"The battle of the energy titans comes down to one great contest: nuclear vs. coal."

[wtmusic]

From Mark Lynas's The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans

[a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/god-species-mark-lynas/1100089065?ean=9781426208911&itm=1&usri=the+god+species"][div style="float: left; margin: 0 8px 4px 0;"][/a]"...As this book has shown renewables are a crucial part of our tool kit but not enough on their own. The battle of the energy titans comes down to one great contest: nuclear vs. coal. And by rejecting nuclear over past decades Greens have unwittingly kept the door open for the most polluting energy source of all. For example, several planned reactors in the United States, after being stridently opposed by Greens in the 1970s and 1980s, became coal stations instead. In Austria, after anti-nuclear activisits won a nationwide referendum in 1978, a whole country turned from nuclear to coal–and an entire completed nuclear power station was pointlessly mothballed right after being built.

An interesting 'what if?' exercise arises. What might be the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted over the last few decades from fossil-fueled power plants as an accidental by-product of anti-nuclear campaigning? In Austria, for example, six nuclear stations were proposed, and none were eventually used. In the U.S., at least 19 nuclear plants were canceled after being proposed–mainly due to the changing tide of public opinion brought on by the rise of the Greens. What if the nuclear build rate of the 60s and 70s had continued until today, and all these proposed plants had been welcomed by the rising environmental movement? There can of course be no definitive answer to such a question, but if we say that 150 additional plants would by now have been running for 20 years, these woul have avoided the emission of 18 billion tons of CO2 (OP: equivalent to 8 months entire global CO2 output from all sources). In climate change terms, opposing nuclear was a gargantuan error for the Greens, and one that will echo down the ages as our globe's temperature rises. Some in the environmental movement have begun to realize their mistake, including members of the Green Party and the former director of Greenpeace U.K., Stephen Tindale, who courageously joined with me to make a front-page "mea culpa" declaration in the Independent newspaper on February 23, 2009. In the U.S., both Steward Brand and NASA scientist (and planet boundaries co-author) James Hansen have strongly supported nuclear in the battle against climate change."

[Bob Wallace]

1. Mastodons and Saber-tooth Tigers

They went extinct.

Coal and nuclear.

They're both going extinct.

Renewables plus storage are going to be the cheapest sources of power. Generation methods which have to sell even moderately expensive power 24/365 can't survive in a free market.

Republicans will waste some money on a couple new reactors in the Southeast to relearn the financial lesson.

(Isn't it interesting how Republicans love socialized energy and shun the free market when it comes to electricity?)

[wtmusic]

2. The EIA sees up to 29GW of new nuclear in 25 years

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/source_nuclear.cfm

Is that what you meant by extinct?

[Bob Wallace]

3. The EIA...

Is pretty good about reporting history.

They aren't so good when it comes to reporting the future.

[wtmusic]

29. Based on?

[kristopher]

4. Where is the scientific analysis that concludes "renewables are...not enough on their own"?

The claim is often made by nuclear shills, but it is simply not supported by any scientific analysis.

And the need for deception goes even deeper because not only are renewables "enough on their own" they are superior in every way to coal and nuclear. Yes, in addition to being able to do it "on their own" they are far safer, far cleaner, far more reliable, and far less costly. And unlike the unsupported recitations of baseless nuclear industry claims, I DO have scientific studies supporting my claims.

[wtmusic]

19. I didn't provide a scientific analysis of the deficiencies inherent in billions of hamster wheels

either. Can you help me out?

Beyond a certain point common sense must take over.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Sadly, “common sense” does not always match up with truth

For example, “common sense” might tell you that the Earth is flat, or that it is at the center of the universe.

[NickB79]

5. 18 billion tons of CO2 saved with 150 extra nuclear plants over 20 years

What's sobering about that number is that, even with so many extra theoretical reactors running for so long, that still only amounts to 8 months worth of global CO2 emissions today.

While I know the author put that in there to make the reader more receptive to nuclear power, that quote makes me realize just how in the shit we really are regarding climate change.

[diane in sf]

6. Only shills for the nuclear industry say that energy choice is limited to either coal or nukes.

[GliderGuider]

7. Or shills for the coal industry, yes?

Or, how about shills for "Business as Usual"?

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. No, shills for the coal industry don’t allow for the nuclear option

It’s coal or nothing baby!


Nuclear shills set up the false dichotomy (nuclear or coal) presupposing that coal is an unacceptable answer…

[GliderGuider]

9. The OP presented it as a contest between the two.

If that is true, then each side is fighting for it's own supremacy, and will try to use the other's shortcomings against them.

I see the contest in somewhat different terms: fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro against life.

Each form of energy generation has its own special, unique ways of killing. There is little to choose between them.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. It presents the false dichotomy, “if not nuclear then coal”

Many point to Jimmy Carter’s energy policies in the same fashion. “Jimmy Carter was in favor of coal, rather than nuclear.”

Well, that was true to a point, however, what Jimmy Carter was in favor of was not coal as an end, but as a transitional energy source to clean sources (like solar.) He established research programs to develop these clean alternatives.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

…

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

…

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

…

Sadly, Reagan cut this R&D.

[GliderGuider]

11. 98.7% of the energy now used by is destroying the future of 100% of life on this planet.

If we are serious about preserving life on this planet we need to reduce the use of that 98.7% (FF, nuclear and hydro) to approximately zero within the coming 50 years.

When viewed in this light the coal/nuclear bunfight is simply a joust for the "honour" of killing the innocent bystanders.

[XemaSab]

12. You've been on both sides of the nuclear fence

How do you think nuclear energy threatens 100% of life on the planet like fossil fuels do?

Also, I'm assuming that you're not including hydro in the statement. Hydro sucks, but I think we should keep most of the dams that we have for the time being and try to increase efficiency in the short term before transitioning to other energy sources for the long term.

[GliderGuider]

13. It's not nuclear power on its own that threatens all life.

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2011, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

It's the aggregate of all human energy use, of which FF are by far the most murderous. Nuclear power is a small proportion of the global energy mix, but has a unique damage profile. Hydro is the least damaging, so it probably has a place as a transitional form of energy. Unfortunately, by "transitional" I mean the transition from a lot of industrial energy use to very little.

My ideal future of 2050 would have wind, solar and geothermal providing about 10x the energy they do today, and the use of all other traditional sources reduced to zero. That would give us about 15% of the energy we use today (or about what we used in 1920) to run our civilization. Undoubtedly we would need to make some adjustments...

[XemaSab]

14. It would certainly mean a redefinition of "civilization"

[GliderGuider]

22. Yes, it would. On the other hand

the definition of "civilization" is pretty malleable, historically speaking...

[Bob Wallace]

16. In the US...

This year we will get about 3.5% of our total electricity from wind, geothermal and solar. Another 6.5% from hydro.

I see it quite possible to grow wind, geothermal and solar by at least a 2% chunk per year. Do that and in 20 years we should be getting 50% of our electricity from renewables. By your 2050 goal we could be producing 100% of what we now produce with renewables.

I don't see the need to make the drastic adjustments of cutting our electricity usage back by 85%. A 10% cut is easily doable, mostly by getting rid of incandescent lighting. There's probably another 10% that we can save by phasing out inefficient refrigerators, air conditioners, TVs, etc.

And if we can do that in the US with our foot-dragging Republican "friends" the rest of the world can do even better. Much of the rest of the world is already doing better than we are.

[wtmusic]

18. How?

I would like to see specifically how you would come up with 25 PWh/year of energy by 2050 with renewables.

I'll save you a lot of frustration - you can't.

[Bob Wallace]

21. Here...

This is a plan to get to 100% in 20 years.

I suggested 50% in 20 years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

[wtmusic]

24. You're confused.

You claim, "...we could be producing 100% of what we now produce with renewables."

In 2009 the Americans produced 19,613 TWh of primary energy. Neither you nor Mark Jacobson can demonstrate how to realistically achieve that feat with renewables.

By the way, is there anyone else in the world with a Phd who agrees with Mark? He seems to be a one-man show.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Yes, we could be producing 100% of what we now produce with renewables

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2011, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

How about Steven Chu? He has a Ph.D.

http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/secretary-chu-discusses-solar-on-native-lands-050611/

…

“The wind potential in Indian country is enough to supply 32 percent of the power for this whole country,” Chu said. “And the solar potential on Indian lands is twice the total energy the U.S. population uses.”

…

(See also)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=590

[wtmusic]

38. Oh please.

Utilizing the solar "potential" of Navajo territory alone would cost $10 trillion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

55. Or, so you say

How much would it cost to build a fleet of nuclear plants to provide that much power?

[OKIsItJustMe]

59. Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear

http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear

[font size="5"]Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear[/font]

Posted July 27, 2010

The Holy Grail of the solar industry — reaching grid parity — may no longer be a distant dream. Solar may have already reached that point, at least when compared to nuclear power, according to a new study by two researchers at Duke University. http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

It’s no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned.

The result of these trends: “In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina,” say study authors John Blackburn and Sam Cunningham. “Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.”

If the data analysis is correct, the pricing would represent the “Historic Crossover” claimed in the study’s title.

…



…

[Bob Wallace]

39. Will this do?

"Current wind technology deployed in nonenvironmentally protected areas could generate 37,000,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year, according to the new analysis conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and consulting firm AWS Truewind. The last comprehensive estimate came out in 1993, when Pacific Northwest National Laboratory pegged the wind energy potential of the United States at 10,777,000 gigawatt-hours.

Both numbers are greater than the 3,000,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity currently consumed by Americans each year. "

That's 10x our current use from wind alone....

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/better-wind-resource-maps/

How about this? That little green rectangle on the US portion - that's the amount of PV solar we would need if we used nothing but solar to provide all our electricity. And it's based on lower efficiency panels than we're now making.



Or this?

The Earth houses a vast energy supply in the form of geothermal resources. Domestic resources are equivalent to a 30,000-year energy supply at our current rate for the United States.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/40665.pdf

[wtmusic]

42. Wow, those green squares are tiny!

(and entirely impractical to pay for)

I know you're not as gullible as you sound.

[XemaSab]

62. I'm discounting this figure

just on the basis that there are no areas that have NO protection in the US and someone doesn't know how to spell "emissions."

If you take it seriously as a figure, I'd be interested in seeing a comparison with the surface area of every built structure in the US.

[OKIsItJustMe]

63. DoE figures from 2003

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf

[font size="5"]Myths about Solar Electricity[/font]

…

[font size="4"]Myth #1[/font]
Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.
Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.

…

Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671
January 2003

…

(Technological advances have been made since 2003.)

[XemaSab]

66. I'm not saying that solar can't provide a lot of our energy

I'm saying that the map with the boxes on it has serious flaws.

[OKIsItJustMe]

67. I believe the map with the boxes reflects the DoE figures

(i.e. the DoE says a box in Nevada 100 miles on a side would be sufficient for current US electrical demands)

[txlibdem]

70. It's a very important chart to understand.

It's a very important chart to understand. We could get 100% of our TOTAL energy needs from a chunk of desert 100 miles on each side. Not just our ELECTRICAL needs; that is 100% of our total energy usage.

Just had one question. Does the chart include energy storage such that 24/7 energy needs would be met?

Not saying that the other renewable sources couldn't provide the extra energy required to meet 100% of our 24/7 needs. Just wondering.

[OKIsItJustMe]

78. I believe the DoE figure (100 miles × 100 miles) relates to electical needs only

However, as I said, technology advancements have been made since 2003.

[GliderGuider]

20. It's not just electricity, it's all energy including fuels.

Let's say that we wish to create a civilization that is sustainable over the long haul (say the next 5,000 years and more), maintains most other life on the planet, avoids a major anthropogenic extinction event and halts the one that is already under way.

I've concluded that if this is to be possible we will need to reduce our energy consumption, our material consumption, our numbers and our overall activity levels by 85% over the next century. In order to do that, the events of the next few decades will be critical. To get onto that path, we have no more than 20 years cut global oil, gas and coal use by 25% and set ourselves on a controlled decline. If we do not manage that shift, all bets are off, for all life.

This is not a parochial political problem that can be fobbed off on "Republicans". 10% solutions don't address the planetary issue. People realize this intuitively, which is the main reason the COP meetings are dying a whimpering death in the corner of the global mud-room.

[Bob Wallace]

23. Why?

We could power the world several times over using only solar, or only wind, or only geothermal. Put them together, add in tidal, wave, hydro, and biomass/gas and we have an incredible amount of energy available for the taking.

Seems to me that you're pulling number out of the air, a number not based on a realistic assessment of the resources at our disposal.

[GliderGuider]

26. Here are articles with a non-mainstream view of various aspects of the global eco-clusterfuck.

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:24 PM - Edit history (3)

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/

There are 80 articles I've written over the last 5 years. I'd suggest starting with these:

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP/WEAP.html
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/50000_Foot_View.html
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/COP15.html

[XemaSab]

27. There's possible and then there's probable

I could run a marathon next December.

Am I going to? Certainly not.

You already posted one of my favorite graphs (the PIOMAS projection), and here's another favorite:



We're going to get serious about renewables only when we have no options left.

[Ghost Dog]

33. ..reduce energy consumption, material consumption, our numbers and overall activity levels by 85%..

Reducing consumption, through conservation and efficiency is vital, as I see it more-or-less intuitively. Projections such as those presented in the OP are usually based on continuing trends of maximised consumption (and maximized profits for we-know-who) and growing/slowly stabilizing but socio-economically-developing populations. I see no viable basis for such projections.

When you refer to "our numbers" I guess you mean our population numbers. 85% reduction over a century. That's large.

[GliderGuider]

35. The population reduction requirement is based on two factors

The first factor is the number. As far as I can tell, the long-term sustainable human population is around 1 billion people. Achieving and staying at or below that number would take enough pressure off natural habitats to leave other species with some opportunity for survival. It would also permit the recovery of some of the air, water and soil degradation our overgrowth has caused.

The second factor is the timeline. The longer we remain on our current trajectory of increasing overshoot the more damage we do to the planetary ecosystems that all life (including humans) require for survival. If we stay our present course for another 50 years the situation will probably be unrecoverable, and massive perturbations in the course of life on the planet will be well under way.

So given those assumptions, I think we would need to be on course for our new lower numbers within the next two decades, while reducing consumption and activity levels commensurately at the same time.

That's what it would take.

Could we do it? 50/50. Maybe less.
Will we do it? Hell, no.

What will the consequences be? Utterly unpredictable and probably unimaginable.

[Bob Wallace]

41. How is that 1 billion number calculated?

Not on available energy.

Not on available water.

Not on ability to produce food.

Not on ability to provide clothing and shelter.

I do agree that the world would be a more enjoyable place with far fewer people. I doubt we need to go as low as 1 billion.

[GliderGuider]

44. As I said,

"Will we do it? Hell, no."

It sounds like you could benefit from some much broader reading in ecology, resilience theory, systems theory, the actual condition of the planet and the forces at work in both culture and human neuro-psychology.

[Bob Wallace]

48. In other words...

You snatched that 1 billion number out of your nether regions.

[GliderGuider]

51. That's a pretty strong accusation for a noob, Bob.

Have you looked at the articles I suggested? They would give you more background on my thinking, though they might not be as accessible to someone with the techno-optimistic leanings you appear to have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Carrying_capacity

There is wide variability both in the definition and in the proposed size of the Earth's carrying capacity, with estimates ranging from less than 1 to 1000 billion humans (1 trillion).[85] Around two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion (with unspecified standard errors), with a median of about 10 billion.[86]

In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. And in order to achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States would have to reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population would have to be reduced by two-thirds.[87]

Some groups (for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature[88][89] and Global Footprint Network[90]) have stated that the carrying capacity for the human population has been exceeded as measured using the Ecological Footprint. In 2006, WWF's "Living Planet Report" stated that in order for all humans to live with the current consumption patterns of Europeans, we would be spending three times more than what the planet can renew.[91] Humanity as a whole was using, by 2006, 40 percent more than what Earth can regenerate.[92]

But critics question the simplifications and statistical methods used in calculating Ecological Footprints. Therefore Global Footprint Network and its partner organizations have engaged with national governments and international agencies to test the results – reviews have been produced by France, Germany, the European Commission, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Japan and the United Arab Emirates.[93] Some point out that a more refined method of assessing Ecological Footprint is to designate sustainable versus non-sustainable categories of consumption.[94][95] However, if yield estimates were adjusted for sustainable levels of production, the yield figures would be lower, and hence the overshoot estimated by the Ecological Footprint method even higher.

I prefer to advocate for the low end of the range (1 billion or so) because of my Deep Ecology leanings. I think that overshooting that population level since 1800 has seriously damaged the prospects of many - if not most - other species as well as our own.

[Bob Wallace]

64. Jam your "noob"

I asked you where you got your number. You posted some babble.

You've now copied something from Wiki that states estimates from "1 to 1000 billion humans" and based on your personal preferences and "Deep Ecology leanings" you pick the very lowest number.

I'm so not impressed....

[GliderGuider]

69. The reason I commented like that

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2011, 08:27 PM - Edit history (4)

was that you've only been a member for a week or so, and that's not a lot of time to get to know the regulars.

This is a web forum where personalities play a major role and as a result opinions play as large a role as facts. The fact that someone chooses to hold an opinion outside of the mainstream shouldn't be all that surprising.

I've developed my opinions over half a dozen years of investigation and writing, and rather than defend every point for the umpteenth time on here I have posted a body of work that people can refer to. That lets them decide if I will be interesting or useful to engage with, and if not it avoids a lot of drama.

So, have you read any of my recommended articles yet? Do you intend to? Or is this one of those situations where people know instinctively that they don't share much common ground and that most exchanges will turn into a clash?

To save you a bit of time, here is the Cliff's Notes version of my positions:

• The global eco/energy/economic clusterfuck we are now experiencing is essentially unsolvable.
  
• If we do get our shit together as a species it will be after the crisis has played out rather than before.
  
• Politics is more often the problem than the solution.
  
• Most attempts to solve poorly understood problems (which this clusterfuck emphatically is) usually create even bigger, less soluble problems.
  
• The world hit peak oil in 2005.
  
• We are within 5 to 10 years of peak food.
  
• Climate change has already passed a tipping point that will result in average global warming of at least 6 degrees C this century.
  
• A human die-off of some degree is inevitable. On a personal level I think that's a good thing, because humans have appropriated far more of the planet's capacities and resources than is safe for the continuation of life as a whole.
  
  
• As a response to this gloomy projection, I advocate personal awakening to the fundamental oneness of all life - pursuing a spiritual quest, if you will. Only by healing our sense of separation will we arrive at a place where right action regarding each other, the biosphere and the planet itself becomes obvious, natural and inevitable.

[Bob Wallace]

71. Point by point...

* The global eco/energy/economic clusterfuck we are now experiencing is essentially unsolvable.

An opinion unsupported by evidence.

*If we do get our shit together as a species it will be after the crisis has played out rather than before.

An opinion unsupported by evidence or history.

*Politics is more often the problem than the solution.

A cynical opinion unsupported by evidence.

*Most attempts to solve poorly understood problems (which this clusterfuck emphatically is) usually create even bigger, less soluble problems.

Another cynical opinion unsupported by evidence.

*The world hit peak oil in 2005.

Possibly, partly correct. We seem to have hit peak "cheap" oil. That does not mean as doomers assume that we are now about to fall off the oil cliff.

* We are within 5 to 10 years of peak food.

Bull.

*Climate change has already passed a tipping point that will result in average global warming of at least 6 degrees C this century.

The majority of climate scientists do not agree with this assessment. It could be correct, but it's an extremist view.

* A human die-off of some degree is inevitable.

Oh, crap. Doomer porn.

* On a personal level I think that's a good thing, because humans have appropriated far more of the planet's capacities and resources than is safe for the continuation of life as a whole.

And now I must admit that I've formed a very low opinion of you. Anyone who thinks having billions of people die a miserable, horrible death via starvation and dehydration is a "good thing" is beyond contempt.

[GliderGuider]

72. Well, there we are.

Not much point losing sleep over each other, is there? It's interesting how emotional your reaction is.

Cheers,
Bodhi

[joshcryer]

74. Barely a point...

GG: The global eco/energy/economic clusterfuck we are now experiencing is essentially unsolvable.

Bob: An opinion unsupported by evidence.

We're not spending 10 trillion a year to solve it. The evidence seems to suggest that it will simply not be solved.

GG: If we do get our shit together as a species it will be after the crisis has played out rather than before.

Bob: An opinion unsupported by evidence or history.

If it is not being solved, which it isn't, then this is only a logical deduction. Since Empires have fallen since the dawn of history, I think the evidence and history does support this position.

GG: Politics is more often the problem than the solution.

Bob: A cynical opinion unsupported by evidence.

Except, just today, the evidence only piles up.

GG: The world hit peak oil in 2005.

Bob: Possibly, partly correct. We seem to have hit peak "cheap" oil. That does not mean as doomers assume that we are now about to fall off the oil cliff.

No, we in the west will be fairly OK. I don't think GG implied otherwise.

GG: We are within 5 to 10 years of peak food.

Bob: Bull.

Peak food? Maybe. Don't think so, but I wouldn't rule it out once conventional oil starts hurting.

GG: Climate change has already passed a tipping point that will result in average global warming of at least 6 degrees C this century.

Bob: The majority of climate scientists do not agree with this assessment. It could be correct, but it's an extremist view.

What was "extremist" on climate change 10 years ago is mainstream now. 6C would be catastrophic and I think that ultimately we're going to resort to geoengieering, but not before a lot of poor impoverished people die in the undeveloped world.

GG: A human die-off of some degree is inevitable.

Bob: Oh, crap. Doomer porn.

Depends. 20-30% dieoff would not be economically disasterous, but it would be one hell of a genocide for humanity. Anything larger and then we can talk about doom and gloom. But it's pretty much assured that if we don't act immediately there will be a lot of poor people dying in the undeveloped world. I don't see what's controversial about this observation.

GG: On a personal level I think that's a good thing, because humans have appropriated far more of the planet's capacities and resources than is safe for the continuation of life as a whole.

Bob: And now I must admit that I've formed a very low opinion of you. Anyone who thinks having billions of people die a miserable, horrible death via starvation and dehydration is a "good thing" is beyond contempt.

I don't think it's contemptable or beyond contempt, even. I think it's a natural conclusion from this line of discussion and beliefs. Though I certainly have to disagree that we have "appropriated far more of the planet's capacities and resources."

[XemaSab]

75. And to follow up on what Josh is saying

"We're screwed" is hardly a minority viewpoint here.

At least as of the last poll:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x200937

[GliderGuider]

76. Josh, my opinion on Peak Food is probably the most controversial.

I see this in the cards because three factors are converging:

Climate change is already altering global rainfall and weather patterns, and Arctic methane burps virtually guarantee that the effect will become more pronounced faster than we expect;

Depletion of aquifer water in some major growing regions makes it harder to maintain good growing conditions;

Declining topsoil quantity and quality from industrial monocropping is increasing our reliance on manufactured fertilizer. Rising fertilizer costs make yield reductions a strong possibility. Shifting diets in the developing nations like China will put additional pressures on the food supply.

As with Peak Oil, rising costs will mask the true situation for a while, diverting attention away from the underlying physical factors.

As always it is the poor who will feel the effects first. The leading edge of global population reduction is likely to manifest as spreading and deepening regional famines coupled with the loss of healthcare and sanitation infrastructure in those same regions as their governance fails. The epicenters are already obvious.

[XemaSab]

82. We're already seeing an increase in food prices

probably due to increases in transportation costs.

[joshcryer]

84. The thing is, oil will become unaffordable a decade or two before the aquifers are depleted.

Ogallala should be OK for around 20-25 years yet. However, if Keystone XL has an accident as it is proposed to go right over Ogallala, then things could become dire, overnight. When oil hits that curve that makes it simply not viable anymore (say, 10 years), Ogallala will be given a reprieve, since we will not longer be an agricultural exporter. I think Peak Phosphorus would probably happen before then.

[GliderGuider]

85. I'm more concerned about rainfed agriculture.

Aquifers are a concern, especially in places like northwestern India (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/40091) but 75% of the world's croplands are rainfed. That makes them immediately vulnerable to rainfall shifts driven by climate change. The threat of monsoon failures is a canonical example.

Peak phosphorous is definitely a growing concern - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus

I'm not as worried about North America as I am about other regions- we have lots of wiggle room when it comes to our food supply.

[joshcryer]

86. Well, yeah, I should say my whole POV is America-centric.

I think when I mentioned the undeveloped world I have basically underscored that they are fucked. Done. Capoot.

H+ won't save 'em.

[XemaSab]

87. I'm on the opposite side of the fence

If you took 50 random Americans, 50 random Salvadorans, 50 random Congolese, and 50 random Cambodians and gave them each a gun, a machete, a packet of seeds, and a $100 bill and dumped them on 100 acres of rainforest for 5 years, I can tell you exactly who WOULDN'T still be kicking at the end of that time.

Hell, most people I know, it's an insurmountable crisis if the car battery dies.

[Dead_Parrot]

88. I'm on the opposite side of the planet.

[joshcryer]

89. The ones who don't know how to use a gun?

American's would kill 15 out of each of the other peoples, and force the rest into servitude. Heh.

[XemaSab]

90. 'Cause that went so well in Vietnam?

[Ghost Dog]

52. "Will we do it? Hell, no."

Will it happen anyway? Hell, yes.

[GliderGuider]

56. That's pretty much the situation as I see it too. n/t

[Ghost Dog]

57. That's why I've been focusing at least as much on economics

and the associated politics as well as on our environmental context, and taking decisions on that basis,

all my short childless life.

[OKIsItJustMe]

58. Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth?

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/jacobson-delucchi

[font size="5"]Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth?[/font]
by Bill Chameides | Feb 04, 2011
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)

What if someone told you that 100 percent of the world’s energy could come from renewable fuels in just 20 to 40 years* using existing technology ...

... And that the annual costs of powering our cars and homes with wind, water, solar and hydrogen would be little more than what using conventional fuels costs today?

No way, you say? Well then say it to Stanford University’s Mark Z. Jacobson and his colleague Mark A. Delucchi, from the University of California, Davis, who have crunched the numbers. To get the details, you can read their papers (which are currently in press at the journal Energy Policy) here http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf and here http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf.

Meanwhile, here's a summary of their numbers.

…

[Bob Wallace]

65. Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth?

Or necessary?

We've got the technology. We've got even better technology than we had when Jacobson and Delucchi wrote their 2009 paper.

Solar panel prices are down a huge percent in cost from when they crunched their numbers. Prices are down 42% this year and 70% over the last ~2 years.

Oil prices are up and rising.

I'd say that we're very close to point where the annual costs of powering our cars and homes with wind, water, solar and hydrogen will be less than what using conventional fuels costs today.

Powering your EV with $0.08/kWh electricity will cost you the equivalent of $1.40/gallon gas in a 50MPG ICEV.

Coal costs us a fortune in hidden costs. Oil is costing us a fortune in military and "homeland security" spending.

I'd say we're already past the point where renewables are cheaper.

[txlibdem]

28. Speaking strictly of TVs, your choice of tv can mean up to 70% energy savings (Chart)

The chart: HDTV power consumption compared
http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/?tag=contentBody;nextPage

[Bob Wallace]

68. Efficiency is the low-hanging fruit...

Which we don't address often enough.

11% of residential electricity is used for lighting. 14% of commercial electricity.

A 6 watt LED can replace a 50 watt incandescent bulb. That's a 88% electricity savings.

We won't drop residential and commercial usage by that large a number since there are already significant numbers of halogen and tube florescent lamps in use, but we might pull overall consumption down by 5%.

If we can drop consumption by 5% we can afford to close close between 5% and 10% of our fossil fuel plants. We probably have enough efficiency available to close half of our coal plants.

[txlibdem]

83. Efficiency the low hanging fruit

That's true. The other term for that, of course, is NegaWatts (watts that you don't have to produce because you didn't use them).

Your numbers are a bit off, however:
US Residential = 32% space heating, 13% water heating, 12% lighting, 11% air conditioning
US Commercial = 25% lighting, 13% heating, 11% cooling, 6% water heating, 6% ventilation

1. Geothermal heating and cooling saves between 80% and 90% of heating and cooling needs.
2. LED lighting saves between 80% to 85% for residential
3. Solar water heating depends on your location but I'll SWAG it at between 25% and 80%

Commercial lighting is, as you said, a little more tricky to calculate the savings because of the high percentage of fluorescent and halogen in use but I feel at least 25% savings.

[wtmusic]

17. Not false at all.

He presents irrefutable evidence that that's what it's meant in the past, and absent unicorns and rainbows will mean for the forseeable future.

Do I want to wait 10 years and see if Germany's gamble on renewables will pay off? Off course not, because it's nonsense. Germany will soon be one of the largest carbon emitters per capita in the world, and it will only get worse.

With the Netherlands abandoning wind subsidies, it's already playing out that way.

It's fascinating that you bring up Jimmy Carter - with the threat of Fukushima rapidly receding, it seems that nowadays antinukes have little ammunition that is less than 30 years old.

[Bob Wallace]

25. How about we don't make up facts?

The Dutch are not abandoning wind subsidies. They are cutting back because of budgetary problems.

They are going to cut their 18 cents per kWh to somewhere between 9 and 15 cents. They are looking at ways to pass some of the cost on to industrial users. They expect to be able to increase the subsidy in a couple of years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116

Now, show me the numbers that prove that Germany "will soon be one of the largest carbon emitters per capita in the world".

[wtmusic]

30. Yes, let's not.

"These overly-generous subsidies are one reason that electricity rates in the Netherlands are more than US $0.25 per kilowatt hour—more than double the $0.106 average retail price per kilowatt hour in the United States.

One problem with the Netherlands’ generous subsidies is that both electricity customers and taxpayers end up paying for them through higher rates and higher taxes. Because the costs have grown so great, the Dutch government is working to transfer the cost of the subsidies directly to electricity customers through higher electricity rates. Even though rates are already high in the Netherlands, they will increase even more to pay for the wind subsidies.

With such lavish subsidies are driving up the cost of electricity, it is understandable that the Duke of Edinburgh this weekend called wind power a “fairy tale” and “an absolute disgrace.” English energy customers, like Dutch customers, are seeing their electricity bills rise thanks to taxes used to pay for more wind subsidies. Last year electricity customers in England paid an average of £90 (US $143) a year to subsidize wind farms and other renewable producers.

The wind industry claims that wind is now cost competitive with natural gas. The Dutch experience suggests otherwise. If wind were cost competitive, it wouldn’t need subsidies and special favors in Europe or the United States."

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/21/tilting-at-windmills-the-dutch-government-pays-wind-subsidies-of-370-per-dutch-resident/

Just industrial users, huh?

[Bob Wallace]

60. Are you intentionally misleading?

The Netherlands are reducing their wind subsidies.

You cite the Duke of Edinburgh as if the Royal Stud knew anything about renewables?

The statement was that the Netherlands intends to pass some future subsidies on to industry in the future in order to keep subsidizing wind, not that industry is now carrying the entire load.

(My guess is that you are....)

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Of course it’s a false dichotomy

If we had followed Jimmy Carter’s direction, solar power (and other alternatives) could have been ubiquitous by now.

[wtmusic]

36. No, they couldn't.

And repeating that mantra will not improve the situation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=552

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. Uh… take it up with the people who were there

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/9657

[font face="Times, Serif"][font size="5"]Was Jimmy Carter right?[/font]
by Stephen Koff

…

"In June or July of 1981, on the bleakest day of my professional life, they descended on the Solar Energy Research Institute, fired about half of our staff and all of our contractors, including two people who went on to win Nobel prizes in other fields, and reduced our $130 million budget by $100 million," recalls Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day, who had been hired by Carter to spearhead the solar initiative.

Reagan and Congress stopped aggressively pushing new auto efficiency standards, acceding to Detroit's desire to leave them at Carter-era levels. They let the solar tax benefit expire, and the nascent solar industry went belly-up.

…

Solar-energy champions say such a boost was needed 20 years ago, as the Carter tax credits were expiring. "The solar water heating industry instantly went from a billion-dollar industry to an industry that now installs, in the U.S., about 6,000 solar hot water heaters a year," said Noah Kaye, spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Had Reagan not squashed it, the research that Carter started could have triggered a substantial shift to solar, wind power and other renewable forms of energy - possibly providing as much as 25 percent of the nation's electricity supply, says Hayes, the Carter solar expert.

…[/font]

[wtmusic]

40. I was there.

I voted for Jimmy.

Jimmy had an excellent heart and was a peanut farmer, not an engineer.

[OKIsItJustMe]

43. Jimmy had an excellent heart and was … not an engineer.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm

…

Detached from Pomfret on 1 February 1951, Carter was assigned as Engineering Officer for the precommissioning detail for USS K-1 (SSK 1). K-1, the first postwar submarine built, was under construction by Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corporation, Groton, Connecticut. After K-1's commissioning on 10 November 1951, Carter served as Executive Officer, Engineering Officer, and Electronics Repair Officer. During this tour he also qualified for command of a submarine.

…

From 1 March to 8 October, Carter was preparing to become the engineering officer for the nuclear power plant to be placed in USS Seawolf (SSN 575), one of the first submarines to operate on atomic power. He assisted in setting up training for the enlisted men who would serve on Seawolf. During this time his father became very sick and died in July 1953. After his father's death in 1953, Carter resigned from the Navy to return to Georgia to manage the family interests. Carter was honorably discharged on 9 October 1953 at Headquarters, Third Naval District in New York City. On 7 December 1961, he transferred to the retired reserve with the rank of Lieutenant at his own request.

…

http://ottawariverkeeper.ca/news/when_jimmy_carter_faced_radioactivity_head_on/

…

It was a very exciting time for me when the Chalk River plant melted down,” Jimmy Carter, now 83, said in a recent interview in his hometown of Plains, Georgia.

“I was one of the few people in the world who had clearance to go into a nuclear power plant.”

On Dec. 12, 1952, the NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada’s Chalk River Laboratories suffered a partial meltdown. There was an explosion and millions of litres of radioactive water ended up in the reactor building’s basement. The crucial reactor’s core was no longer usable.

…

“I was in charge of building the second atomic submarine … and that is why I went up there,” said Mr. Carter. “There were 23 of us and I was in charge. I took my crew up there on the train.”

…

[wtmusic]

45. Qualified engineers are everywhere

[OKIsItJustMe]

46. Admit it, you’re wrong

Jimmy Carter was an engineer, and worse (for you) a nuclear engineer.

http://www.lbl.gov/LBL-PID/Nobelists/Seaborg/presidents/22.html

I knew Jimmy Carter. He was a nuclear engineer, of course. Here I am with him at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Achievement in Minneapolis in 1984. …


… Here is Rosalynn Carter at the American Academy of Achievement dinner. …

[wtmusic]

49. Pathetic.

You think Jimmy's post as an "Engineering Officer" on a nuclear submarine makes him a nuclear engineer?

Now you're wasting my time.

[OKIsItJustMe]

50. Those are Seaborg’s words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1951/seaborg-bio.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Seaborg/

[OKIsItJustMe]

54. Biography of Jimmy Carter

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/jec/jecbio.phtml

[font face="Times, Serif"][font size="5"]Biography of Jimmy Carter[/font]
[font size="3"](James Earl Carter, Jr.)[/font]

Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), thirty-ninth president of the United States, was born October 1, 1924, in the small farming town of Plains, Georgia, and grew up in the nearby community of Archery. His father, James Earl Carter, Sr., was a farmer and businessman; his mother, Lillian Gordy Carter, a registered nurse.

He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, New York, where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.

…[/font]

Oh! and he was a peanut farmer too!

[Bob Wallace]

47. Actually, Carter has a pretty solid engineering background...

Carter graduated from the Naval Academy with a degree in science.

He was trained in nuclear technology during his years in the Navy. He did graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics.

In 1952 the NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada’s Chalk River Laboratories experienced a partial meltdown. The resulting explosion caused millions of liters of radioactive water to flood the reactor building’s basement. Carter was the officer in charge of the U.S. team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.

[Bob Wallace]

61. Germany...

Germany will be increasing it's CO2 output from coal. They've gone the coal route because they recognize that nuclear is a major risk which they do not want to live with.

Germany operates within the European carbon permitting system, a cap & trade system. Germany will offset their coal CO2 emissions with carbon credits and will not increase their per capita CO2 levels.

In fact, because Germany will continue to install wind and solar as well as cut overall usage via efficiency Germany's per capita CO2 emissions will continue to fall.

[wtmusic]

15. National Geographic shills for nuclear now?

At the end of the book there are roughly a thousand references, and all back up Lynas's opinion. Are they all in bed with the nuke industry too?

When such an overwhelming preponderance of science, scientists, and experts from various disciplines disagree with you, bananas, kristopher, Amory Lovins, and Marc Jacobson, perhaps a little introspection is in order.

[OKIsItJustMe]

53. Don’t pretend that an excerpt from a book is the entire book

The major thrust of the book is not that there are only two choices for power, coal or nuclear. (Oddly enough, the review linked to below doesn’t even mention nuclear power.)

Since the book is not entirely about this issue, I believe it is safe to assume that at least a few of the 1,000’s of references do not refer to this point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/20/mark-lynas-god-species-review

[font face="Times, Serif"][font size="5"]The God Species by Mark Lynas - review[/font]
[font size="4"]A brave look at the environment[/font]
Peter Forbes
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 05.00 EDT

The political and environmental profile of climate change has been dramatically reconfigured in the past two years. A wave of activism has dissipated and a broad consensus on the necessary measures broken thanks to the failed Copenhagen summit and the anti-global-warming lobby's apparent triumph in the Climategate emails affair. Mark Lynas is one of a growing band of influential figures, along with James Lovelock, Stewart Brand and George Monbiot, who now argue that the approach of most Greens to climate change needs to change.

Lynas puts it briskly in this new book. "Gobal warming is not about overconsumption, morality, ideology or capitalism. It is largely the result of human beings generating energy by burning hydrocarbons and coal." Inevitably, the beliefs of most environmentalists involve a cluster of other goals and ideological imperatives but if some of these are inimical to the need to reduce carbon emissions then, Lynas believes, a decoupling is necessary.

…

He is level-headed about issues that have become intensely emotive, and recognises that the debate around climate change has become polarised on political grounds: libertarians with little understanding of science don't want to acknowledge that there are natural limits to human activity. They then feel free to equate the climate agenda with "socialism by the backdoor". But of course there really are natural limits, in the form of the great natural cycles: carbon, nitrogen, water, and so on.

…

It's certainly a useful concept for the kind of planetary management that Lynas believes is now necessary. He is wonderfully sane and cogent on difficult issues, explaining why organic farming is not an option globally and why we need genetically engineered crops. The natural limit to food production is set by nitrogen which, in a form usable by plants, is rare in nature. We owe our present 6.9bn population to the 100-year-old Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation to produce fertilisers. Take that away and the current population is already twice the Earth's carrying capacity. Our best hope for the future is to genetically engineer a nitrogen-fixing plant (the green kind) to replace nitrogen-fixing plant (the heavy industrial kind).

…[/font]

[wtmusic]

79. And don't pretend that a review about a book is the book, either

Why don't you just read the book? He is unwavering in his support of nuclear, and discusses it in several sections.

[OKIsItJustMe]

81. Unwavering, in that he’s held this view for a few years

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/britains_mark_lynas_riles_his_green_movement_allies/2449/

[font face="Times, Serif"]19 Oct 2011: Interview
[font size="5"]Britain’s Mark Lynas Riles
His Green Movement Allies [/font]
[font size="4"]Activist Mark Lynas has alienated his green colleagues by renouncing long-held views and becoming an advocate for nuclear power and genetically modified crops. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he explains why he rethought his positions and turned to technology for solutions.[/font]

…

Yale Environment 360: The main thesis of your new book is that humans have to take an active role in managing the planet if we want to keep it from being “irreparably damaged.” But much of what you prescribe, such as wider deployment of nuclear power and genetically engineered agriculture, is anathema to many greens. This also flies in the face of your own history as an environmental activist, in which you were anti-nuclear and anti-GMO until just a few years ago. What’s caused you to do an about-face?

Mark Lynas: Well, life is nothing if not a learning process. As you get older you tend to realize just how complicated the world is and how simplistic solutions don’t really work... There was no “Road to Damascus” conversion, where there’s a sudden blinding flash and you go, “Oh, my God, I’ve got this wrong.” There are processes of gradually opening one’s mind and beginning to take seriously alternative viewpoints, and then looking more closely at the weight of the evidence. It was a few years ago now that I first started reassessing the nuclear thing. But I didn’t want to go public then. I knew that would be the end of my reputation as an environmentalist, and to some extent, it has been.

…[/font]

May I conclude that after reading his book, you are now an advocate of geoengineering?

[Dover]

77. Like those are the ONLY options on the table?

These two may be in competition but that doesn't mean they are the only game in town.
They BOTH represent losing propositons.

[OKIsItJustMe]

80. Which is why I call it a false dichotomy

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy