BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-27, 13:46, said:

Can't open Forbes site without turning off adblocker. Could you quote the most important passage perhaps?

Zelandakh, on 2017-June-27, 16:25, said:

Your wish is my command. . . .


On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

Subsidies then decreased dramatically from 2013 to 2016, because:

• tax incentives expired for biofuels,

• the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were used up,

• energy assistance funds decreased,

• there was a 15% decrease in fossil fuel subsidies from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and

• a 12% decrease in nuclear subsidies from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

But the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are indirect subsidies like decommissioning and insurance assistance, leasing of federal lands, and other externalities, unlike the subsidies for renewables which are directly for the production of electricity and directly affect cost and pricing.

Within the renewables, electricity-related subsidies increased more than 50% for wind and solar, whereas conservation, end-use, and biofuel subsidies deceased more than 50%. This is unfortunate since conservation and efficiency usually yield great results with little cost or infrastructure requirements.

The Institute for Energy Research and the University of Texas calculated the subsidies per unit of energy produced, or cents per kWh. This is a more relevant number for comparing different energy sources as it normalizes to the amount of energy produced (see figure above).

Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all years.

Much of the subsidies in 2010 and 2013 resulted from ARRA stimulus funding following the economic crash of 2008 and the end of ARRA is why the 2016 and 2019 numbers are so much lower.

Solar also gets the most state-funded subsidies, some of which greatly exceed the federal subsidies. In my own State of Washington, where electricity prices are 8¢/kWh, the State pays me 54¢ for every kWh generated by my rooftop solar array, whether I use it or not. This has made my total electricity costs -7¢/kWh over the past two years, and will for the foreseeable future.

Yes, that’s negative (-)7¢ per kWh. And this is on top of my 30% installation federal tax credit which came to about $6,000 for my 4 kW array.

There is no doubt that these subsidies incentivize renewables, but what do they do to the cost of the electricity generated by them?

They actually increase the cost. However, this cost is transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and so goes unnoticed by most Americans.

Using the per-kWh subsidy numbers from EIA and UT in the figure above, each kWh of solar produced in 2010 received 88¢, more than ten times the actual cost of any other energy source. These subsidies have to be added to the retail cost of that energy to determine total costs since that’s what was actually spent to produce it.

So in 2010 and 2011, solar cost about 100¢ per kWh, and in 2013 and 2014, solar cost about 80¢ per kWh. Even after the ARRA funds were depleted after 2013, the cost of solar is still double what is usually given as its cost.

For comparison, nuclear energy cost between 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce over this time period. Remember, though, the cost to produce energy is not the same as the price charged for it. Price is set by the region and the market, and has add-ons for transmission, grid maintenance and other non-production costs. Subsidies decrease the price while increasing the cost.

Although wind received more total subsidies, wind received much less subsidies per kWh produced than solar as it produced much more energy. However, it is nonetheless significant for 2010 and 2013 and about 50 times that of nuclear and fossil fuels, allowing wholesale prices for wind and solar to become negative, unfairly undercutting nuclear, hydro and coal prices.

These subsidies for wind and solar will likely continue under the Trump Administration. Red States receive more of these subsidies than Blue States, so Congress is unlikely to kill them. In fact, in 2015 Congress extended the renewable tax credits to 2021.

Although nuclear energy gets very little federal subsidies, and almost no subsidies from the states, that may be changing. States like New York and Illinois are struggling with the closure of perfectly good low-cost nuclear plants because of subsidized renewables and low-cost natural gas, foiling their state’s emissions targets and laying off thousands of high-paid workers.

This is important since these subsidies have warped the wholesale electricity markets, causing negative pricing in some markets and threatening the closure of lone merchant nuclear power plants that don’t, but should, have similar subsidies to renewables. Especially since nuclear turns out to be as renewable as wind.



Exelon is discussing legislative solutions with stakeholders that could secure the future of its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, and some of their other plants in other states. The utility hopes that "anything and everything hopefully will be on the table for discussion," said David Fein, vice president for state government affairs.

Unfortunately, this ideological disregard of nuclear as a low-carbon source has meant that there has been little substantial effect of renewables on emissions. From 2000, the point where renewables started to kick into high gear worldwide, to the present, the growth in renewables (18% to 23% of total electricity production globally) has merely offset the decline in nuclear (17% to 10% of total electricity production globally), with little net decrease in carbon emissions (see figure above).

On the other hand, nuclear energy is beginning to rise again in the world. As Eric Hanson notes, "For the second year in a row, ten new nuclear reactors started to generate electricity in 2016, the highest number since the 1980s, according to the 2017 edition of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Reactors in the World."

However, until we promote all low-carbon sources the same, I can’t see how we achieve our critical environmental goals in time to make any difference to the planet.

The Post has a piece from Ben Santer today with a good description of how scientists -- including climate scientists -- work. The article also expresses the determination of a scientist forced to confront the forces of ignorance: I’m a climate scientist. And I’m not letting trickle-down ignorance win.

Quote

The Trump vs. climate science nightmare reminds me of other slowly unfolding disasters unleashed by my own government. In 1963, for example, it was clear that the US was slowly moving into a disaster in Vietnam, yet no one was able to stop it. The same was true of the US attacking on Iraq in 2003 instead of coming down on those who attacked the US on 9/11. In both those cases, though,, there were folks who -- in the beginning, at least -- imagined that the US was doing the right thing.

Now we have a situation with global warming that affects everyone on earth, and the potential consequences are much worse than those of the Vietnam and Iraq wars. What's more, everyone knows that to be the case, except for a few crackpots and pinheads. Nevertheless, some of those crackpots -- cheered on by dishonest beneficiaries of the status quo -- have gotten into position to warp the US commitment to work together to mitigate the damage of global warming. This is another slow-motion nightmare, and it's past time to wake up.

The same Ben Santer that changed the 1995 attribution statement from no discernable effect to mankind having an influence?

The same Ben Santer that said that 15 years of no global temperature rise would falsify the (his) models and them changed it to 17 when 15 years had passed?

The same Ben Santer who,in the climategate emails, said that he wanted to do bodily harm to opponents of his stance on global warming?

Yup, just a typical climate scientist, for sure...

PassedOut, on 2017-July-05, 10:16, said:

Sorry passedOut but that is simply a misclassification of the situation. I think it would be very difficult to classify a renowned scientist such as Judith Curry as a crackpot or pinhead. Here are some recent Q&As from her web site:-

Quote

And here is another recent article from her discussing some of the uncertainties behind the climate science.

Notice that there are no extreme claims such as "there is no AGW" on the one side or "the science is settled" on the other - genuinely good scientists do not make statements like this so you should treat those that do particularly skeptically - nor even a moderate one for skeptic like "man is responsible for less than half of the warming". Her position seems to me completely reasonable, just more cautious about the level of evidence currently available than activist scientists would like. So tell me again, what are the consequences of minimal action (eg continuing the slow move towards cleaner energy sources) that you know (100%) will occur? Forget "potential consequences" - one of the potential consequences of orbiting the Sun is that we collide with a dark asteroid next week wiping out all life on Earth. Playing the potential disaster card has little to do with science.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-06, 06:27, said:

That's where we differ -- it's precisely the potential consequences that cannot be forgotten or ignored.

No one knows "100%" what will occur, and I certainly hope that whatever is actually done in fact does not turn the situation into a catastrophe. But we do know that pumping billions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year causes at least a portion of global warming, and that portion is under mankind's control. Your "dark asteroid" is not. We don't know for sure exactly what will happen when, for example, melting of the permafrost releases more and more methane into the atmosphere. We do know that the rapid and potentially irreversible melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica would be a catastrophe.

It's a mistake to forget about potential consequences -- even when those consequences are not certain to happen -- if those potential consequences are catastrophic and we have ways to address them. I didn't lump Judith Curry with the crackpots and pinheads (and you know that), and it's always right for scientists to question, criticize, examine, and refine. The issue here is about mitigating risk.

PassedOut, on 2017-July-06, 07:45, said:

And that mitigation's relative importance is measured how? Dollar value? Less tangible parameters? What price compliance.? Any price? Our entire GNP for how many degrees C? Can we be more specific than spewing and we're all gonna die?

Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-06, 15:54, said:

No one says "we're all gonna die." Only alarmists who fear free markets throw out foolishness like "our entire GNP."

Zel, I am curious: do you know what the greenhouse gas effect is and how it works precisely?

cherdano, on 2017-July-06, 18:16, said:

As it happens I do, perhaps not perfectly in terms of the precise mechanisms behind stratoshperic cooling and other upper atmosphere heat transfer effects but well enough. Very early on I naively looked up the greenhouse effect for CO2 and was shocked to find out how negligible it is once the proportion of gas gets above a certain level. Thankfully I did not stop there but looked further into feedbacks, which is to some extent the secret of the whole thing. If the only issue was the direct greenhouse effect, AIU would be correct for the most part.

The problem that JC and others raise is that these feedbacks can be modelled in many different ways. And inputs from such natural forces as clouds and ocean currents are also still not really known. The result is that it is difficult to separate the natural from human activity and thereby pinpoint an exact sensitivity for the overall effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And this sensitivity turns out to be critical when it comes to the models. In fact, the long term trend in models tends to match the built-in sensitivity almost precisely, with much of the complexity serving as noise around this trend line.

My view has for some time been that we have the technology available to resolve the issue, for example through aeroforming devices (artificial trees). Rather the question is about who ends up footing the bill. I do try to keep abreast of advances in climate science though and tend to go through a mass overview every few years in addition to scanning some key websites that I keep as favourites every now and then. What I object to is when people publish a chart, paper or article and try to claim it says something beyond what it does. Climate science is an area that has few absolutes. Different sources very often contradict each other and there are serious issues with the reliability of some of the statistics used.

On BBF, obviously AIU is the chief abuser of this and that is why I perhaps sometimes come across on the pro side. However, I am just as willing to post something on the skeptical side when I see someone overstepping the bounds. I do wish that more links to balanced articles were posted here but as everyone else seems to have a fairly polar position by now, the chances of this becoming a regular occurrence seem to have faded beyond hope.

PassedOut, on 2017-July-06, 16:38, said:

So, would you be willing to spend 2 billion to save 2 million children from....malaria?

How about 2 trillion to save 50 million climate "refugees"? (That MAY be created IF modeled, worst case scenarios, come to pass in a thermagheddon end-of-humanity-as-we-know-it)

Think of all those children, who are all gonna die, if we don't (and haven't to date) take the necessary steps because the free market is spending elsewhere.

Hyperbole notwithstanding, the kids are real and so is their plight.

Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-05, 20:49, said:

I see that there's an article about you in the Guardian: Doubts about the science are being replaced by doubts about the motives of scientists and their political supporters.

Quote

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-07, 05:07, said:

That technology is promising, for sure, but I'm skeptical about whether it will "resolve the issue" if the temperatures start to escalate rapidly, with large methane releases from the melting permafrost and with greater heat absorption following the loss of snow cover and arctic ice. And even if this (and other) technologies do resolve the issue in the future, that approach amounts to forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for devices needed to clean up after our irresponsible behavior, diverting money that they could use to advance their own interests.

In my experience, it's unwise to place a great deal of trust in untried technologies, however promising they seem. To me, the fact that we can't say for certain that the eventual impact of our releases won't lead to catastrophic melting argues against taking that risk.

PassedOut, on 2017-July-06, 07:45, said:

Potential consequences should indeed not be ignored but they should be weighed against the probability of their occurrence and against the cost of taking out insurance against the event happening. This is after all why nuclear power stations are being built even though the potential consequences of failure are higher than most alternatives and, on a more mundane level, why we might choose to fly rather than taking the train.

The "billions of tons" expression is a favourite of yours and is generally employed to provoke an emotional response. Of course there are many things that man does that impact on the environment - about 8 million tons of plastic dumped in the ocean every year with a total of about 5 trillion pieces floating about; increasing levels of dichloromethane in the atmosphere; the effects of fertlisers, herbicides and pesticides on rivers and other waterways; the usage of antibiotics leading to the creation of more potent and resilient forms of disease; acid rain (the forgotten effect of fossil fuel burning); electromagnetic fields generated in urban areas; slash and burn farming; and many, many more.

Look into many areas and the potential consequences are terrible. Nuclear weapons can go missing, biological agents can escape containment, lottery software can get cracked allowing a rogue organisation to obtain billions of dollars. Should the USA therefore scrap all of its weapons, stores of diseases and state lotteries? Sometimes the known risks of taking preventative measures are greater than the potential consequences of not doing so.

Now I am not saying that that is the case for climate change. What I am saying is that such decisions have to be made understanding what the risks and probabilities are and without allowing emotive but meaningless arguments to sway the case. Those that deal in absolutes are missing the point. Even the IPCC grossly overstates their certainties in many areas imho. What would be great is if scientists were able to discuss the issue without the political backdrop but sadly it seems as if that ship has long since sailed. Therefore I regard the work of JC, arguably the most distinguished scientist on the skeptical side, as highly valuable and practically essential reading for anyone strongly interested in the subject.

The link I provided at her website is one that discusses these risks and uncertainties in some degree of detail. Rather than repeat large chunks of that article, I would suggest that you read it. In particular, the 3 further links that JC provides relating to "fat tails" might of particular interest to you:-
Tall tales and fat tails
Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail
Worst case scenario versus fat tail

...and in addition this one, which refers to climate change alarmism. This is a large and difficult area but one in which JC is particularly active. It was indeed the original basis for her creating her website. It would be wrong for me to say that I personally have a complete understanding of all of the probabilities and uncertainties (I'm a maths graduate not a computer) but at least these articles should provide us with some sort of frame of reference for further discussion if you want to continue this. If nothing else, it has to be more interesting than 2 year old graphs being posted without reference to their origin or sources.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-07, 08:37, said:

Zel,
I tend to agree. The "potential" consequences are all over the place. One could even compare it to North Korea and its ICBMs. The potential consequences are catastrophic, but the possibility of them occuring are largely unknown. Should we strike first, to prevent a "potential" castrophe? The consequences of such an action are better known, but are they preferred over doing nothing?

Climate action is similar, perhaps even less certain. While we know the consequences of a North Korean first strike, we do not know the outcome of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Many scientists claim that the negative effects of increased levels will not overcome the positive effects, until global temperatures rise ~1.8C. We are not even sure what CO2 level would prompt such a rise. Many proposals to combat rising CO2 levels are lacking in details. How can we accomplish such goals, without the needed understanding. Without a viable alternative, going completely carbon-free in global energy production would be a disaster for all. Our infrastructure would crumble. Committing to a 50% reduction, which would double or triple energy costs is better, but still rather burdensome on those who can least afford it. Perhaps some day we will develop the technology need to replace current energy sources. But until that day, placing onerous burdens on the people, in order to mitigate a "potential" problem, seems rather foolish.

If an asteroid is discovered and found to be on a collision course with the earth, I know that the observations are reliable and the calculations are valid for the prediction of imminent disaster.
The climate models use so many theorized and estimated factors that they cannot even predict next year's temperature and are not fit for the purpose of determining policy for future climate conditions. CO2 is their whipping boy but what if it turns out that the sun, or orbital perturbations or ocean circulation are vastly more relevent?
Changing the climate has yet to be linked to CO2 EXCEPT in the model projections that have thus far proven to be grossly inaccurate. Time for a reality check.

Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-08, 15:53, said:

Some JC articles discussing these points:-
Possible underestimation of solar forcing
Possible Links between undersea volcanoes and Milankevitch cycles
. Ocean cycles have, for example, offered a potential answer to the observed 30 year trends within the temperature record through the
Stadium wave hypothesis
The role of oceans in climate science

Of course, the direct answer to your question is really another question - what if they are not? There is not a reputable scientist anywhere claiming that the current evidence supports any alternative mechanism being the main driver for the warming.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-09, 03:28, said:

"There is not a reputable scientist anywhere claiming that the current evidence supports any alternative mechanism being the main driver for the warming."

Argument from ignorance. Despite this, the only "evidence" for CO2 having a significant contribution resides in the models (parameterized to show this) and their amplification of water vapour effects. (Water vapour, the real greenhouse gas, n'est-pas?) The latest grand solar maximum has certainly contributed to the most recent rise in global temperatures as part of the latest warming since the little ice age. Current and future (projected) solar inactivity may well slow this warming trend, if it has not already started to do so. Adjustments to temperature reading notwithstanding.

Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-09, 06:29, said:

You realise that even scientists on the skeptical side estimate an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in the 1.6-2.0 degree range? The idea that CO2 has no significant contribution is so far from the observed data as to fall into PassedOut's "crackpot" bucket. What is true is that the median ECS used in models is around 3.4 degrees, almost double the value skeptics claim from observations, and this is something that probably needs to be addressed in the next generation of models. But, as so often in climate science, it depends on how you go about calculating the climate sensitivity. Calculate it differently and you can get as high as 3.0 degrees. What you cannot do from good quality observations is produce an ECS of negligible magnitude - sorry but that is just rubbish.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 03:35, said:

High climate sensitivies are derived by high feedback factors. In the absence of high feedbacks, the climate sensitivity is much lower. The following paper gives a brief, but complicated analyses:

https://www.ma.utexa.../c/11/11-16.pdf