Climate Change

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by wildshore

I have a gut feeling this could be a fairly wild ride for some of us, but it seems only those in the EU are really doing anything to prepare for this possibility. The rest is bound up in money, politics, money, ideology, money, religion, and money....mostly, it seems, oil money.....and whenever that happens, people die. Not interested in being one of them through a lack of attention and preparation, nor should any of us be.

You cannot be serious!!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by wildshore

All of which, folks, avoids the basic question of how WE deal with a changing climate and rising sea levels, stronger storms, and weird weather......that is assuming you believe that's really happening, and I happen to.

Just basically, as a cruiser, more attention to weather forecasting, trying to pursue longer forecast scenarios, and careful attention to changes in current structures, particularly in estuaries where many of us sail, would be prudent. I'm buying a heavier storm anchor, and better lines, and am now paying greater attention to safety and redundancy items that I might have taken for granted ten years ago.

I have a gut feeling this could be a fairly wild ride for some of us, but it seems only those in the EU are really doing anything to prepare for this possibility. The rest is bound up in money, politics, money, ideology, money, religion, and money....mostly, it seems, oil money.....and whenever that happens, people die. Not interested in being one of them through a lack of attention and preparation, nor should any of us be.

Just be aware that , the immediate result of AGW are very unclear, that is what youll see in your lifetime, maybe. Its not a given that excessive weather etc is a feature of AGW, scientists are not in agreement about correlation and causation in regards to weather deriving from AGW.

You could find we have 10 years of calm!

dave

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by CarlF

...While I spend most of my time working in renewables, wind and solar can't do the job alone since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Electric grid stability requires that about 70% of your energy sources be dependable...

Systems that can efficiently deliver electricity long-distance, as well as efficient storage (on an hourly, daily, seasonally basis) of intermittent power sources needs to be developed. That will cost big bucks. What is often not taken into account are the large external costs of coal and gas burning.

WIKIPEDIA | Possible Storage methods

Chemical
Hydrogen
Biofuels
Liquid nitrogen
Hydrogen peroxide
Vanadium pentoxide
Hydrated salts
Biological
Starch
Glycogen
Electrochemical
Rechargeable battery
Flow battery
Electrical
Capacitor
Supercapacitor
Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES)
Mechanical
Compressed air energy storage (CAES)
Flywheel energy storage
Hydraulic accumulator
Hydroelectric energy storage
Spring
Gravitational potential energy (device)
Thermal
Thermal energy storage (general)
Seasonal thermal energy storage
Ice Storage
Molten salt
Cryogenic liquid air or nitrogen
Solar pond
Hot bricks
Steam accumulator
Fireless locomotive
Eutectic system

see also WIKIPEDIA | Grid Energy Storage


WIKIPEDIA | Cost of Electricity by Source



As you can see in the “Total System Levelized Cost” column, new Hydro, Wind, Geothermal, and Natural Gas are already competitive with Conventional Coal when more of the externalities are considered. Note that Wind and Solar require a larger investment in transmisison.

The US Energy Information Administration predicts that coal and gas are set to be continually used to deliver the majority of the world's electricity,[43] this is expected to result in the evacuation of millions of homes in low lying areas, and an annual cost of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property damage.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50]

Furthermore, with the ongoing process of whole nations being slowly plunged underwater, due to fossil fuel use,[51] massive international climate litigation lawsuits against fossil fuel users are currently beginning in the International Court of Justice.[52][53]

An EU funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double over its present value, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1%-2% of the EU’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included.[54] [55]

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

You cannot be serious!!

I believe she is, The primary centre of the push against AGW is the US, equally it sees its future in OIL independence, but Oil all the same. The EU sees renewable, some nuclear and pollution and greenhouse gas reduction as a priority.

The EUs efforts may be disorganised and often small beer, doesnt negate what the policy is trying to achieve.

dave

[boatman61]

Another thing against renewables is 'Infrastructure'... gotta have a Grid or two boys... gotta make a buck..
Individual energy sources only benefit the shop that sells the panel and the house that buys it... no profits to be skimmed by 3rd 4th parties...
Here in the EU folk who've gone down the I make my own energy path are selling their surplus electricity to the electric companies... seems to work fine over here... seeing as daylight hours are only 8-30 to 3-30 4 mths of the year...

[SailOar]

Too Much Wind Energy? Save It Underground in Volcanic Rock Reservoirs | National Geographic

Gusting winds and swelling rivers bless the U.S. Pacific Northwest with an abundance of renewable energy resources in the spring and early summer. So much, in fact, that at times in recent years the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federal utility, has forced wind farm owners to curb their output to keep electricity generation in balance with the rise and fall of demand on the grid. (See related quiz: "What You Don't Know About Wind Energy.")

Now a new solution for the region's seasonal energy glut is on the table. Recent research from scientists at BPA and the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory suggests porous rocks deep in the Earth could store the wind's intermittent power and make it possible to deploy renewable energy on command. (See related: "Global Renewable Energy On Track to Eclipse Natural Gas, Nuclear…")

Focusing on subterranean basalt reservoirs in eastern Washington State, the authors of this new study have examined the feasibility of deploying a system known as compressed air energy storage, or CAES. They analyzed geological data from petroleum exploration to identify a pair of sites where these volcanic rocks could store enough energy to power a total of about 85,000 homes per month…

This approach needn't be limited to the Pacific Northwest. "There's an awful lot of salt out there," said Kamath. Northern Ireland, for example, has salt deposits where developer Gaelectric hopes to build a 268-megawatt CAES project in support of its growing wind capacity. And Germany's RWE Power is working with partners to demonstrate a more efficient type of CAES plant using heat recovery and salt caverns in Stassfurt, northwest of the historic saltworks center in Halle.

But porous rock is far more common worldwide, Kamath said. "If you can use porous rock, you would be able to use [compressed air energy storage] in a much broader context." In California's San Joaquin Valley, the U.S. Department of Energy and state agencies have provided funds for utility PG&E to test potentially suitable rock formations for CAES, including depleted gas reservoirs. The utility expects to complete analysis at three sites by 2015, and if all goes well, a 300-megawatt plant could enter commercial operation within eight years…

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

Not entirely true.

There is a fantastic book by Jared Diamond called "http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143117009Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" that talks about this. He has also written my absolute favorite book discussing how differet societies evolve at different paces and why called: "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies:Amazon:BooksGuns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies"

I would also recommend Ronald Wright - A Short History of Progress.

A Short History of Progress is a non-fiction book and lecture series by Ronald Wright about societal collapse. The lectures were delivered as a series of five speeches, each taking place in different cities across Canada as part of the 2004 Massey Lectures which were broadcast on the CBC Radio program, Ideas. The book version was published by House of Anansi Press and released at the same time as the lectures. The book spent more than a year on Canadian best-seller lists, won the Canadian Book Association's Libris Award for Non-Fiction Book of the Year, and was nominated for the British Columbia's National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction. It has since been reprinted in a hardcover format with illustrations.

Wright, an author of fiction and non-fiction works, uses the fallen civilisations of Easter Island, Sumer, Rome, and Maya, as well as examples from the Stone Age, to see what conditions led to the downfall of those societies. He examines the meaning of progress and its implications for civilizations – past and present – arguing that the twentieth century was a time of runaway growth in human population, consumption, and technology that has now placed an unsustainable burden on all natural systems.

Also available on You Tube - search ronald wright.

[SailOar]

Pilot projects bury carbon dioxide in basalt | NATURE

By early August, scientists will have pumped 1,000 tonnes of pure carbon dioxide into porous rock far below the northwestern United States. The goal is to find a permanent home for the carbon dioxide generated by human activities.

Researchers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington, began the injections into the Columbia River Basalt formation near the town of Wallula on 17 July. The rock contains pores created as many as 16 million years ago, when magma flowed across what is now the Columbia River Basin. Bubbles of CO2 migrated to the edges of the magma as it cooled, forming layers of holes sandwiched between solid rock …

The Wallula project is the second of two worldwide to target basalt formations, which scientists hope can hold — and permanently mineralize — vast quantities of gas. In basalt, dissolved CO2 should react with calcium and magnesium to form limestone over the course of decades. Until the gas is locked away, the porous basalt layers are capped by solid rock that will prevent leaking. That should eliminate concerns about leakage that have dogged other proposals to store CO2 deep underground, often in sandstone reservoirs…

Researchers working on the other basalt project, based in Iceland and run by a consortium of US and European scientists along with Reykjavik Energy, made their first CO2 injections last year and will conduct another round this year. Early results look promising, says Juerg Matter, a geochemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, who is working on the Iceland project. “The mineralization reaction is most likely faster than what we in the community had thought,” says Matter, who has also contributed to the Wallula project. Assuming that holds true for basalt generally, “you reduce the risk of leakage, and you can pretty much walk away from your storage reservoirs”…

But achieving sequestration is only half the battle: scientists and engineers must still work out how to capture CO2 from industrial facilities and transport it to the sequestration site cost-effectively. And even if a carbon-mineralization industry took off, establishing it on a global level would require an undertaking on the scale of rebuilding the oil industry.

Scientific opinions differ over whether it would be more desirable to stop burning fossil fuels than to undertake massive carbon-sequestration ventures — but if sequestration were to be favoured, many think that basalt could be important. And although backers of large-scale basalt sequestration have so far explored formations in the US northwest and southeast as well as in India, many are also looking offshore, where the sea floor could accommodate CO2 emissions for centuries to come…

But none of this will be cheap, says Kevin Johnson, a geochemist at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu who has worked on lab experiments with McGrail’s team. “It’s a question of social importance — and whether the climate situation gets dire enough to justify the cost.”

[AbaftAndBaffled]

I think in the coming years, scientists will learn how to take full advantage of solar energy. Humanity seems to come up with clever ideas but implement them through brute force, then discover that nature has its own method of doing the same thing only much more elegantly.

Also, I'm not a fan of fracking. Ever see those videos of flammable tapwater where fracking is being done? Ugh.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I believe she is, The primary centre of the push against AGW is the US, equally it sees its future in OIL independence, but Oil all the same. The EU sees renewable, some nuclear and pollution and greenhouse gas reduction as a priority.

The EUs efforts may be disorganised and often small beer, doesnt negate what the policy is trying to achieve.

dave

The EU and USA made about the same investment in renewable energy in the 2Q of 2012. The EU investment in renewable energy is plummeting. The US investment is rising dramatically.

wildshore used the term "only the EU" which, I guess, is splitting hairs as I inferred what was trying to be said. However, you all may be interested to know that China is actually ahead of all countries in renewable energy investment.

[gonesail]

i say either move to florida or get a good heater cause it's getting colder not warmer

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The EU and USA made about the same investment in renewable energy in the 2Q of 2012. The EU investment in renewable energy is plummeting. The US investment is rising dramatically.

wildshore used the term "only the EU" which, I guess, is splitting hairs as I inferred what was trying to be said. However, you all may be interested to know that China is actually ahead of all countries in renewable energy investment.

Yeah... and selling all dem solar panels to us...

[BillyDoc]

To those of you who want to “bring it on,” climate change might not just result in the warm balmy weather you assume. In a new novel recently published (amazon), the argument is made that the end-Permian extinction provides a very good model for our current situation. That's because the end-Permian was apparently initiated by carbon dioxide levels in the 500 ppm range, not so far from where we are now. The actual temperature rise from this carbon dioxide was only 6 degrees or so, and this proved to be globally deadly.


Here is what's on the back cover:


In the history of our planet there have been several mass extinctions. The worst of these was the end-Permian. It is estimated that this event killed between 80 and 96% of all animals and plants on land and in the sea.

The end-Permian extinction was initiated by an increase in global temperatures that was caused by greenhouse gases from widespread volcanism. This modest temperature rise started a cascade of events that culminated in the release of massive amounts of poisonous gas into the air and sea. We are seeing the first elements of the same cascade unfolding today.

For most there will be no escape from this gas, only a quick death. A handful of individuals with sufficient foresight will, however, have a small chance to survive.

This is their story.


Even though this is a novel, all the pertinent points concerning the extinction science are referenced and come from sources such as Scientific American and Geology. There is also an appendix explaining exponential growth with a very frightening graph.


Hubris Ark, the title of the book, is a large schooner, and this is very much a sailing story as well as a serious examination of a very possible progression of climate change events . . . that could happen very soon. “Very soon” being roughly six years from now.


This story is not for the scientifically challenged though. Too many big words, like “thermohaline” or “anaerobic” or “hydrogen sulfide.”

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Who said it would be easy? It's not. That's why we need to start acting now, while we still have an abundance of wealth and cheap energy.

Lets put it differently: North Western Europe is never going to get a significant fraction of its energy from renewables. We just can't. Is physics. The only way to reduce our dependency on oil and/ or coal is nuclear.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

How so?

The NHS. Having most doctors on the governments' payroll is rather unique in Europe.