<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for I’ve got the 450-ppm solution about right]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Karen Street http://www.grist.org/article/iea-report-part-2/ Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:27:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/iea-report-part-2/1 450 ppm

Joe, thanks for posting on this report.

I believe that IEA believes that it will be difficult to achieve this goal, not that the goal of a temperature increase of 2 - 2.4 C is sufficient. We learn from climatologists how big a temperature increase is OK, not from economists!

Of course, 13 GtC in 42 years is 15.5 wedges.

The nuclear addition would be 32 GW/year, say 24-25 1300 MW plants/year. One wedge nuclear would add 1,000 GW in 50 years. Since this plan would add that much in less than 32 years, it actually comes out to 1.6 wedges. Add in any of today's nuclear power plants anywhere in the world still operating in 2050 (most US plants are expected to last 60 years at least, and some are talking about 80 years), and that increases the nuclear contribution beyond 1.6 wedges.

It would be fantastic if you are right and that wind and solar can be added faster than IEA's estimate. Quite a bit of the renewables added aren't so wonderful, eg, about 12 GW of hydro/year, about 1/5 of Canada's capacity. The new hydro would likely supply more electricity than the new photovoltaic.

IEA does mention more than once how difficult even this will be to achieve: "A global revolution is needed," "Unprecedented levels of co-operation among all major economies," and "A dramatic shift is needed in government policies" are typical phrases highlighted in the report.

A Musing Environment

Karen Street

]]> 450 ppm

Joe, thanks for posting on this report.

I believe that IEA believes that it will be difficult to achieve this goal, not that the goal of a temperature increase of 2 - 2.4 C is sufficient. We learn from climatologists how big a temperature increase is OK, not from economists!

Of course, 13 GtC in 42 years is 15.5 wedges.

The nuclear addition would be 32 GW/year, say 24-25 1300 MW plants/year. One wedge nuclear would add 1,000 GW in 50 years. Since this plan would add that much in less than 32 years, it actually comes out to 1.6 wedges. Add in any of today's nuclear power plants anywhere in the world still operating in 2050 (most US plants are expected to last 60 years at least, and some are talking about 80 years), and that increases the nuclear contribution beyond 1.6 wedges.

It would be fantastic if you are right and that wind and solar can be added faster than IEA's estimate. Quite a bit of the renewables added aren't so wonderful, eg, about 12 GW of hydro/year, about 1/5 of Canada's capacity. The new hydro would likely supply more electricity than the new photovoltaic.

IEA does mention more than once how difficult even this will be to achieve: "A global revolution is needed," "Unprecedented levels of co-operation among all major economies," and "A dramatic shift is needed in government policies" are typical phrases highlighted in the report.

A Musing Environment

Karen Street

]]> Comment #2 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/iea-report-part-2/ Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:36:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/iea-report-part-2/2 Good, but by no means good enough

Good of you to have it right on the wrong goal.

The target is 350ppm, not 450ppm.

]]> Good, but by no means good enough

Good of you to have it right on the wrong goal.

The target is 350ppm, not 450ppm.

]]> Comment #3 by bigTom http://www.grist.org/article/iea-report-part-2/ Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:02:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/iea-report-part-2/3 renewable capacity?

  Unless one states whether intermittent renewables (solar, wind) are nameplate capacity or average expected output, one could be comparing apples to oranges. You are looking at peak (nameplate) capacities in your writing here, perhaps IEA is referring to nameplate time capacity factor. That could account for a factor of perhaps three or four. Even so I think they are being remarkably pessimistic about renewables. But if oil became as cheap as they claim, it would be hard for renewables to become competitive. So it may boil down to their use of hopelessly optimistic assumptions concerning the future price of oil. They are supposed to revise their official supply forecasts this fall perhaps they were required to only use the publicly released version in preparing this report? The hints are that future supply projections will be seriously downgraded.

]]> renewable capacity?

  Unless one states whether intermittent renewables (solar, wind) are nameplate capacity or average expected output, one could be comparing apples to oranges. You are looking at peak (nameplate) capacities in your writing here, perhaps IEA is referring to nameplate time capacity factor. That could account for a factor of perhaps three or four. Even so I think they are being remarkably pessimistic about renewables. But if oil became as cheap as they claim, it would be hard for renewables to become competitive. So it may boil down to their use of hopelessly optimistic assumptions concerning the future price of oil. They are supposed to revise their official supply forecasts this fall perhaps they were required to only use the publicly released version in preparing this report? The hints are that future supply projections will be seriously downgraded.

]]>