Deaths from climate change

[Matador]

Fantastic new paper in the journal Joule, about how to think about costs of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables:

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X

Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change, but concerns about costs have been a barrier to implementation. Most energy-economy models have historically underestimated deployment rates for renewable energy technologies and overestimated their costs. These issues have driven calls for alternative approaches and more reliable technology forecasting methods. Here, we use an approach based on probabilistic cost forecasting methods that have been statistically validated by backtesting on more than 50 technologies. We generate probabilistic cost forecasts for solar energy, wind energy, batteries, and electrolyzers, conditional on deployment. We use these methods to estimate future energy system costs and explore how technology cost uncertainty propagates through to system costs in three different scenarios. Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.

Our analysis indicates that even the downside outcomes of a rapid green energy transition are not that bad, due to the dramatic cost declines seen already. When energy system pathways are viewed in terms of bets placed on portfolios of technologies, we find that the Fast Transition scenario has an expected payoff of around $5–$15 trillion. Moreover, it is also a safe bet, with around an 80% probability that it will be cheaper than continuing with a fossil fuel-based system (and 82% when compared with a slower transition). Since the future is uncertain, all public policy and decision-making is ultimately a question of making the smartest bets we can, given the often precarious circumstances we face. Our results suggest that deploying technologies according to the Fast Transition scenario is a very good bet, both in terms of lowest costs and lowest emissions.

The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. While arguments for a rapid green transition cite benefits such as the avoidance of climate damages, reduced air pollution, and lower energy price volatility (Document S1 section “Additional benefits from the Fast Transition”), these benefits are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of the transition. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener, healthier, and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper. Updating expectations to better align with historical evidence could fundamentally change the debate about climate policy and dramatically accelerate progress to decarbonize energy systems around the world.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If green energy is actually cheaper the free market will buy as much as it can get. It isn't a matter of convincing us it is cheaper, it is about the actual cost (without government subsidies).

JR

 

[scott2000]

Here is an example of the kind of subtle manipulation of public opinion that is occurring on a large scale.

View attachment 97613

Was just talking about how the sensationalism of different events leads to a "boy that cried wolf" thing over time and when the real deal comes along, many are conditioned from experience to take lightly what is being said .
We've had historic flooding across the state from this last hurricane . Could say it was also historic that the forecast of what to expect was actually accurate for a change. Crazy.

I get it,better safe than sorry but , hearing forecasters saying in an almost arrogant tone "some people stayed around even when we warned them" seems a bit over the top when they're usually missing the mark 90% of the time with the added action packed previews. Definitely would be nice to have standards better than something resembling the broken clock being right.

 

[living sounds]

Was just talking about how the sensationalism of different events leads to a "boy that cried wolf" thing over time and when the real deal comes along, many are conditioned from experience to take lightly what is being said .
We've had historic flooding across the state from this last hurricane . Could say it was also historic that the forecast of what to expect was actually accurate for a change. Crazy.

I get it,better safe than sorry but , hearing forecasters saying in an almost arrogant tone "some people stayed around even when we warned them" seems a bit over the top when they're usually missing the mark 90% of the time with the added action packed previews. Definitely would be nice to have standards better than something resembling the broken clock being right.

A 10% risk of a deadly storm hitting you should be grounds to flee to safety. But people have a problem processing statistical information accurately.

 

[scott2000]

But people have a problem processing statistical information accurately.

You have a point

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Fantastic new paper in the journal Joule, about how to think about costs of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables:
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X

More like "fantastical."

Starting out with huge unproven premise (rapid decarbonization is critical) and strawman (costs being the barrier).

Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change, but concerns about costs have been a barrier to implementation.

Followed by more dodging of the actual problems with these technologies.

Most energy-economy models have historically underestimated deployment rates for renewable energy technologies and overestimated their costs. These issues have driven calls for alternative approaches and more reliable technology forecasting methods.

Weak statistical arguments follow. No mention of nuclear energy is made. No mention is made the of difficulty in obtaining raw materials (copper, lithium, rare earth minerals) to produce this magical outcome, nor the real political issues (China controlling much of the reserves), nor the environmemtal costs of mining or replacing forests pasture, and arable land with massive and ugly PV arrays.

Overuse of terms "likely, mostly, probably" fail to shore up a typically unrealistic academic paper. The whole thing brings to mind the old spherical cow joke. Future-prediction is not science, no matter how much statistical frosting is applied.

In reality, technology transitions of this magnitude are chaotic, slow, and messy. Large amounts of government interference will not improve this and is more likely to make it worse (Solyndra) when mandated or subsidized "solutions" fail to pan out or are bettered by unpredicted alternatives. How much have governments spent on fusion research over five plus decades with no viable commercial generation solution?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

A 10% risk of a deadly storm hitting you should be grounds to flee to safety. But people have a problem processing statistical information accurately.

Not everyone in the ill-defined "deadly storm" has the same risk profile. And just because you think they should flee is not a basis for judgement of their actions. Far more people who stayed survived than perished, but the focus will be on the latter. If it bleeds, it leads.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Was just talking about how the sensationalism of different events leads to a "boy that cried wolf" thing over time and when the real deal comes along, many are conditioned from experience to take lightly what is being said .

Good to see you are still with us and posting

We've had historic flooding across the state from this last hurricane . Could say it was also historic that the forecast of what to expect was actually accurate for a change. Crazy.

While I do not live near the water I have seen my share of hurricanes (like Katrina that passed directly over me). The weather forecasts are getting better but they still have their hits and misses.

I get it,better safe than sorry but , hearing forecasters saying in an almost arrogant tone "some people stayed around even when we warned them" seems a bit over the top when they're usually missing the mark 90% of the time with the added action packed previews. Definitely would be nice to have standards better than something resembling the broken clock being right.

For example before IAN hit, they were forecasting 12' to 18' storm surge for Tampa bay. The reality was a -5' suck out from Tampa bay as the storm hit south of there. Ft Myers, got a record +7' storm surge. Still significant but not 12-18'.

A 10% risk of a deadly storm hitting you should be grounds to flee to safety. But people have a problem processing statistical information accurately.

Hind sight is always crystal clear...
====

I can imagine old timers in FL discounting the weather reports that routinely overstate storm severity, FL has the added drama of many new residents for whom this is their first FL hurricane, while the ones who moved to FL from NY may remember hurricane Sandy.

BTW this sucker isn't done... I have relatives near Wilmington NC that will probably get wet feet.

Good news/bad news.... This will likely be historical for economic losses (inflation?), but the good news is the death toll from modern storms keep dropping as we get better prepared, wealthier, and smarter (at least some of us).

JR

PS; A high School friend of mine moved down to southern Fl (Naples) after he sold his gas station/car repair business several decades ago. He moved again about 20 years ago after getting creamed by one of the occasional hurricanes. I think he is still living in Las Vegas... no hurricanes there.

 

[living sounds]

Hind sight is always crystal clear...

My point was that 10% is really high, but it's hard for people to understand because of biases.

BTW, a good book on the subject of decision making I recently read and can highly recommend is "Thinking in Bets" by former poker champion Annie Duke.

 

[JohnRoberts]

My point was that 10% is really high, but it's hard for people to understand because of biases.

10% chance of deadly hurricane hitting FL sounds low but I guess it depends on the timeframe.... But what is the chance of that storm being deadly to you?

BTW, a good book on the subject of decision making I recently read and can highly recommend is "Thinking in Bets" by former poker champion Annie Duke.

"life is more like poker than chess" one of her quotes... IMO life is more like investing, every investment (bet) has a potential upside and downside. Some old people and many young people are less afraid of death than is considered rational by the masses.

I have read several books about decision making (mostly in the context of persuasion/advertising.) If I were to speculate some weather news reporters may attempt to scare viewers for their own safety.

JR

 

[living sounds]

10% chance of deadly hurricane hitting FL sounds low but I guess it depends on the timeframe.... But what is the chance of that storm being deadly to you?

I'm not in Florida.

"life is more like poker than chess" one of her quotes...

Yes, and it's a great observation. What is meant by that is that there is a luck component and a strategy/decision component. Unlike in Chess much (most?) of what is going on is hidden to us and biases lead us to systematically arrive at wrong conclusions and consequently bad decisions. The book describes strategies to avoid falling into that trap.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm not in Florida.

that would make the chance for you pretty much zero... I was referring to those whom the forecast was directed at.

Yes, and it's a great observation. What is meant by that is that there is a luck component and a strategy/decision component. Unlike in Chess much (most?) of what is going on is hidden to us and biases lead us to systematically arrive at wrong conclusions and consequently bad decisions. The book describes strategies to avoid falling into that trap.

There is also luck in chess... If you make a mistake (blunder) and your opponent doesn't notice and punish that mistake, it can become an advantage, like getting a free move without paying the penalty.

I've probably played more chess than poker (both years ago). These days the drama in chess world is accusations against some new kid that he is cheating in competition (using a computer).

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm not in Florida.

That was a rhetorical question. How about this one. There may well be a greater than 1% chance that Putin will use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Should you flee Germany?

Yes, and it's a great observation. What is meant by that is that there is a luck component and a strategy/decision component. Unlike in Chess much (most?) of what is going on is hidden to us and biases lead us to systematically arrive at wrong conclusions and consequently bad decisions. The book describes strategies to avoid falling into that trap.

Sounds like an interesting book. One simple strategy for "luck" is to learn to quickly recognize when you are in a fortunate position. Beyond that, keep multiple options open to enhance odds of "luck." When it happens you must act on it. Essentially, "chance favors the prepared mind."

Many people simply fail to notice when they get a lucky break. You can't act on something that you haven't even noticed. The corollary for unlucky events is similar.

 

[scott2000]

I'm not in Florida.

It's ok not to be obtuse. The flooding where you were was pretty historic as well so, your input is appreciated

 

[Matador]

It isn't a matter of convincing us it is cheaper, it is about the actual cost (without government subsidies).

Given the sheer amount of government subsidies for fossil fuels, I'm not sure why two standards are being applied.

I never for a nanosecond thought I would convince anyone, however there were a lot of interesting tidbits:

1) Proving that renewables (solar panels, wind turbines, etc) follow Wright's Law, with 40 years of data to back it up. Wright's Law is that cost of production is a power law of the function of the total cumulative manufacturing output of a thing.

2) Explaining why nuclear reactors don't follow this law (cost of nuclear reactors don't scale linearly with output, meaning a 1MW reactor is not 1000 times cheaper than a 1GW reactor).

3) Adjusted for inflation, the cost of fossil fuels (notably crude oil and gasoline) has been roughly flat since 1918. Thus even with expanded output, they do not follow Wrights Law either (the cost of fossil fuels is not a function of the total amount pumped from the ground).

4) Fossil fuel prices exhibit massive price swings, whereas cost per kWh of renewables has steadily fallen since the mid 1970's.

5) The IPCC and IEA renewable costs models are incredibly pessimistic: over the past 10 years, cost of renewables has punched through their "floor" of costs (the minimum costs assumed by the IPCC) at least 6 times.

6) Renewables are often charged the full cost of updating the transmission grid to supply more kWh, even though the grid would need to expand in exactly the same way with fossil fuel capacity (e.g. the transmission line doesn't care what made the energy, it still has to deliver it).

In one of the cites, there is an interesting report from AGL (an energy provider in Australia) noting that increasing transmission line costs and fuel costs finally surpassed the installation and equipment costs for photovoltaic systems in the home. Put another way, it would be cheaper for the electric company to install 6 kW of panels and equipment at a customers home, then it would be to expand their grid to accommodate those additional 6 kW of load. They also noted that ~80% of kWh's are consumed when the sun is shining anyways, so even with zero storage, they could supply nearly 3/4's of all demand with renewable sources.

 

[shabtek]

speaking of 'subsidies' and risk probabilities;
is it valid to consider hurricane zone property as subsidized by the pool of taxpayers (fema) and insurance policyholders?

reminds me of the sam kinison bit about famine in the desert

 

[living sounds]

That was a rhetorical question. How about this one. There may well be a greater than 1% chance that Putin will use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Should you flee Germany?

I know people who have already done that.

The probability that he will do that could be much higher than 1%, unfortunately. But would it be live threatingly dangerous for us who live in the west of Germany? I don't think so. Strategic nukes are a different matter, and I do hope that probability is lower.

A hurricane is more predictable than a rouge state, at least from my view. And limited in its duration, potential consequences etc.

 

[living sounds]

Sounds like an interesting book. One simple strategy for "luck" is to learn to quickly recognize when you are in a fortunate position. Beyond that, keep multiple options open to enhance odds of "luck." When it happens you must act on it. Essentially, "chance favors the prepared mind."

It is a great book. But luck in this context means the stuff you have no influence over. You can only plan for potential outcomes in so far as you can be aware of them.

 

[living sounds]

Many people simply fail to notice when they get a lucky break. You can't act on something that you haven't even noticed. The corollary for unlucky events is similar.

People usually credit lucky outcomes to their own abilities and unlucky ones to bad luck or bad third party actors. It's human nature. It's all in the book.

 

[living sounds]

It's ok not to be obtuse. The flooding where you were was pretty historic as well so, your input is appreciated

Would I leave my house if there was a 10% probability of it getting swept away in a flood? I hope so.