Climate Change III - The Power of Chaos

[KingAerys_II]

Someone should explain to activists that it's not possible to produce without HRSG power plants or Nuclear power plants, renewable energy is useful to spare the peak loads produced by gas turbine power plants.

There are renewable energy peaks that are wasted ,that's why European countries are going to make investments to produce green hydrogen

[Rippounet]

Spain is facing an exceptional heat wave (again):

Quote

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/climate-worries-begin-early-iberia-january-heats-up-2024-01-25/

The meteorology service expected temperatures to reach 28 degrees Celsius (82 Fahrenheit) in the Mediterranean region of Murcia and 24-26C in most of Andalusia in southern Spain, with many other parts of the country climbing to 20C - up to 10C above normal levels for the time of the year in some places.

 

For context, it was snowing in Paris last week.

The Washington Post says it's a global phenomenon (again):

Quote

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/

Record warmth is sweeping through multiple continents this week after 2023 made history as the world’s hottest year on record. Temperature records are falling on nearly every continent and could put 2024 on pace to challenge 2023′s exceptional heat.

Where it’s winter, the unusually warm temperatures are making it feel more like June than January. Where it’s summer, historic heat has surged well past 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Putting it all together, the global average temperature is at its highest level on record for late January.

The exceptional warmth — 20 to 30 degrees above normal in some places — stretches as far south as Australia and South Africa, and as far north as northern Asia. It’s being driven by a combination of weather and climate factors, including El Niño.

 

Why is this newsworthy? Because getting that kind of deviation (+10°C/+30°F) on such a regular basis when the global average is still around +1,2°C means the extremes will be truly scary at +2°C.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'll try to pull up the story after work but last month one of the major car rental companies announced they were doing away with all their electric vehicles due to the maintenance of them being too expensive. It was quite a high number being jettisoned, something like 40,000 I thought.

A little concerning, people in the auto industry have been saying getting replacement batteries is a huge issue as all the new batteries are dedicated for new sales and already major shortages just to keep up with that, leaving customers in a lurch if and when their existing batteries lose capacity with no easy option to replace or upgrade.

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'll try to pull up the story after work but last month one of the major car rental companies announced they were doing away with all their electric vehicles due to the maintenance of them being too expensive. It was quite a high number being jettisoned, something like 40,000 I thought.

A little concerning, people in the auto industry have been saying getting replacement batteries is a huge issue as all the new batteries are dedicated for new sales and already major shortages just to keep up with that, leaving customers in a lurch if and when their existing batteries lose capacity with no easy option to replace or upgrade.

Yep, it was linked above as well - Hertz is the company. The biggest problem was not that they needed repairs at a high rate compared to other cars - it was that the repair lag time was VERY long, and repairs were often expensive.

That said the battery life thing has gotten much better than it was. Teslas routinely lose only 10% battery life over 200k miles. Much better than the Leaf, which loses 50% over 80k. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Total US cattle herd drops to lowest level since 1951 - USDA | Nasdaq

Quote

Total US cattle herd drops to lowest level since 1951 - USDA

CHICAGO, Jan 31 (Reuters) - The total number of U.S. cattle fell to its lowest level since 1951 as of Jan. 1, in the herd's fifth consecutive year of decline, U.S. Department of Agriculture data showed on Wednesday.

Ranchers have slashed their herds as dry weather in the western U.S. reduced the land available for grazing and raised feeding costs, tightening cattle supplies and pushing up beef prices.

Interesting. I wonder if global warming is basically going to force methane emitting animal farming to diminish as the areas of the world that can sustain such farming reduce because of hot and dry conditions, esp in areas that were pretty marginal before there were any significant warming effects. US cattle herd (dairy and beef) has been on a declining trend since 1998, and currently sits at about 10% below the 1998 level. So long as the fossil fuel burning sectors do their bit ruminant farming only needs to decrease somewhat as a GW mitigation. Since the world has been so bad at dealing with fossil emissions the farming side might not need a whole lot of deliberate action because the attrition will happen automatically. Though reducing emissions per animal through various scientific advancements should definitely continue.

Of course the above article comes from the perspective that this drop is not good and talks hopefully about the herd size going back up, but even if it does bounce up a bit I don't see the numbers getting close to the 1998 level again.

[ThinkerX]

I suppose this would (sort of) help the situation in central Western Europe. Northern Europe, though, might end up about on par with my currently frozen corner of the globe.

That said, I am inclined to add this one to the 'more study needed' pile.

 

Atlantic Ocean is headed for a tipping point − once melting glaciers shut down the Gulf Stream, we would see extreme climate change within decades, study shows (msn.com)

 

[The Anti-Targ]

If this is all true, no wonder we're headed off a global warming cliff, esp the bit about natural gas not really having lower emissions than coal.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^News that probably pissed off a few furloughed coal miners who"ve long been told the transition from coal to gas was necessary because it was superior for the environment and that thier jobs were just outdated and more harmful because the coal was so much worse than nat. gas.

Ooopsies.

[The Anti-Targ]

Which of course was mostly a narrative pedaled by the oil and gas industry as a way to funnel profits away from coal and into gas. Real global warming activists wanted to skip gas and go straight from coal to fully non-emitting power sources. Real real global warming activists wanted investment in nuclear as well as solar, wind, hydro and geothermal.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think or hope that in the futures people smarter than I can engineer ways to neutralize things like "forever chems and plutonium" so that we dont have to contend with the nuclear byproduct/waste being so toxic for millenium.

That seems to be the major inhibitor from going wide scale with nuclear energy generation.

I have to believe its a solveable challenge.

 

[Luzifer's right hand]

12 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

^^^News that probably pissed off a few furloughed coal miners who"ve long been told the transition from coal to gas was necessary because it was superior for the environment and that thier jobs were just outdated and more harmful because the coal was so much worse than nat. gas.

Ooopsies.

There is not doubt that it is superior because buring it releases far less particulates and other pollutants. Also less CO2.

But any solution that still releases CO2 is insufficient.

Any regional improvements are more than offset by the growing global population and outsourcing of emmisons to other countries.

Global CO2 emissions are still increasing and only global economic crisises have caused years with less emissions then the previous years with COVID measures having the most positive effect.

Edited February 17 by Luzifer's right hand
formatting hell

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

There is not doubt that it is superior because buring it releases far less particulates and other pollutants. Also less CO2.

I must've misunderstood the video then, because she insinuated that the net result of CO2 emissions were no better than coal when you measured the whole production and use chain.

[Luzifer's right hand]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I must've misunderstood the video then, because she insinuated that the net result of CO2 emissions were no better than coal when you measured the whole production and use chain.

I did not watch the video.

But I usually only read about lignite vs. natural gas because I mainly read German language sources and in that case I have not read anything that suggests natural gas is not better than coal. Even fraking is better than surface mined lignite measured across the whole chain according to the stuff I have read.

But I'm not saying the video posted is wrong.

[Lord of Oop North]

20 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

I did not watch the video.

But I usually only read about lignite vs. natural gas because I mainly read German language sources and in that case I have not read anything that suggests natural gas is not better than coal. Even fraking is better than surface mined lignite measured across the whole chain according to the stuff I have read.

But I'm not saying the video posted is wrong.

I haven't watched the video, but it may be based on a study that NPR reported on this past summer, where they analyzed the energy emissions overall. They found that when methane leakage rates were taken into account, the overall emissions were basically the same. However, I don't believe the study said anything about other particulates that are released, which I am sure are worse with coal.

Here in Ontario, after they shutdown the coal plants, the smog problem ended.

[The Anti-Targ]

Yes I understand it was strictly about GHGs, not pollution in general. De-smoggifying the local environment is a good reason by itself for converting from coal to gas, assuming you can't make coal plants burn a lot cleaner, so what this study does is suggest that when doing a cost/benefit on whether to go from coal to gas reducing GHG emission per MW shouldn't be included as one of the benefits of changing.

[DireWolfSpirit]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:14 PM, Lord of Oop North said:

Here in Ontario, after they shutdown the coal plants, the smog problem ended.

You still managed to export us plenty of choking forest fire clouds last summer though, all the way over to Wisconsin.

A sequence of conditions that climate change also probably had a hand in ironically.

Eta:

Maybe a case of Re-Gifting?

Edited February 19 by DireWolfSpirit

[The Anti-Targ]

This is going to be interesting. I'm guessing this kind of action needs a country to have emissions laws with specific targets and timelines on the books, otherwise there's nothing to sue over.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018926685/world-first-climate-action-in-nz-s-top-court

Quote

World-first climate action in NZ's top court

The world is watching for the outcome of a unique climate change case in front of our Supreme Court that will expose the actions - or lack of them - of our biggest polluters 

The bosses of several of our biggest polluting companies will soon be under the microscope when they take the stand in the High Court and reveal what they are doing about their carbon footprints.

"This is one of the most significant climate change cases that New Zealand has ever experienced," says Auckland University associate law professor Vernon Rive, an expert in climate change law. "We're all on the edge of our seat."

Seven companies - Fonterra, Z Energy, Genesis, Dairy Holdings, NZ Steel, Channel Infrastructure and BT Mining - are being taken to the High Court by Northland leader Mike Smith, of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu, over their greenhouse gas emissions.

It follows a landmark unanimous decision earlier this month by the Supreme Court that Smith had the right to sue the seven, going against previous decisions by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

The decision surprised many in the sector.

"Until the Supreme Court's decision the general thinking was that you couldn't bring a court claim against another person for their greenhouse gas emissions," says Blair Keown, who is a partner at Bell Gully which is involved in the case. "If you did it would be struck out before going to trial."

Keown says the case is the first of its kind in the world and it is being closely watched here and overseas.

Of course a govt could swoop in an change or repeal the law to save the polluters. I guess we'll see what all those campaign contribution buys them if the case starts to look bad for the polluters.

[ThinkerX]

I have difficulty accepting the validity of this survey. Perhaps there are one or more major systemic errors. If accurate, though, the climate change deniers are far, far more numerous across the globe than I'd thought.

 

The other thing that feeds into the 'climate change is a hoax' bit is the modest successes in reducing climate change via the likes of 'green energy' and energy efficiency. These partial mitigations, never acknowledged by the deniers, offer false evidence to support their claims of 'situation normal.'

I can't link to the article for unclear reasons, but...

The researchers looked at an impressive 7.4 million tweets from 1.3 million Americans from 2017 to 2019. An open language AI helped them to classify the posts as "for" or "against" climate change.

The Michigan University study found that the highest concentration of climate change deniers was found in the central and southern United States. Furthermore, there were more Republican voters who did not believe in the science behind global warming than Democrats.

They based their data on a SAP and Qualtrics survey asking over 10,000 people in 30 countries, "How much do you trust what scientists say about the environment?" Can you guess which country was the most sceptical about what scientists have to say is happening with our planet?

The study found that only 23% of Russians trusted what scientists said about the environment. That means 77% of Russians do not trust climate scientists, which is a pretty high percentage of doubters!

The next most sceptical country regarding scientists and the environment was Japan. According to the study, only 25% of Japanese respondents said they trusted climate scientists, so 75% do not.

The next most sceptical countries were: Ukraine, with only 33% trusting scientists, the United States, with 45% and France, with 47%.

North of the United States in Canada, 51% of Canadians said they trusted what scientiests said about the environment "a great deal or a lot." Poland and Germany also had 51% of respondents say the same.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

I think there are loads of people out there who know global warming is happening and that humans are behind it, but they don't necessarily trust everything the climate science community is saying about it. And there's the don't look up component. People don't want to believe it's as bad as it is, so they will try to dismiss more dire bits of scientific news. I can easily imagine this group of people being reluctant to believe the scientists talking about how bad it is, but holding fast to what is said by scientists who proclaim technology will deliver us the magical solution before anything gets really bad.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Im pretty interested in following the consumer uptake with EV models this year and the next 5 years to gain a better sense of where the trend actually is.

The forecasts seem to be quite a bit different from one report to the next.