

    It's really nutty to consider that as a best case representation of biomass electricity generation.
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's because it is the best case.
     
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    C.2. Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence). {2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5}

    C.2.1. Pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot show system changes that are more rapid and pronounced over the next two decades than in 2°C pathways (high confidence). The rates of system changes associated with limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot have occurred in the past within specific sectors, technologies and spatial contexts, but there is no documented historic precedent for their scale (medium confidence). {2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.4, 2.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4}

    C.2.2. In energy systems, modelled global pathways (considered in the literature) limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot (for more details see Figure SPM.3b) generally meet energy service demand with lower energy use, including through enhanced energy efficiency, and show faster electrification of energy end use compared to 2°C (high confidence). In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, low-emission energy sources are projected to have a higher share, compared with 2°C pathways, particularly before 2050 (high confidence). In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, renewables are projected to supply 70–85% (interquartile range) of electricity in 2050 (high confidence). In electricity generation, shares of nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) are modelled to increase in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot. In modelled 1.5°C pathways with limited or no overshoot, the use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share of gas to be approximately 8% (3–11% interquartile range) of global electricity in 2050, while the use of coal shows a steep reduction in all pathways and would be reduced to close to 0% (0–2% interquartile range) of electricity (high confidence). While acknowledging the challenges, and differences between the options and national circumstances, political, economic, social and technical feasibility of solar energy, wind energy and electricity storage technologies have substantially improved over the past few years (high confidence). These improvements signal a potential system transition in electricity generation. (Figure SPM.3b) {2.4.1, 2.4.2, Figure 2.1, Table 2.6, Table 2.7, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.5.2}

    C.2.3. CO2 emissions from industry in pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot are projected to be about 65–90% (interquartile range) lower in 2050 relative to 2010, as compared to 50–80% for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). Such reductions can be achieved through combinations of new and existing technologies and practices, including electrification, hydrogen, sustainable bio-based feedstocks, product substitution, and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). These options are technically proven at various scales but their large-scale deployment may be limited by economic, financial, human capacity and institutional constraints in specific contexts, and specific characteristics of large-scale industrial installations. In industry, emissions reductions by energy and process efficiency by themselves are insufficient for limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot (high confidence). {2.4.3, 4.2.1, Table 4.1, Table 4.3, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.5.2}

    C.2.4. The urban and infrastructure system transition consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would imply, for example, changes in land and urban planning practices, as well as deeper emissions reductions in transport and buildings compared to pathways that limit global warming below 2°C (medium confidence). Technical measures and practices enabling deep emissions reductions include various energy efficiency options. In pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, the electricity share of energy demand in buildings would be about 55–75% in 2050 compared to 50–70% in 2050 for 2°C global warming (medium confidence). In the transport sector, the share of low-emission final energy would rise from less than 5% in 2020 to about 35–65% in 2050 compared to 25–45% for 2°C of global warming (medium confidence). Economic, institutional and socio-cultural barriers may inhibit these urban and infrastructure system transitions, depending on national, regional and local circumstances, capabilities and the availability of capital (high confidence). {2.3.4, 2.4.3, 4.2.1, Table 4.1, 4.3.3, 4.5.2}

    C.2.5. Transitions in global and regional land use are found in all pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, but their scale depends on the pursued mitigation portfolio. Model pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot project a 4 million km2 reduction to a 2.5 million km2 increase of non-pasture agricultural land for food and feed crops and a 0.5–11 million km2 reduction of pasture land, to be converted into a 0–6 million km2 increase of agricultural land for energy crops and a 2 million km2 reduction to 9.5 million km2 increase in forests by 2050 relative to 2010 (medium confidence)

    . Land-use transitions of similar magnitude can be observed in modelled 2°C pathways (medium confidence). Such large transitions pose profound challenges for sustainable management of the various demands on land for human settlements, food, livestock feed, fibre, bioenergy, carbon storage, biodiversity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). Mitigation options limiting the demand for land include sustainable intensification of land-use practices, ecosystem restoration and changes towards less resource-intensive diets (high confidence). The implementation of land-based mitigation options would require overcoming socio-economic, institutional, technological, financing and environmental barriers that differ across regions (high confidence). {2.4.4, Figure 2.24, 4.3.2, 4.3.7, 4.5.2, Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 3}
    https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  7. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you trying to imply that engineers in OZ are so stupid they don't know it gets dark at night?????? Or are you saying that engineers in OZ are lazy and stupid?
     
  8. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like sarcasm to me. Of course they know it gets dark at night. But they work for climate zealots who apparently haven't figured that out.
     
  9. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Stupidity is still implied. This is when public opinion is manipulated into hatred.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2022
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm saying their PR is dishonest.
    ". . . What I love about this article is not one mention of batteries or storage. Until some genius figures out an affordable energy storage system, none of these green triumphs help ordinary consumers. Renewable capacity will continue to inflate household energy bills.

    Whatever coal providers lose to renewables during the day, the more than make up for at night, or during unfavourable weather conditions, when the power they provide dominates the electricity grid.

    We can forget about the gigantic Snowy 2 pumped storage system, which was the great green hope until someone bothered to actually run the numbers. Even the deep greens at Sydney Morning Herald nowadays call Snowy 2 a “White Elephant”.

    The leverage coal providers hold over the Aussie government is they can simply pack up and leave, and crash the Australian electricity grid, if anyone attempts to interfere with them taking the same profits as they did before renewables entered the market. . . . "
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is clearly political BS.

    As an example, the fuel type responsible for the most electricity generation in Iowa is WIND! And, wind isn't perpetual, either. And, Iowa does not have batteries anywhere near the capacity of energy demand in the state.

    Iowa IS surviving just fine!

    Bottom line, more clean energy means less fossil fuel energy creation is necessary. It will be a LONG LONG time before there is so little gas fired energy being created in the USA that there will be an actual problem with time of day.

    Besides, we ARE creating battery facilities that have meaningful capacity on a state wide basis. And, usage patterns ARE being altered by offering lower rates during peak production periods.

    And, solar facilities such as those in Morocco and China have heat retention that allows electricity production for far longer than daylight hours.
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    None of which works at all without fossil fuel back-up, the cost of which is never included in green energy accounting.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No sane proposal for an energy plan for the USA includes eliminating fossil fuel power.

    The proposed objective is to reduce fossil fuel use, thus slowing Earth's warming.
     
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And if you include the cost of retaining viable fossil fuel baseload capacity, the financial case for green energy disappears.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what you mean by "viable fossil fuel baseload capacity".

    I'm guessing you mean retaining enough fossil fuel capacity to fulfill full demand.

    And, that is very clearly NOT required.
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, enough to meet full baseload requirements is required.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2022
  17. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Clearly you've never engineered, designed, or built anything. You start by considering the maximum capacity that could be reasonably necessary, not the minimum to simply make it work for now. Even if you're doing something simple like hanging a picture on a wall you factor in how much the picture and frame weigh and then maybe how many rambunctious kids or pets might be running around the space at any given time, decide on a reasonable safety factor (if it's a genuine Rembrandt you might want to err on the side of bulletproof), and then hang it.

    If you're doing the same thing with critical infrastructure like a power plant that's even more important. People's lives are at stake. Losing the ability to heat your home for 2 weeks in the dead of winter will likely result in many deaths as people freeze to death. And every standard home heating system requires electricity to run in some form or fashion (something's got to light and control the burners so things don't explode at a minimum).

    Iowa may have a lot of wind power, but the wind doesn't always blow- even in Iowa. And so far, there aren't big enough batteries in existence (real deployed batteries, not science experimental batteries) to back things up for weeks at a time.

    That's the real world that we all live in. And all the fancy alternative power fantasies need to be backed up by real fossil fuels. Coal and petroleum (and nuclear although it's not a fossil fuel). Natural gas is good to an extent but it's got about 60% of the energy content (that's why it produces less CO2) and it has the tendency to cavitate in cold temperatures- see the winter Texas power failure of a year or two ago- and isn't optimal everywhere.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  18. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "fuel" creating the most electricity in Iowa is wind.

    They don't have to burn as much fossil fuel.

    And, I don't see a justification for suggesting that they need to plan for their wind production to all fail.
     
  20. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course you don't. You really have no idea what it is you're talking about.
     
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wind is subject to intermittency, and no responsible official can plan for anything less than full baseload back-up.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think what you are missing is that we have LONG had mixes of sources of electricity.

    >> Iowa uses less fossil fuel because they have wind power.

    THAT is the objective. Eliminating all fossil fuel use is not the objective or some sort of requirement.

    At some time in the future, there might be a problem with carrying loads at night, or whatever. But, that is a long, long way away - after fossil fuel use has been significantly reduced. We can address that problem when we start nearing that point.

    Let's also remember that wind power continued to work within it's advertised limits in Texas during that disaster. And, the fossil fuel failure was mostly because maintenance and design reviews identified specific problems that would manifest in cold weather. Those engineering reviews were ignored. Also, Texas cut themselves off from grids that could have supplied power to them!!! A significant percent of their problem was self inflicted.
     
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. No, wind power did not.
    2. The isolation of the Texas grid was decided long ago as part of national security planning.
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see the importance of your point here.

    Iowa is not suffering for having wind energy featured in its mix.

    They get to use less fossil fuel. They have other capacity, they just don't have to use it as much.
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's all fine. My point is that the alleged cost-effectiveness of wind power can only be presented if the cost of essential fossil fuel baseload back-up is not included.
     
    Pieces of Malarkey likes this.

Share This Page