Climate links for Martin

[shedpete]

Sustainable energy without hot air for 'numbers not adjectives':

http://www.withouthotair.com

Proportions of global energy supply:

Comments

[steer]

I'd be a bit careful of that "without hot air" site -- it does contain some willful misinformation. The author is pretty cunning about what he hides.

For example, that huge chunk of renewables -- that looks like code words for "incinerating waste" which is hardly eco-friendly or renewable. I could be wrong but it would not be out of character for the author to twist the argument like that.

For me that "withouthotair" site should be labelled -- "with carefully chosen numbers to support the author's frighteningly misinformed views".

[shedpete]

The pie chart is from the International Energy Agency not the Hot Air book. Follow the Brave New Climate link for more details and discussion - FWIW their point is that once you cut out that huge chunk of wood, dung etc burning, the 'high tech' renewables are barely significant (the chap behind BNC is a fan of next-gen nuclear...)

The Hot Air thing does have its flaws - e.g. no serious consideration of conservation/demand management measures (at least when I read it in draft form some time ago), and gross simplifications - but seemed useful to me as a ballpark quantitative look at the possibilities. What are your main problems with it?

[steer]

Ah... fair enough. That graph does, indeed, show that renewables in the sense that we think of them aren't really contributing much at all as yet. I was worried it might be being used in a "hey, look, loads of renewables going on, what are we worried about" sort of way. Yes, it is right to say that renewables (as most people think of them) are not a big chunk. Serves me right for not finding the source and argument surrounding it

[randomstring]

Interesting to see renewables are more than nuclear. Be interesting to see those figures for the UK, then Germany and Denmark to see how much they generate from wind.

[shedpete]

As Steer says, that 'renewables' chunk is mainly wood/crop residue/dung burning, so renewable only to a degree.

[steer]

Denmark is 19.7% wind powered (I just commented below) germany I think they say is 6%.

[steer]

From "Brave new Climate"

Meanwhile people are willing to claim that ten years would be enough to get to 10-15% wind power in places like Australia and the US, despite the fact that 25 years has brought Germany to about 6-7% with massive subsidies.

But Denmark is at 20% wind power already (well strictly 19.7).

That said, I do believe nuclear power should be part of a CO2 friendly future energy system.

[shedpete]

"But Denmark is at 20% wind power already (well strictly 19.7)."

Er, that's % of electricity not of total energy... and according to (ahem) Wikipedia Denmark also imports electricity too, so it's not even 19.7% of electricity actually used, rather of electricity generated - they say it's 10-14% of usage. Add in heating and oil for transport and I bet the percentage of the total from renewables is in low single figures.

Just took a look. Danish Energy Agency http://www.ens.dk/sw16508.asp says "Observed energy consumption in 2007 was calculated at 863 PJ" and in the first table of the stats PDF they show wind & hydro together produced just over 25 PJ in that year - I make that around 3%.

Much better than the global situation but still...

[steer]

I was comparing "like with like". The German figure of "only 6-7%" is also for electricity generation.

I think it is reasonable to express wind power as a percentage of electricity generated not as a percentage of total power budget. Otherwise you end up with rhetorical tricks like being able to claim that wind power is only ever theoretically capable of meeting 1/3 of our energy needs (because 2/3 are not needs for electricity at the current time).

they say it's 10-14% of usage. That's a fair point however

[shedpete]

"I was comparing "like with like". The German figure of "only 6-7%" is also for electricity generation

[steer]

Oh yes -- by the way -- tremendous attack of "the dumb" from "Brave New Climate":

At a growth rate of 48.1% p.a. over a 33 year period, wind power has staggered up to 0.064% of total energy supply... Meanwhile people are willing to claim that ten years would be enough to get to 10-15% wind power in places like Australia and the US

At a growth rate of 48.1% p.a. wind power will give 50% of the world's total energy supply in only 17 years (unless I've slipped a decimal somewhere -- 0.064 * 1.48^17 > 50). I don't believe this will happen but it shows what kind of lack of analysis you're dealing with on the "Brave New Climate" blog. If you express the figures in a super misleading way you will get super misleading beliefs from them.

[shedpete]

"At a growth rate of 48.1% p.a. wind power will give 50% of the world's total energy supply in only 17 years..."

But that growth rate would be impossible to sustain to its mathematical conclusion due to e.g. land area available limits. His original quote seems a fair enough way of stating the point that if you start from a vanishingly small base, even large growth rates don't get you very far very fast. Why is it misleading?

There are lots of crap climate blogs, sure, but BNC is fairly serious:

http://bravenewclimate.com/about/

[steer]

But that growth rate would be impossible to sustain to its mathematical conclusion

Of course -- I just found it ironic that the very figures he was using to show that of course it was stupid to believe that wind power could ever be significant if taken at face value in fact showed that wind power would be astoundingly significant in a short space of time if taken at face value.

There are lots of crap climate blogs, sure, but BNC is fairly serious:

Perhaps I am being over harsh but there were a couple of howlers in that particular link.

[ravensthorpe]

Alex Cox on Fusion was here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hr6bk

...but is no longer available. Well worth a look if the series gets repeated.