Climate change: The Critical Decade

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by James R, May 23, 2011.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Maybe I'm not being clear.
    There are ~1.5 Billion people on the planet who have ZERO access to electricity today. Giving these people electricity, even if they use it on LED lights and efficient refrigeration will still significantly increase our energy needs and thus our CO2 production. Then there is the additional 2 Billion people we are going to add by 2050.

    See charts on Coal use, that's REAL WORLD and coal plants have a long life expectancy.

    Sure, but so what? That technology is well known and heavily used where it makes sense to do so today.

    All that does is make the cost of generation go down by reducing the amount of extra generation capacity.

    How can we do better?
    Those numbers I posted are already far better than what the nations of the world are currently planning on doing.

    Arthur
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    BS, other posters understood.

    Just your assertions but Free Air experiments show that non C4 crops benefit from higher CO2 levels.



    BS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Arthur
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    One of the reasons I love living in NZ.
    Currently 4% of our power comes from wind (as opposed to the US 3.6).
    Some estimates have suggested that in NZ this could rise to as much as 20% in the next 20 years.
    There was a study done that suggested that if we used 1% of our available land area for wind generation, we could generate twice the amount of power we currently use - this is because of our unique situation of being the only land mass in the roaring-40's.

    The downside, of course, is that because iof our small size, it's possible (and happens) for a high presure system to sit over the entire country, meaning nobody anywhere gets any wind of any significance.

    The flip side of that is that the only reuirement for storage of wind generated electricity is better management. To whit - electricity generators that operate both hydro and wind (which I think is most, or all of them, or it will be in short order) are reducing their hydro output when their wind out put is high, allowing the accumulation of water in their reservoirs, with the net result of storing surpluss energy generation, to be used at a later date when the weather is less co-operative.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    While we have the most wind power installed in the world as of 2010, Wind power in the US is stil only about 1% of our electricity, and electricity only represents about 40% of our energy, so we are a long way from getting 3.6% of our power from the wind.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Of course. Better than you plan. And they understand that, as well: you are not subtle, and everyone sees your third consecutive employment of that tactic.

    A good joke, if you weren't serious.
    Your graphs are of the slow US going. Your point is what?
    They can, if the other more commonly limiting nutrients and circumstances are taken care of. To repeat: the soybeans in the US this year are not limited by CO2. Neither is the cotton. Neither are the oranges and grapes and pulp lumber and hard spring wheat.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Since the US leads in Wind, Biofuels and GeoThermal and is one of the leaders in Solar, so clearly we have not been slow in the renewable field.

    Arthur
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Based on WHAT evidence do you make this statement?
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Sorry, yes, you're right, the 3.6% is from all (other) renewable resources in the US. -_- I think I need more coffee.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    On the published estimates of the effects of the droughts and floods and planting season weather. Every week or so in the newspaper.
    We have been so ridiculously slow that some people are talking about resurrecting nukes as an option to handle the coming power demand.

    Why are you bothering about whether the US "leads" or not? Slow is slow. Snail race leaders are snails.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Part of my point was that the US only leads when you consider absolute, total production.

    Consider it as a proportion, an New Zealand is far and away ahead of the US.

    As of June 2011, NZ had 615 MW of wind power generation installed. There is a 7 MW plant due to come online in December of this year, and there's an additional planned 4,400 MW of wind generation capacity in various stages of approval around the country.

    Imagine if the US grew its wind turbine capacity by a comparable proportional rate.
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    That doesn't prove that the increased CO2 didn't increase the crop growth.
    One impact of higher CO2 for plants is increased ability to handle drought.

    Because you posted: Not the US. Slow going here.

    With the implication that it was fast going elsewhere.

    The truth is we are a leader in renewable energy.

    Arthur
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope.

    US is 62 times the population of NZ

    62 * 615 = 38,130 MW

    As of Dec 2010 we had 40,180 MW of wind (and quite a bit more by June of 11)

    http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp

    So, actually I don't have to imagine.

    Arthur
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Is the US likely to achieve installing an additional 250,000 MW of wind power generation in the next 5-10 years?

    Is the US likely to achieve installing an additional 820 TWh of wind turbines in the next 20 years?

    Because proportionately that is what New Zealand is doing.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No such implication, troll. That was your claim.
    Depends on the plant, and the circumstances. It isn't working, for US cotton and beans and so forth. They're getting toasted. Or flooded, depending.
     
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    But that wasn't what I said - was it?

    What I said (or implied) that NZ power generation will increas from 615 MW to 5015 MW - a planned increase of 4400 MW, in varying stages of approval, approval and construction should take no more than 5-10 years.

    If all of this capacity is installed, this is the same as the US instaling an additional 250,000 MW of wind generation capacity in the next 5-10 years.

    And whilst you may be able to show that you generate more per capita than we do, we still generate more wind power as a percentage of our total generation than you do from all non hydro renewable power sources (1.7% of your total) or than you do from all non hydro renewable power sources including biomass (3.4%).

    Of course, if you want to talk total renewables, including Hydro for the US then that's 9.8% of US power generation, however in NZ we generate 61% of our electricity from wind and power alone.

    In 1975, 90% of NZ's power generation came from renewable resources, which fell to a low of 66% in 2005, but this had risen back up to 74% in 2010, with the aim of getting that back up to 90% by 2025.

    That's a growth of 10% of the total market share in 5 years - or the equivalent of the US doubling it's renewable power generation capacity over a period of five years.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2011
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Just on the percapita aspect of this.

    Yes, you generate generate 5.3% more wind power per capita than we do.
    However, as of 2008, you also consume 2.1 times more oil, per person, 2.25 times more natural gas than we do, and 40% more electricity than we do, per person.

    :shrugs:

    Over all, I would suggest that New Zealand is still leaps and bounds ahead of the US in this regard.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Well let's see where we are in 5-10 years before we start beating our chests, ok?

    Because at THIS point in time the US has more Wind Power proportionately than NZ does.

    Arthur
     
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I would suggest the US is by FAR a larger manufacturing based economy then NZ is.

    There is no NZ equiv of Boeing or GM or Alcoa or .....

    Arthur
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Wind power remains mostly a side issue.

    If the corporate shills can steer the public discussion into a choice between coal, nukes, and windmills, they win.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    ??? Wind power is one of the best sources of renewable power we have; we could easily provide all the energy the US needs via wind power. (Of course, relying solely on wind power would be foolish - hence the discussion of alternatives like nuclear, solar, hydro etc)
     

Share This Page