BBC: Are we changing planet Earth?

[tblaxland]

The question for me regarding nuclear power is how to safely store the waste long term and whether doing so would be more cost effective and environmentally sound than investing in other alternative reduced carbon-output technologies, eg, photo-voltaic, solar thermal, etc. I've worked on projects where we have installed photo-voltaics and I know how expensive they are (AU$10,000 per kW). They also have a huge amount of embodied energy, so I cannot imagine that they are a genuine solution to either anthopogenic global warming or long term energy availability (at least in their current form).

I admit, I don't have enough information to argue one way or another. Any thoughts?

 

[tl8]

I have heard that there is enough energy in the Cooper Hot rocks basin to supply all of Australia Electricity requirements for the next 400 years

 

[GregBurch]

The question for me regarding nuclear power is how to safely store the waste long term and whether doing so would be more cost effective and environmentally sound than investing in other alternative reduced carbon-output technologies, eg, photo-voltaic, solar thermal, etc. I've worked on projects where we have installed photo-voltaics and I know how expensive they are (AU$10,000 per kW). They also have a huge amount of embodied energy, so I cannot imagine that they are a genuine solution to either anthopogenic global warming or long term energy availability (at least in their current form).

I admit, I don't have enough information to argue one way or another. Any thoughts?

The regulatory roadblocks to expansion of nuclear power are so strong that you really don't have to worry about the problem. At the rate we are going, there will be no increase in nuclear power generation -- in the U.S. at least -- for at least a decade. I'm not just guessing about this, it's what I do for a living. The process is impervious to the influence of scientific rationality at this point.

 

[tblaxland]

But I think we can kick the fossil fuel habit AND use plenty of energy -- more than we do now -- and be safe and clean. We don't HAVE to go back to a pre-industrial state to be nice to Mother Earth. But at the rate we're going, we'll achieve the Green dream of going back to the Middle Ages soon enough ...

I don't see investing in energy efficiency as returning to the Middle Ages. To me, it seems to be a reasonable strategy to maximise the investment in existing infrastructure. Even if you were to assume that it would be relatively cheap to build the generation capacity using fission technologies, there would still be a huge amount of distribution infrastructure required to meet growing demand. Most of the energy efficiency measures that we design into buildings represent pretty low hanging fruit relative to the cost of upgrading infrastructure.

I expect, a similar argument could be made for investing in improved public transport versus building bigger/more roads but that area is not really my forte.

 

[pattersoncr]

I don't see investing in energy efficiency as returning to the Middle Ages. To me, it seems to be a reasonable strategy to maximise the investment in existing infrastructure. Even if you were to assume that it would be relatively cheap to build the generation capacity using fission technologies, there would still be a huge amount of distribution infrastructure required to meet growing demand. Most of the energy efficiency measures that we design into buildings represent pretty low hanging fruit relative to the cost of upgrading infrastructure.

I expect, a similar argument could be made for investing in improved public transport versus building bigger/more roads but that area is not really my forte.

The problem with investing in efficiency is that it's not a real solution. At best it'll help a little. At worst, it will actually make things worse. This is due to two reasons, investments in energy efficiency are investments that are not being made in real solutions to the problem (i.e. advancement of non fossil fueled energy production). Also, there is significant evidence (as discussed here) that indicates that the end effect of improving efficiency is merely to increase overall demand.

What Greg's referring to is, in part, the fact that any real form of energy production (by real I mean it is really capable of meeting current and projected future energy needs) is deemed unacceptable by many in the environmental movement: oil-dirty, natural gas-dirty, coal-really dirty, hydroelectric-messing with the local environment, nuclear-evil...
The only thing left (if you believe all that) is to go back to pre-industrial revolution sort of economy.

 

[tblaxland]

The problem with investing in efficiency is that it's not a real solution. At best it'll help a little. At worst, it will actually make things worse. This is due to two reasons, investments in energy efficiency are investments that are not being made in real solutions to the problem (i.e. advancement of non fossil fueled energy production). Also, there is significant evidence (as discussed here) that indicates that the end effect of improving efficiency is merely to increase overall demand.

Interesting link. I have a counter-argument. My wife & I did exactly what that blogger (Charles Barton) did and changed our lights for fluoros. The thing is, we didn't start using more energy elsewhere. The reason why is that our spending on energy (and in other areas) pre-efficiency-investment was not sustainable. Granted, this counter-argument will probably not wash on a macro-scopic level.

Going back to my original argument about infrastructure, I didn't say the goal of investing in efficiency is to reduce demand, it is to maximise the investment in existing infrastructure, thereby allowing growth, as aptly demonstrated by Mr Barton.

 

[Eagle]

What Greg's referring to is, in part, the fact that any real form of energy production (by real I mean it is really capable of meeting current and projected future energy needs) is deemed unacceptable by many in the environmental movement: oil-dirty, natural gas-dirty, coal-really dirty, hydroelectric-messing with the local environment, nuclear-evil...
The only thing left (if you believe all that) is to go back to pre-industrial revolution sort of economy.

So, wind, wood and whale oil!

 

[pattersoncr]

Interesting link. I have a counter-argument. My wife & I did exactly what that blogger (Charles Barton) did and changed our lights for fluoros. The thing is, we didn't start using more energy elsewhere. The reason why is that our spending on energy (and in other areas) pre-efficiency-investment was not sustainable. Granted, this counter-argument will probably not wash on a macro-scopic level.

Going back to my original argument about infrastructure, I didn't say the goal of investing in efficiency is to reduce demand, it is to maximise the investment in existing infrastructure, thereby allowing growth, as aptly demonstrated by Mr Barton.

I'm going to go out out a limb and say that as an Orbiter enthusiast, you are probably smarter than the average earthling. Given that, I agree your success with efficiency doesn't necessarily scale up to include all of society.
I don't disagree that there could be gains made by concentrating on efficiency. My point is that ultimately it's a dead end in terms of meeting our long term energy needs.

 

[tblaxland]

I'm going to go out out a limb and say that as an Orbiter enthusiast, you are probably smarter than the average earthling.

It looks like we agree on all points then

 

[RisingFury]

But I think we can kick the fossil fuel habit AND use plenty of energy -- more than we do now -- and be safe and clean. We don't HAVE to go back to a pre-industrial state to be nice to Mother Earth. But at the rate we're going, we'll achieve the Green dream of going back to the Middle Ages soon enough ...

That's true.

If we start using "green" energy sources, we can use as much energy as we want without polluting.

Right now we're working on spending less energy just because of burning fossil fuels. Most of our electricity comes from coal power stations, most of our daily transport comes from cars. If we make our stuff more efficient, we can buy us some time to do the big changes because we'll be able to "squeeze out" a bit more out of current power technology.

I agree that efficiency is not a long term solution, but I fully support it.

I think most people actually missed the point... it's not even intended as a long term solution, it's only intended to buy us some time to move on to other energy sources. But I think that even when we've "moved on" from current fossil fuel based technology, that enough won't be a reason to throw away our old efficient stuff and buy inefficient.


As far as the environment goes... I'm against anything that spews out tons of CO2, but I won't go as far as protesting hydroelectric cos it messes with the flow or wind turbines because the butterflies get whacked by the blades...

And as far as nuclear power goes, I'm a huge fan of nuclear power. We have one nuclear power plant in Slovenia that is able to supply almost a third of the power for the country. One third is supplied by a coal power plant in my town... and a third being supplied mostly by hydroelectric.
Austria and Croatia are always complaining about our nuclear power as in "omg, that's a big safety risk for us!!!!" but I think they're just jealous

Hopefully fusion comes soon and we can start building that. Fuel, being created partly from water, is in abundance and the end product isn't so much of a problem to store.
They're also far safer then fission power plants. Fission power plants are based on a chain reaction and the only way to stop it is to lower the rods that capture neutrons into the reactor's core. But for fusion to work, you have to give it a huge amount of heat to create plasma... if something goes wrong and the reactor blows, it would instantly stop producing plasma and thus stop the reaction.

 

[Genius]

Yes, sure we do alter the climate of earth. Just look at the stats convince me about that.
And another factor is the sheer number of people on planet earth. I think there is too many souls on this earth. That is why everything is under strain. And I mean everything. Energy, food and water to name a few.
I think THAT is what we must control. Birth control.

 

[RisingFury]

Yes, sure we do alter the climate of earth. Just look at the stats convince me about that.
And another factor is the sheer number of people on planet earth. I think there is too many souls on this earth. That is why everything is under strain. And I mean everything. Energy, food and water to name a few.
I think THAT is what we must control. Birth control.

If you look at western society, you'll find that most countries have a very small population growth and some have negative population growth.
It is mostly the undeveloped parts of the world that have a major population boom... parts of Asia, Africa,...

Might just happen that by the time these parts have reached our level, their population growth will slow down as well.
The only problem is that it might take quite a long time and increase the world's population quite a bit until that happens...

 

[GregBurch]

If you have a few minutes, this video from TED is really an eye-opener regarding economic and social development in the first and third worlds:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

Some of the best demonstration of data I've ever seen.

 

[Xantcha]

Wow, thanks for the link Greg. This indeed was an excellent data visualisation!
(Also using logarithmic scale is somewhat cheaty )

 

[GregBurch]

Wow, thanks for the link Greg. This is indeed was an excellent data visualisation!
(Also using logarithmic scale is somewhat cheaty )

... somewhat, but an argument can be made for the usefulness of a logarithmic scale in that instance, since the marginal utility of money tends to not be linear in the context of basic human needs.

 

[RisingFury]

Nice vid, that was really cool to watch!

 

[GregBurch]

I've not read that, few weeks ago :

The emblem of the climatic reheating consolidated (in french)
06 October 2008

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/artic...ffement-climatique-conforte_1103455_3244.html

on the investigations of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Climate 'hockey stick' is revived
1 September 2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm

I do not claim to be able to follow the math, but anyone who can might want to look at this site:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

The new study you mention is referred to there as "Mann et al. 2008." From what I can grasp, it appears the author of climateaudit.org maintains that the new study is an artifact of hidden data selection that supports the hockey "stick conclusion," as the original study has pretty well been shown to be.

Here's the problem: There's no way I or any other non-specialist in some very advanced statitical methodology can possibly have a very well-grounded opinion about this specific issue, i.e. the strength of Mann's work. What I think interested, non-specialist observers can conclude is that the original study was pretty thoroughly debunked, and debunked in a way that seemed to show selection of data that insured the "hockey stick" conclusion.

As I've said before, if this were a lawsuit, that would pretty much be the end of the matter -- Mann would be shown to have skewed the data in his first study to reach the conclusion he wanted, and his credibility would be so damaged that it wouldn't be worthwhile to waste time on listening to anything else he had to say.

But the scientific issues aren't a lawsuit. Again, as I've said before, though, the political issues are much more like a court proceeding than a scientific process. What do we do about that?

 

[Urwumpe]

Interesting. A battle between statisticians about how wrong the model of the other is. Happens only twice per day here.

From my basic knowledge of statistics, I fail to see the point of climateaudit.org. He does not present his own model. Statistics are only as correct as the model they are based on. And McIntire is not publishing his model, he later only claimed that the original data of Mann supported his claims.

From the debate, there is one thing known about McIntire's blackbox model: It uses a CE selection (don't ask me what CE is), while Mann used an older RE selection. CE assumes that the mean values of the data don't change over time (stay around the same average for large numbers of samples), while RE allows a change of the mean values over time.

So, the models of McIntyre and Mann differ maybe just in one basic assumption:
Mann: Average temperature can change over time and selection has to follow local averages.
McIntyre: Average temperature stays constant over large numbers of samples and selection has to stay within the variance of the global average.

Or even if I maybe push the interpretation further away:

Mann: Climate is dynamic and can change over shorter periods.
McIntyre: Climate is static and does not change over long periods.

So, the real question is now: which model is closer to the truth?

What do we do about it? Science works very simple. You not only publish as scientist your results, but also how you achieved your results.

McIntyre did once publish his results, but he never released the method he used to get to this data. He also confirmed in 2005, that the data Mann provided in 1998 had been mostly correct (after he had full data sets around), but he still did not tell his own method accuratly. As Mann already released all his method and data to the public for investigation, McIntyre should be the next to do so.

Important IMHO is the question: Is McIntyres dogmatic fighting against the RE selection process reasonable by scientific standards or based on an assumption that should be defended at all costs?

But when somebody mentions CimateAudit.org, let's also add the attacked blog to the list of links...

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

[GregBurch]

I freely confess that I am suspicious and mistrustful of advocates of AGW. I have to fight against it within myself all the time.

Here's an example: About a year or so ago, I engaged in an extended project of reading on the subject, and had gotten much more comfortable with the idea of AGW. Then the problems in the original Mann study began to be publicized, and I felt like I had been falling asleep in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and had jerked awake just in time.

Does any of that have anything to do with a scientific assessment of the data? No. Is it a real and important political and cultural factor? You bet.

 

[Urwumpe]

Does any of that have anything to do with a scientific assessment of the data? No. Is it a real and important political and cultural factor? You bet.

Actually, it is both. But you only take part in the latter, because you can't take part in the first.