Comments Green Texan has made

any need for storage?

KenG said:

"using hydro to level renewables is a good idea, as far as it goes. However, hydro is, if I remember correctly, only about 8% of total generation so I would guess dedicating hydro to leveling would only allow wind/solar to contribute two or three times that, so renewables would still only be about 30% of total generation."

Interesting observation about the limits of using hydro to level out fluctuating wind and solar. How does Ken figure what the proportions of hydro to other renewables would need to be?

Another renewable supply possibility that seems large is 'dry rock' geothermal. This involves pumping water down a well and using steam that is so generated to turn a turbine.  This is distinct from tapping into 'hot water' stored in a geologic formation -- a la geysers  -- which is a far more limited resource, both geographically and in amount.

MIT recently did a study of the potential. The western US is the best, with certain areas of very hot volcanic rock lying close to the surface.  However, the potential is there all over if you can drill deep enough. The costs were reported to be seemingly within reach of other conventional power options.

Is this also a possible "instant-on" gap filler that could function during the times when the solar or wind output dies down?On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 8 months ago 36 Responses

"blind alley" ? or eyes wide shut?

CC & S doesn't need a subsidy; it needs to be a regulatory mandate for new coal plants.

Yes, it's expensive; that's what will improve the relative economics of the renewable alternatives and speed their introduction.

Also, carbon dioxide injection into an oil bearing strata would seem to allow for successful sequestration, considering that natural gas in such formations has already been held underground without leakage for millions of years.

Yes, it's not anything more than transitional technology; but as such it's needed.  It's not the ultimate destination, but it can help us get there.On The blind alley of more coal posted 1 year, 8 months ago 19 Responses

your extremist ideology is not science

so, Jon boy, you have not refuted that:

the Earth is warmer than the moon b/c it has air;

the only parts of the air that trap heat are water vapor, CO2 and other trace gases;

the amt of CO2 has gone up since the industrial revolution b/c of burning fossil fuels;

so why can't you infer that increasing gases that cause warming wouldn't also increase average temperatures?  Where have you proved the contrary? It's simple logic.

because there are anomalously cold months does not disprove a general warming trend.  In fact, the opposite. Because the warm season lasts longer and is hotter, the timing of the seasons is thrown off.  The cold season starts later and is more severe.   All of the computer models show not a uniform warming, but rather more severe and frequent episodes of wind, rain, and drought, because extra heat is the fuel that drives the weather "engine."

But even so, there will always be seeming exceptions, explainable by the fact that they are single episodes, not generalized trends.  The burden of proof should be on those that deny the predominant theory of anthropogenic warming to explain how increasing greenhouse gases don't result in the predicted effects.

no one could "prove" the Earth was round by direct observation until we went all the way around it and/or were able to observe it from space. what seems like common sense today was not directly observable in most persons' everyday experience.

Similarly, we won't be able to "prove" manmade warming by observation directly in the manner you seem to demand until we've already done it -- when it's too late to correct the damage.

We don't have a second 'control' Earth we can manipulate and compare against an unmanipulated Earth, in the manner of a laboratory experiment.  Thus, we simply have to accept reasonable inferences based on the available observations.

Sure, climate changes continuously in small gradual ways by natural forces. Sometimes the change is relatively rapid, but generally nowhere near as rapid as we are observing.

but let's just say that you're right (far right) and that I'm wrong -- let's just assume for sake of the argument that there is no reason to reduce carbon combustion in order to deal responsibly w/ rapid climate change.

in that case, gee, we get side effects from this 'unnecessary' policy I advocate of shrinking carbon emissions of also at the same time reducing: oil imports, exposure to Mideast wars and terrorism, oil spills, acid rain, strip mines that destroy hundreds of square miles, cancers from petrochemical plants, and increased morbidity and mortality from water and air pollution.  

So if I'm wrong, what happens as a result is good stuff that we ought to be doing anyway.  And if you're wrong, disaster gets wrought upon future generations.

you seem obsessed w/ imaginary "liberal" plots which you further equate to communism, socialism, 'whatever-ism.'  But science is neither left nor right.  Why should there be a conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists including climatologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc.?  

If you have any evidence of such a conspiracy then prove it instead of name-calling.  I don't believe you can.On Climate skeptic tries to throw cold water on global warming, gets all wet posted 1 year, 8 months ago 23 Responses

best price results from a carbon ban

In light of the huge uncertainties; high likelihood we are still underestimating the probable damages to the biosphere; and the hugely destructive consequences if we get the climate policy wrong, the appropriate discount rate is zero and the appropriate level of emissions is zero.

So the economistic frame of understanding this problem collapses entirely.

The "right price" cannot be known except in reference to achieving the right goal.

So the way to get there is to enact a carbon emission ban under the framework of requiring best available technology to avoid emissions.  Then the 'magic of the market' will determine the best, cheapest way to get to the goal & price accordingly.

We don't get to "wonk out" over hypothetical nonsense & we get to home in on the heart of the issue: that it's not moral to bequeath a wrecked climate to our successors.On No sensible warming response can exclude carbon pricing posted 1 year, 8 months ago 50 Responses

"small amount" of CO2 has big effect

"I think the only deniers are the ones who believe man can destroy the world with a small amount of Co2."

Responding to this comment:

There's been a greater than 50 percent increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Age began.

There is little reason to deny that burning fossil fuels put this excess there. There is no other reasonable explanation.  And asserting the contrary -- exactly where did the carbon released by combustion go, if not into the air?

CO2 is a small fraction of the overall atmosphere -- true--yet there has been a demonstrably very large addition to this very small part. all added in a geologically very short time period, caused by human beings.  Does this extra carbon dioxide in the air have provable effects?

Conclusive proof that the atmosphere traps heat:

The Moon & Earth are at the same distance from the sun -- yet the moon has an average zero temperature while the earth averages 70 degrees.  Air traps heat, just like a blanket.

But, not ALL gases trap heat. The greatest bulk of the atmosphere -- more than 90 percent--that is nitrogen and oxygen does not. Their greenhouse effects are neutral or absent.  

Besides water vapor, only a few trace gases --  principally CO2 -- have this heat-trapping effect. How do we know this?  Scientists have made artificial atmospheres in a laboratory and varied the compositions of the gases to find out which trap heat and which do not.

So yes, shifting the composition of the atmosphere  by just a few fractions of a percent towards more greenhouse gases logically will have large effects.

Then, of course, the 'denial' argument shifts to the impacts -- not whether climate change is happening or not.  What's wrong w/ a little bit of warming, they say.  I would like to be able to go outside in January in Albany w/o a coat, they say.

Turns out quite a bit is wrong w/ the general warming trend -- starting w/ the huge sea level rise, then continuing on to more and more severe weather extremes like droughts and hurricanes happening more and more often.

we can probably adapt to incremental climate changes though (we will have to, b/c this human-caused climate change is very likely to be irreversible over the time frame of the next several centuries).

To me, the real threat is NOT a gradual and steady change that we can adapt to -- instead the emerging threat is a discontinuous, rapid and unpredictable change.

Beyond that, it doesn't seem impossible that there could come to be complete climate chaos, which would be a severe problem indeed.  

Imagine not being able to plant crops on any kind of predictable schedule whatever, and then you will comprehend the kind of severe risk we are running by continued inaction against anthropogenic climate change.On Climate skeptic tries to throw cold water on global warming, gets all wet posted 1 year, 9 months ago 23 Responses

a possible path forward

My focus is not just on what is the technically or economically best, but also the most politically feasible way to quickly bring down carbon emissions.

I think the environmental movement could home in on new proposed coal plants, demanding that utilities use available zero carbon emission options.

If coal gasification/carbon sequestration really is a technically possible, but more expensive option -- as it appears -- then this demand gives an automatic incentive to develop non-carbon alternatives instead.  

Renewables & efficiency will generally be more cost competitive versus the cleaner coal.  So, to me, in taking this path, there really is no contradiction between advocating for both development of cleaner coal and alternatives. We focus on the emissions, not the method used to get rid of them.

We can profess to be agnostic about which option is chosen, confident that it gives incentive to pick one or the other that prevents carbon emission altogether.

And if a utility for whatever reason, chooses to go forward w/ the "clean coal" option rather than renewables or nuclear, then there is no need for the govt to subsidize that option to make it competitive.  All utilities would be on equal footing, under the same mandate to do zero carbon.

Of course, then the battleground shifts to halting emissions of existing power plants. However, two things about a "new plant" mandate: the feasibility of halting carbon emissions will have been demonstrated, & that will add to the pressure to do something w/ old "grandfathered" plants; plus the cost impact of phasing in new cleaner technology (of whatever type) will be reduced by averaging in the costs of the new technology w/ the older, cheaper fossil plants.On Coal gasification: "clean coal" or subsidy-hungry boondoggle? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 12 Responses