world bank concerned that 4% increase in global will be with us sooner than we think

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-19/world-bank-issues-global-warming-warning/4379634

just in case you were thinking that the denialists whining about the economic impacts of trying to address climate chnage had a point ... the world bank is arguing that if we don't do something, there will be a hefty price to pay.

imagine heat waves becoming the new normal ... huge forest fires in Russia being an annual event ... and supoerstorms being par for the course at the end of every summer ....

not to mention the impact of drought on food supplies.

 

denierworld is concerned with the cost of green energy and conversation they'll be in for rude surprise as the costs of doing little or nothing is going to be dwarfed by the costs climate change will bring...luckily for them they'll all be dead before then, leaving their grandkids to bear the costs of their ignorant rantings...

 

Some of the problem is that part of what we are having to pay now is the infrastructure that SHOULD have been reviewed and renewed back in the 1970's when we first started looking at the impact of climate change and alternate energies. I am not saying we would have been able to hook wind power into main grids like we do today but I have vivid memories of the power lines being laid across Australia to nearly every remote farm - if we had at the same time looked into how to make those farms more self sufficient with local electricity storage, 12 and 24 Volt power and inverters for same as well as battery storage we might have been ahead of the game by saving on maintenance of hundreds of thousands of kilometres of power cables.

Thing is, as I write this I realise that we are not there yet. We still have to find ways of electrically driving air conditioning and microwaves. Get those two big power slurpers onto reasonable battery drive (and I am not just talking Lead acid or Li ion) and we will be a long way toward taking down the expensive power lines

 

Is this yet another Warmer call for returning our technology level to that of 1760?

 

why are denialists so stupid?

 

Actually it is more about denialists trying to hold energy production back into the 1930's

 

No. This is a call for inventing the technology of the 21st century, so we can leave behind the destructive technology of the 20th century. The future of civilization is at stake, and the first nation across the finish line wins.

What I can't understand is why Taxcutter is rooting so hard for China to win this race. Some patriot.

 

"...inventing the technology of the 21st century..."

Taxcutter says:
Like what? People have been working for centuries to find alternatives. Nothing ever works, except nuclear fission. And nuclear fission is stymied by Fukushima hysteria.

 

Wind, solar, nuclear, thorium, biomass, tide, wave, geothermal, thermoelectric, etc. etc. etc. Cool Planet has a process that turns miscanthus grass into gasoline at a rate of 4000 gallons per acre per year. Liquid fuel thorium reactors can't melt down and produce almost no long term waste. MIT is working on artificial photosynthesis. Some types of archaea can turn electricity and CO2 into methane with 80% efficiency. Great ideas, and all they need is investment.

 

it looks like it may be worse than the world bank thought:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22549-arctic-permafrost-is-melting-faster-than-predicted.html

 

What is the Chinese curse? May you live in interesting times?

 

fortunately for me, I won't be around when it gets really .... interesting.

 

"Wind, solar, nuclear, thorium, biomass, tide, wave, geothermal, thermoelectric..."

Taxcutter says:
Same old, same old and still won't get it done.

Thorium is OK but it is still nuclear fission.

Wind and solar have very high capital costs and maintenance cost per unit energy produced and electricity won't run you car. Wind and solar coukld have a decent niche if somebody came up with a way to make energy from wind and solar dispatchable, but right now we have to use them when nature wants to provide conditions where they can work (i.e. wind blowing or daytime).

Biomass (unless it is produced at sea or in a desert and uses only seawater competes with the resource needed for food crops.

Geothermal is very site dependent and most of the good sites have already been developed. How do you get energy from geothermal resource in Iceland to market?


Until the Warmers can come up with an agenda that does not include more regulation, more taxation and funneling money through the UN, their cause deserves and gets no respect. Why don't the Warmers sell increased taxation, regulations and pouring money down the UN rathole to the Chinese? They are the No.1 emitter of CO2.

US taxpayers and consumers got stung by the Ozone Hole thing. Let the Chinese take the lead of Global Warming.

 

Not while GOP lawmakers continue to prevent needed action. Germany has gone from 6% renewables to 26% renewables in just 12 years.

And your problem with fission is ... ??

All forms of electric generation have high capital costs. The correct way to compute is LCOE (levelized cost of electricity). By that measure, wind is competetive with coal right now, while PV has been showing consistent declines for years.

And YES, electricity WILL run your car!

The only thing needed for wind to be completely dispatchable is a continent-wide grid (which we have). Power is always in demand somewhere, and wind is always blowing somewhere. If we overbuild windfarms, turbines can be easily feathered.

Not necessarily. Food crops use the highest fertility acres, but there are lots and lots of lower quality acres that could be easily used for biomass production. Miscanthus grass grows almost anywhere, requires no fertilizer, and produces more biomass per acre than any other crop. Cool Planet has a proprietary process that can turn miscanthus into gasoline at a rate of 4000 gallons per acre. At that rate we could completely replace every drop of fossil-fuel gasoline now used in the US with biofuel gasoline, using the same acreage we now use for corn ethanol. In other words, no food price impact at all.

Iceland is the market. Iceland uses all of its geothermal resources now.

Until conservative can come up with an agenda at all to solve civilization's biggest problem, their cause deserves and gets no respect.

 

"Germany has gone from 6% renewables to 26% renewables in just 12 years."

Taxcutter says:
Yup. And they are buying nuclear-generated power from the French to make up the shortfall.





"And your problem with fission is ... ??"

Taxcutter says:
Mine? None. But the Fukushima hysterics won't have it. I think about 800 nukes would do wonders for America's power needs and CO2 emissions.




"...electricity WILL run your car!"

Taxcutter says:
Not very far. Even less if you insist on having a heater or air conditioner.






"The only thing needed for wind to be completely dispatchable is a continent-wide grid (which we have). Power is always in demand somewhere, and wind is always blowing somewhere."

Taxcutter says:
A grid that is current stretched to its limit. Also if the place the wind is blowing is too far from where the electricity is needs a lot of the power generated only goes to keep birds' feet warm. Figure losing half of it for every 700 miles. Using a wind turbine in North Dakota to power an air conditioner in Atlanta would lose 70% of the energy to resistive/inductive losses.





"Cool Planet has a proprietary process that can turn miscanthus into gasoline at a rate of 4000 gallons per acre."

Taxcutter says:
Does it work using desert land and no fresh water for irrigation? Algae might. Just pump in sea water.





"Iceland is the market. Iceland uses all of its geothermal resources now."

Taxcutter says:
OK. Site fully developed. Good for the Icelanders but no good for anybody else.

 

Have you convinced the Chinese (world's No. 1 emitter of CO2) to cough up the big bucks yet?

 

Wrong. Germany remains a net exporter of electricity, even with -- and in fact, because of -- its large renewable generation. And they have been for years.

I agree.

The Tesla's official range is 244 miles. Some people have gone over 300. If we replaced all gasoline-powered trips of under 200 miles with electric power, we'd save about 90% of US gasoline consumption.

Utter nonsense. HVDC lines lose 3% per 1000 km (that's 621 miles), and HVDC is in use today. Every time you double the voltage you reduce transmission loss by 75%.

Good, then we agree that biofuels are a viable alternative.

That doesn't mean it can't work elsewhere.

 

Teslas cost $100 grand a piece. That is a prohibitive price even in the galloping inflation we have today. Now that Fiskar has lost its battery supplier Tesla has (for the moment) achieved pricing power.


"...HVDC is in use today..."

Taxcutter says:
HVDC requires a rectifier and inverter at the termini. Also HVDC is in very limited use. In North America is is limited to a link from Quebec to New York state. every millimeter of HVDC construction will be furiously contested by NIMBYs. A HVDC grid will not be a reality in our lifetimes.


Geothermal works in Iceland but doesn't work where there is not geothermal activity. I just don't see it working in Alabama. Sure it has a niche wherever it is available, but it is no widely available enough to supplant fossil fuel. Do you really think Americans will tolerate scores of power plants in Yellowstone park...and lots of HVDC power lines running out of it? Yellowstone is a primo geothermal site.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - it's the end times - ever'thin' goin' to hell inna handbasket...

Green Cross Warns of Impending Ecological Disasters
September 02, 2013 — The Environmental Organization Green Cross International warns the world is facing a multitude of new threats, which will have severe consequences if left unchecked. Leading political, environmental and academic personalities are gathering in Geneva this week to mark the Organization’s 20th anniversary and to explore ways to tackle environmental and other global threats.

 

Wind is pretty much useless. Governments have subsidised wind at 100% and ended up scrapping it for its obvious problems. Even if we utilized 100% of our geothermal capacity in the US it would only amount to 5% of your power production needs. Standard solar panels are bad for the environment because they require metals from either REE mines or mines that use hydrometallurgical processes which involve some nasty chemicals. They are working on organic panels which as far as I know don't have the environment issues of today's panels but they are still not very efficient......in time they will hopefully solve that. That being said solar will be able to help with residential power but it doesn't do squat for commercial facilities especially any facilities involved with actual production of goods.

China and India are currently taking the lead on Thorium reactors and Bill Gates is giving them a billion dollars. Judging by how the Gates run their charities he is not prone to throw his money after bad ideas. Unfortunately, for decades the environmental movement has fought against nuclear power to promote pie in the sky notions of everyone living on windmills and roof top solar panels. Only recently have they begun to see the light and slowly started seeing the benefits of nuclear again.

The only type of biofuels I support are certain algae farms. Its hard to describe but some algae farms are basically just a bunch of pools sitting around growing algae in them. The other kind is a building where they have vertical stacks of plastic things that hold the algae. That is the kind that I support because those facilities go up and not just out and are much more efficient land use wise. Growing "fuel" on crop land is just stupid. Its a waste of land and doesn't come anywhere near the production of oil per acre that an petroleum well does, not even close. Brazil is clear cutting the Amazon to grow crops that they used to get from us before we started diverting land usage to growing fuel. The advantage to the algae farms and hydroponics in general is that the facilities can be build on land that is not suitable for growing crops and as such we don't have to divert so much of our land away from fuel production. Also, hydroponics has the advantage of working year round and having a very quick crop turnaround. Hopefully that hydorponics form of biofuels grows but I definitely want to see this biofuel crop growing bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ended.

 

Of course they are, the world bank is the UN's bank. They plan to give loans to countries for alternative energy and disaster prep, based on the IPCC predictions and claims. The IPCC another UN body...LOL, quite a scam they have going isn't it. One body has an arm that creates a problem, and another arm to address that problem, and another arm to recommend legislation for that problem to countries, and another arm to put financial pressure on any who do not comply, and yet another arm to put trade and sanction pressure on all non-hackers who don't get on board...