Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




Renewable Energy: Google engineers - Renewable not enough

Bottom of Page

1 to 21 of 21

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Google engineers calculate that renewable energy won't save us. They consider the scale of what else we need...

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

    Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences:


    To bring levels down below the safety threshold, Hansen’s models show that we must not only cease emitting CO2 as soon as possible but also actively remove the gas from the air and store the carbon in a stable form.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    James Hanson has been on about this your years. But don't tell the wood burners this as it may shatter their illusion that they are helping :wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeadon't tell the wood burners this as it may shatter their illusion that they are helping
    They really would be helping, if only the forestry was done by man and horse and hand tools. Nothing wrong with burning biofuel from the CO2 POV (apart from all the other the toxic products) - the main thing that makes biofuels into nett CO2 creators is the chawing up of the forest floor, which releases almost as much sequestered CO2 as the biofuel itself contains.
    • CommentAuthortorrent99
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    I was just reading that very article. More or less what I've thought for years.

    At the end of the day renewables just aren't practical. Yes, ideally we'd all reduce our consumption down so we could live within our energy "means". But, unfortunately the human factor means that is NEVER going to happen. If a large chunk of western society can't do without a new iPhone every year, how do you expect them to cut back sufficiently to make current/foreseeable renewables an option? And as for the "developing" world, they certainly aren't going give up striving for the "western" lifestyle, and why should they?

    Nope barring some amazing "Google" technology coming out, then we have a to rummage around in our energy toolbox to find a carbon neutral/positive energy generation solution that is actually capable (or capable with a little dollop of effort) to solve the problem. For me that has always been nuclear. Distasteful though it may be to some,for me it's the only one with a fighting chance of meeting societies ever growing demand for energy.

    On the wacky "google" type technologies, I've always fancied massive umbrellas in space to sheild a bit of the sun. Practical? I don't know, but it sure sounds exciting! :)
    :bigsmile::bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthoratomicbisf
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: torrent99I was just reading that very article. More or less what I've thought for years.

    At the end of the day renewables just aren't practical. Yes, ideally we'd all reduce our consumption down so we could live within our energy "means". But, unfortunately the human factor means that is NEVER going to happen. If a large chunk of western society can't do without a new iPhone every year, how do you expect them to cut back sufficiently to make current/foreseeable renewables an option? And as for the "developing" world, they certainly aren't going give up striving for the "western" lifestyle, and why should they?

    Nope barring some amazing "Google" technology coming out, then we have a to rummage around in our energy toolbox to find a carbon neutral/positive energy generation solution that is actually capable (or capable with a little dollop of effort) to solve the problem. For me that has always been nuclear. Distasteful though it may be to some,for me it's the only one with a fighting chance of meeting societies ever growing demand for energy.

    On the wacky "google" type technologies, I've always fancied massive umbrellas in space to sheild a bit of the sun. Practical? I don't know, but it sure sounds exciting! :)
    http:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt=":bigsmile:" title=":bigsmile:" >http:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt=":bigsmile:" title=":bigsmile:" >


    I'm not sure... Nuclear could be part of the answer. I'm not hysterical about the safety aspects of nuclear, but it seems it is a mature technology that has not lived up to its early promise of low-cost power, and in fact its costs seem to be going up and up as more and more potential problems are found. Meanwhile renewable prices are dropping and expected to carry on falling dramatically (especially PV).

    I think in building new nuclear power stations with design lives of 40 or 60 years we might be doing the equivalent of digging canals at great expense when the first trains were already running. We may find long before the life of the plant is up that it was a poor choice.

    The other thing I think they're not clear enough on is that climate change isn't all or nothing. If we only achieve their best case scenario of about 520 ppm by 2100 the situation will be a lot less bad than business as usual and about 730 ppm.

    Ed
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    exponential rises in CO2 levels simply is not possible in a finite world
  7.  
    Climate change could be positive for human development in the end, who knows.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: torrent99On the wacky "google" type technologies, I've always fancied massive umbrellas in space to sheild a bit of the sun. Practical? I don't know, but it sure sounds exciting!
    This is one area where the distinction between global warming and climate change actually matters. I seriously doubt the practicality of this idea but even if it was possible and we did use it to more-or-less cut out global warming we'd still be changing the way heat flows through the oceans and atmosphere (less heat flow from the tropics to the polar regions) which I can't imagine would not result in significant climate change (changes in temperature distribution, even if the global average stays the same, and changes in precipitation patterns).

    Also, it'd do nothing for ocean acidification.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: tonyexponential rises in CO2 levels simply is not possible in a finite world
    It's happening - the Keeling curve is very close to exponential at the moment if you take pre-industrial levels as a base. It can't go on for ever in a finite world but it can go on long enough to make a lot of people's lives shorter and more miserable than they otherwise would.

    Posted By: bot de pailleClimate change could be positive for human development in the end, who knows.
    Indeed, who knows. But that's not a lot of comfort to those whose lives will be destroyed in the mean time.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: atomicbisfThe other thing I think they're not clear enough on is that climate change isn't all or nothing. If we only achieve their best case scenario of about 520 ppm by 2100 the situation will be a lot less bad than business as usual and about 730 ppm.
    This is not an entirely trivial point.
  11.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Ed Davies</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: tony</cite>exponential rises in CO2 levels simply is not possible in a finite world</blockquote>It's happening - the Keeling curve is very close to exponential at the moment if you take pre-industrial levels as a base. It can't go on for ever in a finite world but it can go on long enough to make a lot of people's lives shorter and more miserable than they otherwise would.

    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: bot de paille</cite>Climate change could be positive for human development in the end, who knows.</blockquote>Indeed, who knows. But that's not a lot of comfort to those whose lives will be destroyed in the mean time.</blockquote>

    Its not certain that lives will be destroyed. CO2 is benficial, certainly to food growing. 2014 world food harvest is the highest it has ever been, largely due to rising C02 levels
    • CommentAuthortorrent99
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: atomicbisf</cite>The other thing I think they're not clear enough on is that climate change isn't all or nothing. If we only achieve their best case scenario of about 520 ppm by 2100 the situation will be a lot less bad than business as usual and about 730 ppm.</blockquote>

    Thought the CO2 effect was a lot more trigger point/camels back (brain freeze on the right word!) than that? i.e. 519ppm OK 520ppm disaster?



    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: atomicbisf</cite>
    I'm not sure... Nuclear could be part of the answer. I'm not hysterical about the safety aspects of nuclear, but it seems it is a mature technology that has not lived up to its early promise of low-cost power, and in fact its costs seem to be going up and up as more and more potential problems are found. Meanwhile renewable prices are dropping and expected to carry on falling dramatically (especially PV).
    </blockquote>

    The problems I see with renewables are:

    1) We can't build it fast enough, and the building itself requires energy, which requires more renewables, which requires energy etc etc. (true for any energy, but with renewables it's closer to the vicious circle)
    2) STORAGE. Because it's not on demand energy, you need to store it. How do you do that? Millions of batteries, or flood Scotland and Wales with hydro storage?


    <blockquote>
    I think in building new nuclear power stations with design lives of 40 or 60 years we might be doing the equivalent of digging canals at great expense when the first trains were already running.
    Ed</blockquote>

    That's a good point, however I'm not sure the trains ARE already running!

    However, design life IS a very good point with nuclear. They need to be designed to be a) maintainable so they can be kept going b) easy to decommission. Not trivial, but then not insurmountable...
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: bot de pailleIts not certain that lives will be destroyed.
    Pretty likely, though.

    Sea-level rise alone will cause many millions some grief. May not actually kill directly (much) but the resulting disruption as people move can't really fail to have serious consequences for those nearby.

    CO2 is benficial, certainly to food growing.
    My understanding is that COâ‚‚ can be beneficial in some cases where all the other considerations (temperature, water, humidity, nutrients, light, etc) are already taken care of (i.e., in well-controlled greenhouses) but in most cases it's other considerations than COâ‚‚ availability that limits plant growth.

    2014 world food harvest is the highest it has ever been, largely due to rising C02 levels
    Any evidence that it's due to COâ‚‚ increase and not just normal variation?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: bot de paille2014 world food harvest is the highest it has ever been, largely due to rising C02 levels
    That is an extraordinary claim that it is largely atmospheric CO2 levels that have caused this. Can we see the data/research on it please.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    ST, If true more likely due to deforestation and conversion into farmland, think palm oil, beef rearing. Plus fish farming.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2014
     
    As they say, just because it's in Nature doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong but:

    http://gfmt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/01092014-rising-concentrations-of.html

    “Myers is not so sanguine about the so-called CO2 ‘fertilization effect’ some argue will make plants grow bigger and faster. There is data to suggest there is a small fertilization effect that can increase yields, Myers says, but this occurs only in the context of adequate irrigation. The unreliability of water supplies in many regions of the world renders this effect negligible at best.”
    • CommentAuthorrhamdu
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2014
     
    Climate change 'perhaps not a problem'.

    Tell Bangladesh.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2014
     
    Posted By: tonyexponential rises in CO2 levels simply is not possible in a finite world
    As I already said, it has been (roughly) exponential for a while.

    Just out of curiosity, really, I decided to check. I took the monthly averaged Keeling curve COâ‚‚ concentrations from 1958 to end 2013 and did linear regressions on all the ten year periods centred on all the Aprils containing at least 48 data points in the five preceding years and 48 data points in the following five years.

    This gave me a bunch of rates of change of concentration (ppm/year) and concentrations (ppm). I then did a linear regression of these resulting in a nice line and a scatter plot which is unscattered in a way which slightly surprised me but seems reasonable in retrospect given the steady increase in concentration.

    This shows that the rate of increase of COâ‚‚ concentration has, indeed, been roughly proportional to the excess over the pre-industrial level (actually over about 262 ppm where the generally accepted pre-industrial is around 270 to 280 ppm) and therefore that the concentration increase has been pretty much exponential.

    Given that the emissions have been proportional to growth and growth has been, with some fluctuations, pretty much exponential this is not really too surprising.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: tonyexponential rises in CO2 levels simply is not possible in a finite world
    It is possible until something breaks, indeed it's typical of the approach to the Inversion Point or whatever they call it in Chaos theory.
    • CommentAuthorMackers
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2014
     
    If we had sufficient storage methods solar is more than capable of supplying all the energy we need
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2014
     
    Isn't it 17,000x more energy than our present profligate use? Reduce that demand by 80% (which would make renewables wholy sufficient), would make it 85,000x more than we'd need. Just small matter of collecting it. Don't think we could add wind etc to the solar total because in the long run wind is just solar energy re-formatted.

1 to 21 of 21

  1.  
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press