Don Libby | 1 Nov 2008 13:11

[Global Change: 2965] Re: The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power


From: "David B. Benson" <dbenson <at> eecs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <globalchange <at> googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2964] Re: The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power

>
>> Subject: [Global Change: 2962] Re: The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power
>
> From the Ethree study commissioned by the State of California and
> recently released:
>
> Busbar (generation) cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:
>
> Biogas: 8.552
> Wind: 8.910
> Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382
> Geothermal: 10.182
> Hydroelectric: 10.527
> Coal Supercritical: 10.554
> Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
> Solar thermal: 12.653
> Nuclear: 15.316
> Biomass: 16.485
> Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
>

Numbers speak volumes, but we should take care when generalizing from a 
single data point.  E3 estimates that California has the highest nuclear 
(Continue reading)

Laxman Belbase | 3 Nov 2008 06:04
Picon

[Global Change: 2966] Global Methane Levels on the Rise Again

Global Methane Levels On The Rise Again

The wind blown ice surface at Law Dome Antarctica where high resolution ice cores have been extracted for greenhouse gas analysis. Photo by: Tas van Ommen

By: Staff Writers
Source: TerraDaily
URL: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_Methane_Levels_On_The_Rise_Again_999.html
Posted Date:
30 October 2008

After eight years of near-zero growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, levels have again started to rise. "This is not good news for future global warming," says CSIRO's Dr Paul Fraser, who co-authored a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

"Over recent years, the growth of important greenhouse gases, namely methane and the CFCs, had slowed. This tended to offset the increasing growth rate of carbon dioxide that results mainly from large increases in the consumption of fossil fuels, particularly in the developing world.

"Now that methane levels have resumed their growth, global warming may accelerate."

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere after carbon dioxide, accounting for nearly 20 per cent of global warming since the industrial revolution.

Methane is emitted to the atmosphere from natural wetlands, rice fields, cattle, forest and grassland fires, coal mines, natural gas leakage and use, and other sources.

"Over the past decade these methane sources have been close to balancing the absorption of methane through atmospheric oxidation and into dry soil," Dr Fraser says.

"This fragile balance has resulted in little growth of methane in the atmosphere. Apparently some sources have been increasing, such as from fossil fuel use, cattle, and rice, while others have been decreasing, particularly natural tropical wetlands. However, over the past year, the total sources have overwhelmed the total sinks, and methane has again started to rise."

Dr Fraser says that recent analyses of global data by CSIRO and collaborators at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Bristol suggest that the methane increase is, at least in part, due to methane releases in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

"Such increases have been predicted as rapid Arctic ice melting creates more high latitude wetland sources," says Dr Fraser.

"A possible additional cause of the methane increase is that atmospheric oxidation may be weakening, for reasons as yet unknown, although recovery from ozone depletion, which is predicted to have commenced, may be involved."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the need to understand causes of the variations of methane growth rates as a priority area of research. "The reality is that scientists have only a very basic understanding of these methane variations," Dr Fraser says.

"In order to predict the future contribution of methane to climate change, continuing high-quality observations, in particular in tropical and boreal locations, are required as input to, and verification of, sophisticated climate models."

--
------------------------
♣ Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Tom Adams | 4 Nov 2008 18:19
Picon
Favicon

[Global Change: 2969] CO2 from US voters driving to the polls


My rough estimate of the CO2 created by driving to the polls to vote
in the US Presidential election is 36,000 metric tons of CO2.

I assumed 100 million voters, 5 vehicle miles per voter, 20 mpg.

I think the most uncertain factor I used is the vehicle miles per
voter.   I don't have a good basis for estimating that.

There were 120 million votes casts in the last Presidential election,
but a good many were mail in ballots.

More mail in balloting would obviously reduce the carbon footprint of
voting.  But mail in balloting is not allowed in many states, and it
is grossly under-utilized in most states.   All voting is by mail in
Oregon.  California and Colorado allow voters to sign up for permanent
mail in voting where the ballot is automatically sent to their address
for all elections.

Early voting in person may increase the carbon footprint, since there
are fewer early voting locations so the distance to the poll tends to
be longer.  But this might be mitigated by combining errands in one
car trip.
Alexandre | 13 Nov 2008 20:04
Picon
Favicon

[Global Change: 2970] "Humans may have prevented super ice age"


"Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
happened is interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
Alexandre Couto de Andrade

Eric Swanson | 13 Nov 2008 22:45
Favicon

[Global Change: 2971] Re: "Humans may have prevented super ice age"


Also note the comment in the article:

"In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch
to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years
from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can
be placed on the results of single runs out of many."

The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
postulated next ice age.  As things are going, most of the fossil
fuels will be burnt before the end of this century.

I'm sorry to say, I think there's still a lot to learn about climate.
And, the focus should really be on the next couple of centuries, not
10,000 year runs with a simplified model.

E. S.
-------------------
Alexandre wrote:
> "Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
> from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
> that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
> into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
> permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
> ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
> New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
> seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
> happened is interesting.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
> Alexandre Couto de Andrade
William Connolley | 13 Nov 2008 23:36
Picon
Gravatar

[Global Change: 2972] Re: "Humans may have prevented super ice age"

"10,000 to 100,000 years" is an awfully big range. I thought the answer was 50kyr, which happens to be in the middle of the range, so I'm not sure if there is anything very new here. Anyone actually read the paper? -W

On 13/11/2008, Eric Swanson <e_swanson <at> skybest.com> wrote:

Also note the comment in the article:

"In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch
to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years
from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can
be placed on the results of single runs out of many."

The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
postulated next ice age.  As things are going, most of the fossil
fuels will be burnt before the end of this century.

I'm sorry to say, I think there's still a lot to learn about climate.
And, the focus should really be on the next couple of centuries, not
10,000 year runs with a simplified model.

E. S.
-------------------

Alexandre wrote:
> "Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
> from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
> that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
> into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
> permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
> ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
> New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
> seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
> happened is interesting.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
> Alexandre Couto de Andrade

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.

To post to this group, send email to globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

James Annan | 14 Nov 2008 00:49
Picon

[Global Change: 2973] Re: "Humans may have prevented super ice age"


William Connolley wrote:
> "10,000 to 100,000 years" is an awfully big range. I thought the answer 
> was 50kyr, which happens to be in the middle of the range, so I'm not 
> sure if there is anything very new here. Anyone actually read the paper? -W

Yes, I have glanced at it and it is quite interesting, the main result 
as I see it isn't so much the time scale of the next ice age as the 
mechanism/analysis of increasing oscillations as we approach a 
bifurcation point.

In response to Eric, while I agree that predictions over 10,000 years 
are not in themselves useful, understanding what drives climate change 
on all time scales is.

James

Jason Patton | 13 Nov 2008 23:15
Picon

[Global Change: 2975] Re: "Humans may have prevented super ice age"


Eric, I don't disagree that we as a whole should be focused on current
issues in climate, but running EBMs over long periods appears to be
what these particular scientists do.  I don't know if we should get up
in arms over their work.  We cannot expect every scientist to be
working on the same issue, as important as it is.

I think what they've done is a valuable exercise, with the caveats
they've taken care to point out.  The actual letter to be published in
Nature actually has some nice details.  But, even though as press such
as New Scientist has to find some way to spice it up (see: title),
this isn't something we need to worry about right now, though it is a
neat study.

Jason Patton

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Eric Swanson <e_swanson <at> skybest.com> wrote:
>
> Also note the comment in the article:
>
> "In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch
> to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years
> from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can
> be placed on the results of single runs out of many."
>
> The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
> taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
> postulated next ice age.  As things are going, most of the fossil
> fuels will be burnt before the end of this century.
>
> I'm sorry to say, I think there's still a lot to learn about climate.
> And, the focus should really be on the next couple of centuries, not
> 10,000 year runs with a simplified model.
>
> E. S.
> -------------------
> Alexandre wrote:
>> "Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
>> from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
>> that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
>> into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
>> permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
>> ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
>> New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
>> seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
>> happened is interesting.
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
>> Alexandre Couto de Andrade
> >
>

Jason Patton | 13 Nov 2008 23:54
Picon

[Global Change: 2974] Re: "Humans may have prevented super ice age"


I can't find the exact reason why the range is large.  I'm guessing it
just has to do with a general idea of the model's precision or the
range given by the different runs besides "best-fit" that they did.
Could even just be eye-balled.  Here's all they really have about it
in the text:

"For the best-fit run, transition to the large Eurasian ice sheet
occurs shortly after the present (Fig. 5a). Our results therefore
suggest that the actual climate system may have been geologically
close (10^4–10^5 yr) to the final phase of a 50-Myr evolution from
bipolar warm climates to permanent bipolar glaciation."

Fig 5a shows the modeled sea-level given by the model for millions of
years in the past and in the future, with an abrupt change happening
not too long in the future on the timescale involved.

Jason

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:36 PM, William Connolley
<wmconnolley <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> "10,000 to 100,000 years" is an awfully big range. I thought the answer was
> 50kyr, which happens to be in the middle of the range, so I'm not sure if
> there is anything very new here. Anyone actually read the paper? -W
>
> On 13/11/2008, Eric Swanson <e_swanson <at> skybest.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also note the comment in the article:
>>
>> "In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch
>> to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years
>> from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can
>> be placed on the results of single runs out of many."
>>
>> The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
>> taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
>> postulated next ice age.  As things are going, most of the fossil
>> fuels will be burnt before the end of this century.
>>
>> I'm sorry to say, I think there's still a lot to learn about climate.
>> And, the focus should really be on the next couple of centuries, not
>> 10,000 year runs with a simplified model.
>>
>> E. S.
>> -------------------
>>
>> Alexandre wrote:
>> > "Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
>> > from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
>> > that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
>> > into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
>> > permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
>> > ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
>> > New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
>> > seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
>> > happened is interesting.
>> >
>> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
>> > Alexandre Couto de Andrade
>>
>> >>
>

Alastair | 15 Nov 2008 22:21
Picon
Picon

[Global Change: 2976] Re: "Humans may have prevented super ice age"


On Nov 13, 10:15 pm, "Jason Patton" <jason.c.pat... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric, I don't disagree that we as a whole should be focused on current
> issues in climate, but running EBMs over long periods appears to be
> what these particular scientists do.  I don't know if we should get up
> in arms over their work.  We cannot expect every scientist to be
> working on the same issue, as important as it is.
>
> I think what they've done is a valuable exercise, with the caveats
> they've taken care to point out.  The actual letter to be published in
> Nature actually has some nice details.  But, even though as press such
> as New Scientist has to find some way to spice it up (see: title),
> this isn't something we need to worry about right now, though it is a
> neat study.
>
> Jason Patton
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> wrote:
>
> > Also note the comment in the article:
>
> > "In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch
> > to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years
> > from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can
> > be placed on the results of single runs out of many."
>
> > The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
> > taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
> > postulated next ice age.  As things are going, most of the fossil
> > fuels will be burnt before the end of this century.
>
> > I'm sorry to say, I think there's still a lot to learn about climate.
> > And, the focus should really be on the next couple of centuries, not
> > 10,000 year runs with a simplified model.
>
> > E. S.
> > -------------------
> > Alexandre wrote:
> >> "Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
> >> from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
> >> that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
> >> into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
> >> permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
> >> ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
> >> New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
> >> seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
> >> happened is interesting.
> >>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented...
> >> Alexandre Couto de Andrade- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have put off posting on this subject until I had read the paper, but
having done that my opinions have not changed.

Their idea is not entirely new since both Budyko and Sellers used EBMs
to investigate the ice albedo effect on glaciations.  But as I
understand it, Budyko's problem was why the glaciations stopped, and a
Snowball Earth did not happen. In other words, his EBM led to a
permanent ice age too, and the question is why it has not happened.
Crowley & Hyde cite Budyko.  They should have known that.  So Budyko,
Sellers, and, I am sure, I too could write a model that switched into
a permanent ice age.

My second point is that this hypotheis is not scientific. It cannot be
falsified. We cannot undo the damage we have done to the atmosphere
and see whether we do end up in a permanent ice age.

OTOH, Eric make a very valid point when he writes that the fossil fuel
will all be completed by the end of this century. Compare that with
the conclusion of Crowley & Hyde;

"Our results therefore suggest that the actualclimate system may have
been geologically close ...  to permanent bipolar glaciation.
(Presumably, future society could prevent this transition indefinitely
with very modest adjustments to the atmospheric CO2 levels.)"

It seems unlikely that this is now true.  Where do we get the fossil
fuels to burn, or the energy, to create CO2 now that we have reached
Peak Oil and the global leaders, such as Gordon Brown, seem determined
to maintain this profligracy in order to retain their hold on power.

Carl Wunch seems to agree with me that this is not science
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/more-on-whether-a-big-chill-is-nigh/

Cheers, Alastair.


Gmane