The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fed up With federal inaction, states act alone on cap-and-trade > Comments

Fed up With federal inaction, states act alone on cap-and-trade : Comments

By Nicholas Cunningham, published 2/10/2014

California has entered into a partnership with the Canadian province of Quebec to link up their carbon markets. It's a small step, but the two have already created the largest carbon market in North America.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
At least one utility is "feeling the heat". This from Reuters:

>E.ON's conventional coal and gas power plants have been hit hard, in part because of a massive surge in renewable energy generation in Europe which industry experts say was ignored by German utilities for too long.

The group's board member in charge of renewables told Reuters green energy was now growing as a source of profits for the utility, but that it needed help from investors for large wind power projects as its own investments were being cut to tackle its 29.7 billion euros ($39.2 billion) of debt.>>

See: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/e-on-renewables-idUKL5N0QW1D420140826

This story from NYTimes illustrates the "normalisation" of solar:

>>One recent day, under a brilliant California sun, saws buzzed as workers put the finishing touches on spacious new homes. …Lennar Corporation was putting solar panels on every house it built.

The prices of the panels have plunged 70 percent in the past five years. That huge decline means solar power is starting to make more economic sense, …

At about 100 Lennar subdivisions in California, buyers who move into a new home automatically get solar panels on the roof. Lennar, the nation’s second-largest homebuilder, recently decided to expand that policy to several more states, starting with Colorado. The company typically retains ownership of the panels and signs 20-year deals to sell homeowners the power from their own roofs, at a 20 percent discount from the local utility’s prices. >>

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html?_r=1

(The price of solar has dropped 99% since the 1980s)

Another development has been better grids that can carry electricity over longer distances. One day wind power from Texas may light homes in New York.

There've also been dramatic advances in energy storage technology. I would say we're about a decade away from being able to store electricity on an industrial scale. When that happens it really is the end for fossil fuels.

One example. Using ultracapacitors the cost of storage is about $20,000/KWH. Fifteen years ago it was about $2 mn / KWH. If it gets down to < $1,000 KWH we're in business!
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 2 October 2014 9:14:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stevenlmeyer as I understand your argument the test of a scientific hypothesis is public opinion and the decisions of business men.

The late Michael Crichton in his novel the “State of Fear” illustrated the fallacy of your argument by reference to Eugenic Theory popular with one and all from about the last decades of the nineteenth century to the end of World War II.

Eugenics was the accepted paradigm by worldwide by medical and scientific societies, politicians, artists and writers, grant giving bodies without exception. Painfully came the revelation that the quasi religion of Eugenics was not only sheer nonsense, but was also the cause of much evil.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 3 October 2014 12:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Stevenlmeyer as I understand your argument the test of a scientific hypothesis is ... the decisions of business men.>>

You understand wrong.

Among scientists the reality of AGW has been a given for many years based on a growing body of evidence. The evidence taken as a whole, without cherry picking, is now so overwhelming that it is reasonable to label as deniers those who refuse to accept it.

Yes there are some "dissenters" but there always are. There are scientists who deny evolution or that HIV causes AIDS.

>>Eugenics was the accepted paradigm by worldwide by medical and scientific societies, politicians,…>>

But the evidence wasn't there to support their theories.

In the case of AGW we have an overwhelming and GROWING body of evidence. In fact in the last decade our understanding of AGW has undergone a revolution.

Nothing in science is ever completely settled. It's possible that new evidence will provide an alternative explanation to the phenomena we observe. But there're now an awful lot of phenomena and I would say it's highly unlikely.

You want to know what the evidence is?

It's readily accessible to anyone who genuinely wants to learn as opposed to people who just want to pick up talking points from websites like "wattsupwiththat". So if you're really interested go for it.

I was only trying to make two points:

--Science has won the intellectual battle. More and more decision makers - especially younger ones – believe the science. There's no point in wasting energy arguing with deniers.

--The technology of renewables has advanced with incredible speed. I'm a technology optimist and even I never expected prices to fall this rapidly. If at the beginning of this century you had told me that in 2013 one quarter of all new electrical energy generating capacity coming online would be in the form of renewables or that Texas would be getting 10% of its electricity from wind or that China would be installing more wind than nuclear I would have called you a dreamer.

BTW I prefer to get my science from scientists rather than novelists.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 3 October 2014 1:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning sevenlmeyer,

There is a tragic aspect to the desperation of warmers as they keep hurling the proverbial dead cat at the pavement in order to get some bounce.

So you like to get your science from scientists? Like the head of the IPCC, Rachender Pashauri, who is a former railway engineer and writer of soft porn books? Or the Script you follow from the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) that does not have a single scientist of any description on the panel?

Your science is so good that it killed off the Kyoto Protocol in December 2012, there are now only 11 signatories out of the original 119, the world is awash with cheap fossil fuels and not one of the major emitters even bothered to turn up for the latest round of talks. Absent were China, Russia, Australia, Japan, Canada, Germany and India.

Yet, just like Spanky Moon, there is a dreamlike quality to your expectations that this time in Paris, the Lazarus of Kyoto will rise again?

As you say, CAGW is indeed an intellectual argument, that is why people like you killed it off. The rational world will be grateful for your contributions, many thanks.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 October 2014 7:06:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL

Hi Spindoc, what part of

>>The intellectual battle is over and science wins again. As even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges, even in the USA, the most denialist country, THE BIGGEST DETERMINANT OF OPINION ON AGW IS AGE.>>

and

>>Science has won the intellectual battle. More and more decision makers - especially younger ones – believe the science. THERE'S NO POINT IN WASTING ENERGY ARGUING WITH DENIERS.>>

The deniers are mainly a bunch of old fogeys. As they retire, die or go gaga their places will be taken by people who – guess what? – believe the scientists.

But just a point of order:

You wrote:

>> this time in Paris, the Lazarus of Kyoto will rise again?>>

No sane person expects anything of the sort. The politicians and members of the climate celebrity circuit like that old fool Flannery may be fixated on climate treaties. The old fogey climate deniers may take pleasure in seeing negotiations collapse. But the rest of the world has moved on.

What's important is action on the ground. Cars and appliances are becoming more energy efficient. Thanks to advances in technology that seemed unimaginable at the beginning of this century renewables are now a growing part of the energy mix even in emerging economies such as China and India. It's this rather than treaties that are important.

It won't be a smooth process. As renewables grow the price of coal will fall making coal fired power cheaper again for a while. And I think some fossil fuels will always be part of the mix. But the curve is bending.

You may be interested in this from National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)

NIST Test House Exceeds Goal; Ends Year with Energy to Spare

http://www.nist.gov/el/nzertf/index.cfm

Local networks of houses like this with some local energy storage capacity may enable whole neighbourhoods to go off the grid.

As ever technology changes everything. Only a few old fogeys don't get that.

Have a great day :)
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 5 October 2014 11:25:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two further points:

About terminology.

I've used the word "denier" to describe climate "sceptics" so-called.

For a long time I hesitated because the word "denier" is inevitably linked to "Holocaust denier" and climate deniers are not in the same class. Mostly these days they're a bunch of older people whose time is past or soon will be.

But what do you call people who deny scientific evidence? There are evolution deniers, vaccination deniers and AGW deniers. Sometimes a denier is just a denier. It need have nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Implications for Australia.

Australia is the world's largest iron ore exporter. In 2013 iron ore exports generated $69 bn, about as much as coal, education and natural gas combined. Overall it accounted for 22% of export revenues.

By August 2014 the spot price of iron ore to China had fallen to $93 / ton. Still well above trend but down 50% from its peak of $187 at the beginning of 2011.

Coal, Australia's second biggest export revenue generator peaked at $125/ton in early 2012 and had fallen $74 / ton by the second half of 2014.

As the RBA concedes Australia's terms of trade are deteriorating. At its peak 50 tons of iron ore paid for a car import. Now it’s a 100 tons.

There are many reasons for the decline but here are two than make me believe prices for these two commodities won't recover any time soon.

The first is the trend towards lighter cars. Not necessarily smaller cars or less luxuriant cars but less massive cars. Since the motor industry is a large consumer of iron even a small cuts have a big impact on price.

The second is the growth of renewables and gas in electricity generation which is causing demand for coal to increase at a much slower pace than was expected.

So Australia needs to find other ways of paying its way. I'll leave it at that.

I doubt our politicians even understand the problem.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 5 October 2014 12:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy