Climate change

[Nemesis]

Received the following e-mail this morning, passing it on for those interested:
Dear friend,

The world's leading authority on climate change has announced that we have the ability to prevent a climate catastrophe -- but only if our leaders act NOW. The G8 is 5 weeks away. Click to tell your leader to take immediate climate action!
Take Action Now
This Friday, the official body of the world's top climate scientists will release a historic report. Their findings: humankind has the power to stop climate catastrophe. But to do it, politicians need to act--and fast.

The science is now crystal clear that it's not enough for individuals and corporations to go green. Government action is required. Our political leaders will be responding to this report over the next few days. But politicians have shown time and again that they won't listen to science unless their bosses--we, the people--tell them to. Click below to send a personalized message directly to your national leader:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_leaders

Last month, we aimed for 150,000 signatures on our climate action petition -- and we did it! Now we have just five weeks until the G8 summit, our best chance this year to get the world's most polluting governments to change course. We need a massive outcry from millions of people around the world to make sure this Friday's report leads to genuine commitments at the summit.

It will take a movement like no other in history to force the 188 governments to shift the world off fossil fuels. And we have just a few weeks to build it. But the power of the internet puts this movement within reach. You have the power to reach anyone on earth--so, please, forward this email to everyone you know, post it on your blog, tell your friends and your family. And get started by sending your own message to your leaders:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_leaders

Years from now, once we've won this fight, our victory will seem like it was inevitable. But at this moment, it is your work--joining with others around the world to turn scientific facts into political action--that makes it possible.

We're glad to stand with you,

Ben, Iain, Ricken, Graziela, Paul and the Avaaz Team

PS - Here are some links on the Climate Scientists' report:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Homepage:
http://www.ipcc.ch

France 24:
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070502152617.u19nj8p4&cat=null

Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/top-global-scientists-gather-on-climate-change/2007/04/30/1177788024609.html

 

[Lime]

Years from now, once we've won this fight, our victory will seem like it was inevitable

What fight?
Who's fighting?
What victory?
What will be achieved?
A delay in global warming of a few years?

Don't believe the hype.

 

[Nemesis]

Now all I did was post it...

How about this then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm

 

[Lime]

The idea has been around for many years that using heat directly from the sun is the way to go.
Solar cookers using mirrors were being demonstrated in the 60s for people in Africa to cook on.
What I find amazing is that hot sunny parts of the world aren't exporting electricity to the rest of us.
Many poor areas of the world are sunny and could do with the income.
We can spend billions digging holes for oil and build 1000s of miles of gas pipeline across continents but hardly a penny goes on developing what is a free source of heat, the sun.
I hope the power station in Seville is a complete success and a precursor to many more.

After all is said and done, it is a *brilliant* idea.

 

[Nemesis]

Groan.

However - it's an interesting one!

 

[biffvernon]

What I find amazing is that hot sunny parts of the world aren't exporting electricity to the rest of us.

Doubtless NT can give us the figures for line loss. Moving electricity is much more expensive than moving oil.

 

[Flyfisher]

Lime's right about it being an old idea, but it's good to see it being utilised on a big scale. But even bigger is the 200MW Australian Solar Tower project, although that seems to be so big (1km tall tower!) they are still working on the feasibility study.

I agree with Lime's point about hot countries using this technology to export electricity. We already import electricity from France, would the Sahara be such a big step? Perhaps the middle east oil producers might go this way to supplement their dwindling oil reserves? With a worldwide 'power grid' it might even be possible to power the whole world in this way - there's always somewhere in the sun.

 

[Flyfisher]

Moving electricity is much more expensive than moving oil.

Maybe, but the economics will undoubtedly change. Anyway, isn't the real issue CO2?

 

[biffvernon]

We already import electricity from France, would the Sahara be such a big step?

The English Channel is only about 25 miles and La Manche is about the same. The Sahara is a long way off and there are many nearer customers (Libyans, Algerians, Moroccans etc). There has been some serious consideration of a cable from Iceland to Scotland but this has been ruled out as too expensive. It is more efficient to use the cheap hydro power to convert bauxite to aluminium in Iceland rather than to export the electricity.

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't know the voltage details of undersea cables, but presumably they are lower than overhead cables. As I understand it, the higher the voltage, the lower the losses, so long distance transmission shouldn't be too much of a problem, although I accept the economics might not be quite right yet.

Hydro power for bauxite refining sounds like a good idea considering how much power it requires. Presumably the bauxite is imported?

The link to France is quite an interesting issue considering that about 75% (I think) of French electricity is from nuclear power plants. It's interesting that two adjacent nations can have such differing views on nuclear power. I guess France hasn't got much fossil fuel reserves of its own, which probably makes a difference to the national psyche when it comes to energy independence.

 

[biffvernon]

The aluminium industry has been established in Iceland for several decades though it is undergoing a major expansion right now.

The interconnect to France is more about load balancing than buying French electricity, though we have been a small net importer for the last couple of years, 2.4% of our consumption being imported in 2006.

According to our government

Imports and exports of electricity from and to continental Europe are volatile with suppliers taking advantage of price differentials that have arisen during periods of extreme weather. In 2003 both very hot and very cold weather increased exports to continental Europe to record levels. Imports have risen consistently since 2004, but exports have remained high because of increased exports from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic.

 

[NT]

How would it make sense for a poor country to produce leccy at 3x the cost?


NT

 

[Mark]

I know that there is a lot of fuss in France about an export deal with spain. A nuclear plant will be built in britany (?!) and will generate power and a line of pylons will take it to spain - underground lines having been disregarded for cost reasons.

 

[Flyfisher]

How would it make sense for a poor country to produce leccy at 3x the cost?

Could it make sense if the electricity was CO2-free, i.e. solar generated by one of those solar-heated thingummies?

OK, it would be more expensive in ££££, but 'cheaper' in CO2, which is the global warming issue isn't it?

Even accepting the "money = energy" hypothesis (which I generally do), energy from a 'renewable' source such as the sun is presumably a lot less damaging to the environment, assuming you believe the CO2 link to climate change, so what would it matter if more energy was used?

 

[NT]

How would it make sense for a poor country to produce leccy at 3x the cost?

Could it make sense if the electricity was CO2-free, i.e. solar generated by one of those solar-heated thingummies?

So on a continent many of whose people starve to death for lack of money, and most of the rest of whom go without what we would consider essentials due to lack of money, you think that choosing to pay 3x the price for electricity is sensible.

OK, it would be more expensive in ££££, but 'cheaper' in CO2, which is the global warming issue isn't it?

No. Climate scientists have long known that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way round.

Even accepting the "money = energy" hypothesis (which I generally do), energy from a 'renewable' source such as the sun is presumably a lot less damaging to the environment, assuming you believe the CO2 link to climate change,

That is an invalid asumption though. We've really yet to see any evidence that oil fired stations are damaging the environment. And they use up only a third the resources of solar plants... so they do look better for the environment too.

Not that that is even a serious consideration in a place where people die in large numbers for lack of the most basic resources. In places like that pc issues are nothing compared to the real issues.

so what would it matter if more energy was used?

More energy used = more resources used = less for people to survive on. So in fact choosing solar would be grossly immoral, since it would result in so many deaths.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Climate scientists have long known that CO2 follows temperature

That's what happened for millions and millions of years. But now the situation is utterly different. Our CO2 emission are the main agent of climate forcing. This is just about the most well established fact in the whole history of science. To argue otherwise is akin to saying the world is flat.

(But it will still be pretty silly to consider moving solar generated electricity thousands of miles. And a power station in Brittany is not built directly to export power to Spain. Grids don't work quite like that.)

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

and

The lag between temperature and CO2.

 

[NT]

Its one view.


NT

 

[Flyfisher]

How would it make sense for a poor country to produce leccy at 3x the cost?

Could it make sense if the electricity was CO2-free, i.e. solar generated by one of those solar-heated thingummies?

So on a continent many of whose people starve to death for lack of money, and most of the rest of whom go without what we would consider essentials due to lack of money, you think that choosing to pay 3x the price for electricity is sensible.

That's not what I meant. The idea was for a hot, but impoverished, country to generate solar-powered electricity to export as a way of developing their economy and therefore earn money to help feed their people. I accept that the economics might not be right yet though.

Of course, if you don't believe that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is not an issue, then I can understand that the idea of paying more for electricity from the sun would seem daft.

so what would it matter if more energy was used?

More energy used = more resources used = less for people to survive on. So in fact choosing solar would be grossly immoral, since it would result in so many deaths.

If I had, say, a waterwheel linked to a generator to generate electricity, how would I be using more resources if I left my lights on 24 hours a day instead of turning them off during the day?

I accept that solar generation technology might not yet be mature enough but, using your technological optimism to solve that problem, once we have an effective method for capturing energy from the sun, electricity will be truly renewable and no longer linked to CO2 emissions, so, broadly, energy usage or efficiency will become less important than now.

 

[NT]

So on a continent many of whose people starve to death for lack of money, and most of the rest of whom go without what we would consider essentials due to lack of money, you think that choosing to pay 3x the price for electricity is sensible.

That's not what I meant. The idea was for a hot, but impoverished, country to generate solar-powered electricity to export as a way of developing their economy and therefore earn money to help feed their people.

Thats what I thought you meant. I havent yet heard how it can make any sense for them to do it at 3x the cost they need to.

Of course, if you don't believe that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is not an issue, then I can understand that the idea of paying more for electricity from the sun would seem daft.

A fine idea for those of us that can afford it, as it is one of the techs likely to eventually get us masses of low cost power. But for people dying for lack of money, spending a stack of it for no reason is homicidal.

so what would it matter if more energy was used?

More energy used = more resources used = less for people to survive on. So in fact choosing solar would be grossly immoral, since it would result in so many deaths.

If I had, say, a waterwheel linked to a generator to generate electricity, how would I be using more resources if I left my lights on 24 hours a day instead of turning them off during the day?

I thnik you may be misunderstanding.

I accept that solar generation technology might not yet be mature enough but, using your technological optimism to solve that problem, once we have an effective method for capturing energy from the sun, electricity will be truly renewable and no longer linked to CO2 emissions, so, broadly, energy usage or efficiency will become less important than now.

We edge ever closer to that position every decade, and technology keeps improving. And its already there for some niche apps.


NT