Deaths from climate change

[JohnRoberts]

I agree it's not catastrophic.

good that's a start

It'll only kill old people.

The hyperbolic (zero carbon) response will harm poor people most.

Very disappointing I just did a fresh search and found a half dozen nonsense headlines. It looks like all the funding of news agencies (like AP) is paying off.

I did find one blurb with clarity.

Both extreme heat and cold are deadly, but more people globally die from cold. Does a warming planet actually save lives? It depends on where you live.

Another problem solved.

I will expire soon enough so you will be able to continue unchallenged by me.

Look up operation mockingbird. That was the first large-scale effort. It never ended.

I'm shocked (not)...

maybe watch the ongoing congressional hearings, some interesting revelations.

JR

 

[cyrano]

And exactly what is that process? And where does the energy it uses come from?

Cheers

Ian

The energy input comes from the grid in the test setup. The production setup will use solar and wind, or even wave produced electricity. Depends on the location. The Saudis are planning huge desalination plants and hydrogen production will be part of these plants.

The energy input in this test setup is much lower (roughly 90% lower), due to better catalysts.

That's all I heard about it. Nothing has been written up for general release yet afaik.

Several other test setups in Europe and Asia would also test other methods, like fermenting waste materials (from dung to paper). There's an interesting recent write-up here:

https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-022-01893-3

 

[ruffrecords]

The energy input comes from the grid in the test setup. The production setup will use solar and wind, or even wave produced electricity. Depends on the location. The Saudis are planning huge desalination plants and hydrogen production will be part of these plants.

The energy input in this test setup is much lower (roughly 90% lower), due to better catalysts.

That's all I heard about it. Nothing has been written up for general release yet afaik.

Several other test setups in Europe and Asia would also test other methods, like fermenting waste materials (from dung to paper). There's an interesting recent write-up here:

https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-022-01893-3

So bottom line, energy out is still less than energy in so it does not address the fundamental issue of where all this energy is coming from. Solar and wind is not an answer since it cannot even account for a fraction of domestic and industrial needs let alone the huge additional amount that will be necessary to replace fossil fuels in transport systems.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matador]

Solar and wind is not an answer since it cannot even account for a fraction of domestic and industrial needs

Why? In principle, more joules of solar energy hit the earth every hour than is required to power the entire planet in a year. Adding in wind and hydro shrinks that down to below 30 minutes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Why? In principle, more joules of solar energy hit the earth every hour than is required to power the entire planet in a year. Adding in wind and hydro shrinks that down to below 30 minutes.

We need to use all energy sources when and if they are "cost effective".

I can imagine a future with solar cell roof shingles. Already possible in principle, just not cost effective for here and now.

Something that is cost effective now is to invest in effective thermal home insulation to reduce heating/cooling loss. I have seen some government programs incentivizing transition to heat pumps in appropriate climates. That is one of the least stupid things I've seen government promote (of course they can probably screw that up somehow).

I am pretty sure my heat pump will pay for itself without any subsidy or incentive, especially compared to my existing in-wall resistance heaters.

JR

 

[Matador]

We need to use all energy sources when and if they are "cost effective".

We passed that point years ago.

The annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis for the U.S. last updated by Lazard, one of the oldest banks in the world, in October 2021,1074 suggests that unsubsidized average electricity generating costs declined on average between 2009 and 2021 in the case of solar PV (crystalline, utility-scale) from US$359 to US$36 per MWh, a fall of 90 percent, and for wind from US$135 to US$38 per MWh (a 72 percent fall), while nuclear power costs went up from US$123 to US$167 per MWh, an increase of 36 percent (see Figure 52).

For example, the LCOE of solar PV dropped by 50% between 2010 and 2014, which has made it increasingly competitive at the utility scale (IRENA 2015). Total installed costs of utility-scale PV fell by 29% to 65% (depending on location) in that same time period, resulting in electricity prices of US$0.08 per kWh (without financial incentives) for the most competitive utility-scale projects (see Section 2 for more detail). While LCOE is only one metric used for investment decisions that must account for resource diversification, regulation and policy goals, as well as market design and dispatch decisions, the comparative cost of electricity generated from new fossil fuel power plants typically ranges from US$0.045 to US$0.14 per kWh (without incentives). As the least cost source of electricity available today, onshore wind LCOEs fall either within the range or lower than for fossil fuels, where the most competitive wind projects globally deliver electricity for roughly US$0.05/kWh without financial incentives (IRENA 2015; see Section 2 for more detail).7

 

[JohnRoberts]

We passed that point years ago.

what point?

The annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis for the U.S. last updated by Lazard, one of the oldest banks in the world, in October 2021,1074 suggests that unsubsidized average electricity generating costs declined on average between 2009 and 2021 in the case of solar PV (crystalline, utility-scale) from US$359 to US$36 per MWh, a fall of 90 percent, and for wind from US$135 to US$38 per MWh (a 72 percent fall), while nuclear power costs went up from US$123 to US$167 per MWh, an increase of 36 percent (see Figure 52).

For example, the LCOE of solar PV dropped by 50% between 2010 and 2014, which has made it increasingly competitive at the utility scale (IRENA 2015). Total installed costs of utility-scale PV fell by 29% to 65% (depending on location) in that same time period, resulting in electricity prices of US$0.08 per kWh (without financial incentives) for the most competitive utility-scale projects (see Section 2 for more detail). While LCOE is only one metric used for investment decisions that must account for resource diversification, regulation and policy goals, as well as market design and dispatch decisions, the comparative cost of electricity generated from new fossil fuel power plants typically ranges from US$0.045 to US$0.14 per kWh (without incentives). As the least cost source of electricity available today, onshore wind LCOEs fall either within the range or lower than for fossil fuels, where the most competitive wind projects globally deliver electricity for roughly US$0.05/kWh without financial incentives (IRENA 2015; see Section 2 for more detail).7

Don't tell China and India because they are still building new coal power plants.They are also building new nuclear power plants?

To repeat myself,,, we need all of the above... More low cost energy from all sources.

JR

 

[user 37518]

It'll only kill old people. Another problem solved.

The way you refer to human beings and discard them, and the way you refer to the Earth as if it is the most sacred thing, shows that something is seriously flawed with your way of thinking. But that is not unique to you, it is a common trait in those who define themselves as "tolerant" and "humanitarians".

 

[ruffrecords]

Why? In principle, more joules of solar energy hit the earth every hour than is required to power the entire planet in a year. Adding in wind and hydro shrinks that down to below 30 minutes.

Irrelevant. What counts is how much we can capture which right now is sod all not to mention the very poor efficiency with which we do it.

Cheers

Ian

 

[My3gger]

Don't tell China and India because they are still building new coal power plants.They are also building new nuclear power plants?

To repeat myself,,, we need all of the above... More low cost energy from all sources.

JR

China and India are investing heavily in all sorts of nuclear reactors like molten salt reactors, fast breeder reactors, pressurized water reactors and some others. I'm sure they know solar and wind power won't do much in the next 50 or more years, after all they produce most solar panels and raw materials for other renewables... Russia is exceptionally good at building their VVER reactors fast and cheap, safety is very good.
Several nuclear engineers told me we don't use nearly enough nuclear energy because people are scared of nuclear waste, another important reason is lack of government's involvement like in golden years for nuclear power. John, don't you think they should do it one more time after 20 years of talking about private sector taking care of the problem with renewables and whatnot?
This is ot although some of you might be interested in PBS documentary about melting of permafrost possibly causing positive feedback loop we can't even imagine:

 

[AnalogPackrat]

One wonders what happened to the "perma"frost during prior warm periods.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Why? In principle, more joules of solar energy hit the earth every hour than is required to power the entire planet in a year. Adding in wind and hydro shrinks that down to below 30 minutes.

In principle nuclear fusion is also a great energy source. But reality intrudes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

China and India are investing heavily in all sorts of nuclear reactors like molten salt reactors, fast breeder reactors, pressurized water reactors and some others.

As I mentioned...

I'm sure they know solar and wind power won't do much in the next 50 or more years, after all they produce most solar panels and raw materials for other renewables...

They are happy to sell them to the west but do not expect them to fully supply their own energy needs.

Russia is exceptionally good at building their VVER reactors fast and cheap, safety is very good.

I am not familiar with WER... The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine has six Soviet-designed VVER-1000 V-320. Russian nuclear energy is more famous for accidents (like Chernobyl?)

Several nuclear engineers told me we don't use nearly enough nuclear energy because people are scared of nuclear waste,

I can't read minds as well as some, but it appears the political opposition to nuclear power use is high profile accidents (like Fukushima). In the US we had "three mile island" and public sentiment has never recovered. Nuclear waste storage is mostly a local political NIMBY issue. Yucca mountain was legislated for long term storage (10k years) but Harry Reid resisted the will of the congress.

I have long hypothesized that nuclear waste could be deposited in deep ocean subduction zones where the plate tectonics would secure the waste for longer than needed.

another important reason is lack of government's involvement like in golden years for nuclear power.

Sadly government involvement is more to delay and thwart new nuclear development with excessive regulation. Some regulation is needed but government shouldn't kill the glowing goose. IMO nuclear is only a bridge technology to provide low carbon energy for the next century or less. Within 100 years I expect energy technology advancements that I can't even imagine right now.

John, don't you think they should do it one more time after 20 years of talking about private sector taking care of the problem with renewables and whatnot?

There is activity around the world on next generation nuclear technology. I think the compact systems have promise but may be hard to sell politically (same NIMBY concerns).

This is ot although some of you might be interested in PBS documentary about melting of permafrost possibly causing positive feedback loop we can't even imagine:

In fact science fiction authors have imagined that and more.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

In principle nuclear fusion is also a great energy source. But reality intrudes.

There are some deep pockets people investing in fusion power. We'll see if that works, hasn't so far. It would be nice if it does.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

There are some deep pockets people investing in fusion power. We'll see if that works, hasn't so far. It would be nice if it does.

JR

We had a discussion here about it not long ago. Fusion energy research has received billions in funding for seven decades and still has no viable commercial generation capability. Hope is not science or engineering. Investment doesn't magically cause success.

 

[Matador]

In principle nuclear fusion is also a great energy source. But reality intrudes.

Last time I checked, fusion is working just fine, and has for billions of years.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Last time I checked, fusion is working just fine, and has for billions of years.

If anything putting out more energy than we can practically manage while it suggests to me a focus on insulation technology might be productive.

===

I find it annoying that information about climate is not unfettered. Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 republican candidate was censored on LinkedIn for saying that fossil energy is critical for human prospering. He was blocked for (cough) spreading misinformation.

The CCP is playing the Biden administration like a Chinese mandolin.”

“If the climate religion was really about climate change, then they’d be worried about, say, shifting oil production from the U.S. to places like Russia and China.”

“The climate agenda is a lie: fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity.”

If we allow big business/big tech to control public dialog we have lost grip on our future.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Last time I checked, fusion is working just fine, and has for billions of years.

Then why all of the "investment" in "ground-based" or "small scale" fusion?

 

[My3gger]

VVER 1200 is comparable to AP1000 reactor designed by Westinghouse. RBMK was built for dual use, i never heard about major nuclear accident like TMI or Fukushima in civilian Soviet or Russian reactors.
Our government is in favor of new nuclear power plants, has always been. We expect it to finance an additional power plant because the private sector cannot afford it.
So far, the only operating fourth-generation reactor is BN-800. Many American sources (Westinghouse engineers?) mention similar lead-cooled fast reactor which should have some advantages over sodium cooled fast reactors.

 

[5v333]

File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png - Wikipedia

Why is offshore wind more expensive than regular wind?

 

[ruffrecords]

File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png - Wikipedia

Why is offshore wind more expensive than regular wind?

Because it takes a lot more money to sink a stand into the sea to fit your windmill on and a lot more money to ensure it and its cables will withstand the hostile environment. Proibably costs a lot more to go out and fix it if it goes wrong too. All these factors are reflected in the price of the juice.

Cheers

Ian