Peeing in the punch bowl?

Everybody's funny

Now you funny too

     - George Thoroughgood    (House Rent Blues)

This is not my beautiful automobile

     -Talking Heads

Greetings

     Well, I planted tomatoes today.  (Thanks to Mark H, for the starts)!    A lot earlier than last year,, but I guess we'll just have to get used to that...           

 Here's a part of a recent Op ed from Dr Oliver Geden (a German policy wonk) in  Nature

"Climate science advisers should use the time before Paris to reassess their role. Do they want to inform policy-makers or support the political process? The climate policy mantra — that time is running out for 2 °C but we can still make it if we act now — is a scientific nonsense. Advisers who shy away from saying so squander their scientific reputations and public trust in climate research"

      The use of the term "scientific" may be a slight exaggeration -  unless you include the "science" of psychology .(  For a fascinating tour through this particular psychological maze , check out this interview  with Per Stoknes   author of "What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming".)

          As  Dave Roberts at Vox  explains, it really means that its a alot tougher than it sounds

"Now policymakers are being told that emissions can peak in 2030 and still keep temperature rise under 2°C. To get that result in a modeling scenario, emissions have to fall 6 percent a year, even with large amounts of BECCS thrown in. To find that plausible, one has to imagine all of human society turning on a dime, beginning in 2030, deploying massive amounts of nuclear, bioenergy, wind, and solar, and doing so every year for decades.

Brad Plummer puts it a little stronger

"The climate community has been slow to concede defeat. Back in 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report noting that the world could stay below 2°C — but only if we started cutting emissions immediately. The years passed, countries did little, and emissions kept rising. So, just this month, the IPCC put out a new report saying, OK, not great, but we can still stay under 2°C. We just need to act more drastically and figure out some way to pull carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere. (Never mind that we still don’t have the technology to do the latter

       After all, many things are "possible", but not likely, given what we have seen of  "human nature", at least so far..   Dave Roberts again.

"It's "possible," yes, but at a certain point that term loses much meaning. Something that would require human beings to quickly and fundamentally change their collective behavior may not violate the laws of physics, but it is unlikely, given what we know about human beings, path dependence, and political dysfunction. This is what I once called the "brutal logic of climate change."

          The result?   Two degrees will remain the goal - but maybe a long term goal, after we take a quick trip to 3 or maybe 4.   Meanwhile Hanson says its crazy to think 2 degrees is a safe level.   And Michael Mann says we'll hit 2 by 2036

---------

Hope Break:
Here's a group that is serious, and willing to call a spade a spade.  Climate Mobilization  

"Our mission is to initiate a WWII-scale mobilization that protects civilization and the natural world from climate catastrophe. Climate truth is central to this mission. We believe that the climate movement’s greatest and most underutilized strategic asset is the truth: That we are now in a planet-wide climate crisis that threatens civilization and requires an immediate, all-out emergency response."

    See their well researched and  interesting manifesto here  (PDF 50 pages)

----

          One of the psychological barriers singled out by Per Stoknes , he calls "Identity".  You might call it "cultural inertia".  We have a difficult time accepting any idea that would would mean a change in our beliefs or behavior.from here

           "We filter news through our professional and cultural identity. We look for information that confirms our existing values and notions, and filter away what challenges them. If people who hold conservative values, for instance, hear from a liberal that the climate is changing, they are less likely to believe the message. Cultural identity overrides the facts. If new information requires us to change our selves, then the information is likely to lose. We experience resistance to calls for change in self-identity."       

         To me, this helps explain the limits we place on what is an acceptable way out.   Our high energy lifestyle, although really only 50 or 60 years old, has  become part of our identity.   Therefore, the only solutions that are acceptable must continue that way of life.  All else is "beyond the pale".  So we are continually hear about "efficiency (or carbon intensity), and renewables (or nuclear power).     And so we are told that through some combination we can save our lifestyle, and our biosystem.
      As for efficiency, this has been discussed here before and I won't burden you with it, now.  Here is an interesting non-traditional perspective - from a physicist, (who argues that efficiency doesn't "save" energy, but , in fact, causes it to be consumed faster !) - Rebound, Backfire and Jevons Paradox  
      As for low carbon energy production techniques, I find these very tempting.  Those of us with a little extra cash are tempted to  put up some solar panels, with a cool Tesla battery for nighttime.   We can be part of the solution, right?    And if its good for one person, it must be a good idea to have a fast massive build out.   What could be simpler?
     In an interesting series of articles in Low Tech Magazine, researchers put together some important data on the "simple" approach.  here and here.    The answers are somewhat counter intuitive.  First and individual in Oregon who installs a Chinese made panel, and battery system, will provide some benefit - but "rather small".  However, a "massive build out" if done too fats, will create a large "carbon burp" .  , or carbon debt.  As the build out will take decades, by the time the  carbon debt is "paid off"   and the benefits accrue to the biosphere, we will be well past 2 degrees.  (see below).  
     
        We seem to find ourselves in the "monkey trap", wanting to hold on to that high energy lifestyle, but by holding on , we make Climate chaos worse.     If we are really serious about avoiding 2 degrees, we should get the message out that we will need to get by with less.   But, saying that is about as popular as peeing in the punch bowl.
       
-----------------------------------
from here

"In conclusion, lithium-ion battery storage makes off-grid solar PV less carbon-intensive than conventional grid electricity in most western countries, even if the manufacturing of solar panels in China is taken into account. However, the advantage is rather small, which effects the speed at which solar PV systems can be deployed in a sustainable way. In the previous article, we have seen that the energy and CO2 savings made by the cumulative installed capacity of solar PV systems are cancelled out to some extent by the energy use and CO2 emissions from the production of new installed capacity. For the deployment of solar systems to grow while remaining net greenhouse gas mitigators, they must grow at a rate slower than the inverse of their CO2 payback time. [20, 21, 22]

For solar panels manufactured in China and installed in countries like Germany, the maximum sustainable growth rate is only 16-23% (depending on solar insolation), roughly 3 times lower than the actual annual growth of the industry between 2008 and 2014. If we also take lithium-ion battery storage into account, the maximum sustainable growth rate comes down to 4-14%. In other words, including energy storage further limits the maximum sustainable growth rate of the solar PV industry.

On the other hand, if we would produce solar panels in countries with very clean electricity grids (France, Canada, etc.) and install them in countries with carbon-intensive grids and high solar insolation (China, Australia, etc.), even off-grid systems with lithium-ion batteries would have GHG emissions of only 26-29 gCO2/kWh, which would allow solar PV to grow sustainably by almost 60% per year. This result is remarkable and shows the importance of location if we want solar PV to be a solution instead of a problem. Of course, whether or not there's enough lithium available to deploy battery storage on a large scale, is another question.

Elon Musk and the Holy Grail

The ornaments look pretty
But they are pulling down the branches of the tree

    - Cake

Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high,
You're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try;
    - Pink Floyd

Greetings


     Elon Musk is a hero for our time.  A certified billionaire, he invented a new way for people to buy stuff, by just pressing a button!    His ideas are extremely revolutionary.  And visionary, too.   He is now is in the process of revolutionizing transportation,.  And recently he announced a new product which will revolutionize the way power is stored.

      The Holy Grail?  Well, that is our dream that we will be able to continue our high energy lifestyle.  Or as Doomer Dan would say -  to continue to be able to "drive around and buy sh*t"   see e.g. The Amazing New Thing    Without  all those nasty CO2 emissions.

      So with Musk at the helm,  can we relax now?

      Will his cool products help us get the holy grail?  The good life , while avoiding "dangerous" warming,  possibly  triggering unstoppable feedbacks?    (What would it take to get there?  For developed nations - perhaps cut about 50% by 2020  (2013 study) .
   
        Let's start with the car.  Its pretty darn cool.  It can go from 0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds.  Not mention 130 MPH!      

        The value of electric vehicles in addressing carbon emissions is still a matter for debate.  First of all, most agree that the emissions from an EV will vary widely, depending on the electricity production mix in the state where the vehicle is charged.  .  While some states have a low carbon mix, the US average is so carbon heavy that EV's , are about as helpful as a car that gets 40 MPG

       In addition, the manufacture of an EV uses more fossil fuels than a gas powered car.  This can create a large "carbon debt"  that may or may not be paid off, even if the car is refueled using renewable power.  For instance this report from Climate Central says.

"Another critical factor is the carbon emissions generated when a car is manufactured. Emissions from producing the battery and other electrical components create a 10,000 to 40,000-pound carbon debt for electric cars that can only be overcome after tens, or even hundreds of thousands of miles of driving and recharging from clean energy sources."

       And the "power wall" ?    At first blush it sounds like the device that has been missing from the renewable energy  story.   Solar and wind may be low carbon, but they are also intermittent.   As long as we want 24/7 power, we will need storage.  Now, it's really not an issue, because the grid itself, with all of the existing power plants, can be used a battery, providing power when needed.   At some point, if we are ever able to move to a system that it more dominated by renewables, it will be useful.

        Right now, though, the "Power Wall" is something like the Tesla.  One might say its  an expensive toy for rich people who want to give the impression they are doing something useful for the ecosystem . It doesn't do much for the biosphere, but it looks really good.  As noted by Bloomberg

"To provide the same 16 kilowatts of continuous power as this $3,700 Generac generator from Home Depot, a homeowner would need eight stacked Tesla batteries at a cost of $45,000 for a nine-year lease. "It's a luxury good—really cool to have—but I don't see an economic argument," said Brian Warshay, an energy-smart-technologies analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance."  

                  But let's set that aside for now.   Perhaps one could argue that it was a step towards a solution.   Why not let the rich subsidize the development of a useful part of a solution to our climate conundrum ?   Once again the holy grail .   Can we have our cake and eat it too?  Which is to say - if we move to a low carbon society - how much energy will we get?   If it is anything like what we use now, we will need a lot of batteries!

             I ran across an interesting study from the journal  Energy Policy, found here which helps to put this issue into perspective.   The authors took note of a the idea, promoted in several studies that we could create a completely renewable energy system by 2050.  ( I recognize that this is somewhat less ambitious than the goal stated above of cutting our emissions in half by 2020, but its in the ball park).   

         The authors asked an interesting question about that "all renewable" energy system.   How would get there?   And how we we keep it there I.e. handle the replacement of the units as they fell apart.   For simplicity they focused on the wind component, only.  .  They construct a scenario, under which, the installation of turbine grows , nearly exponentially, each year up to 2050.   (Needless to say, a growth rate this steep has not been seen in history, but that's OK )    From 2050 on the the worn out  units are replaced ,  requiring  construction of 12 Twatts each year.  To get an idea of the scale of  the material requirements for the maintenance period , assuming some of the material is recycled ,they compared it to material uses today .  The requirements are rather stunning, considering that under this scenario, wind provides only 15% of the power!:

"Under these assumptions, only sustaining the 24 TW of wind energy, assumed to provide 15 % of global energy demand by Kleijn and Van der Voet (2010), would need the equivalent of 11 % of total global steel production and 14 % of global copper production (based on 2012 rates of production). This means that reaching and sustaining this installed wind capacity would require quantities of steel that is similar to the current automotive industry, that used 12 % of the steel produced in 2011, while the entire sector of electrical equipment used only around 3 % (World Steel Association, 2012). The amount of copper needed for the turbines is comparable to what is used for making electric motors, of around 12 % of the global copper production, while the electric energy transmission sector use about 26 % (Achzet et al., 2011). " 

        Where would such an enormous amount of material; come from?   Looking forward, it seems unlikely that we will be able to devote this amount of materials to the construction of wind turbines, and in addition also construct large amounts of solar devices, as well as the batteries to store all the energy.    More likely, when confronted with that expense, we will continue to operate as we have, until some resource limit forces us to do otherwise.

       Many of us wish for a bright, shiny techno future.  We also dream about a world that is not being upset by droughts, fires, and rising seas.  It does not seem likely to me that we will have both of these futures.    More likely , to me, is the vision offered by Richard Heinberg.  (see e.g. useful short videos here ) A future of less energy, less consumer goods, and one which will, still nevertheless be subject to many of the climate change induced problems       This future will be a lot more difficult , if we don't prepare, because we are too dazzled by the dream of a technological "deus ex machina".