tingilinde

us taxpayer bill for extreme weather was high last year

According to the NRDC it was nearly $100 billion - about $1100 per taxpayer.  While last year may have been a spike it is likely the average will just keep increasing.  Most of the damage was covered by taxpayers rather than insurance.

After Sandy the term resilient seems to be coming into general use  - mostly replacing sustainable.  In this part of the country (NJ) a huge number of small electric generators have been installed.  Being without electricity for a week or two in freezing weather was not particularly fun and many came to see them as extremely desirable necessities.  Permanent natural gas generators are frequently in the $5,000 to $10,000 range and are a very expensive and inefficient power source. Perhaps this should be viewed as an additional cost burden on families who can no longer trust the power infrastructure.

 

 

 

throwing darts at a glacier

possibly inspired by a game in a pub, a group of UK scientists have devised a novel method for instrumenting hard to reach areas in the Antarctic.

snip

...

The slender javelins are very similar to "sonobuoys" - the floating instruments that are dropped from aeroplanes to study the oceans.

Like sonobuoys, the new BAS projectiles are released down a tube and exit from the belly of an aircraft.

They fall rapidly towards the ice, using a 20cm-wide parachute to stabilise their descent.

When javelins hit the surface, they are travelling at about 50m per second (120mph) and have had to be engineered to withstand the highg-forces associated with a very rapid deceleration.

Small fins, or ice brakes, fitted to the sides of the spears prevent them from driving too deep.

This ensures the tail of the javelin containing its satellite communications antenna sticks upright above the snow and is able to relay the GPS data back to BAS.

"The javelins need to go to a certain depth so that they don't get blown over by the wind. On the other hand, the mast must be sufficiently tall that it doesn't get buried by snow," explained Dr David Jones, who leads the technical development on Project Javelin.

...

(hat tip to Bjarne)

how a uncommon environmentalist sees the world

Mike notes the two part transcript (part 1,  part 2) of a Jeremy Grantham  interview that appeared in The Guardian a few weeks ago.  I'm not as enthusiastic as he is on China...

 

 

a huge carbon bubble?

In the past few months increasing attention has been given to the notion of a carbon bubble.  The idea is that to keep gobal temperatures from rising past a specified number you are limited to burnng a certain amount of carbon based fuels - a cap exists.  But if you look at the development of carbon resources by compannies and countries, the amount is much greater than any reasonable cap - large amounts of money are being spent for nothing.  At some point you have a huge inventory of stranded assets.  But how can a market possibly be wrong?  After all, it is impossible for a home mortgage bubble or a banking crises  to exist isn't it?

There may be some very serious investment risks and ruined economies down the pike.  Perhaps another externality of a carbon based economy as it tries to avert disaster.  Of course there is always the possibility that we will figure diaster is ok.

One of many papers on the subject - this one has the following forward by Lord Stern:

This report shows very clearly the gross inconsistency
between current valuations of fossil fuel assets and
the path governments have committed to take in
order to manage the huge risks of climate change.

If we burn all current reserves of fossil fuels, we will
emit enough CO2 to create a prehistoric climate,
with Earth’s temperature elevated to levels not
experienced for millions of years. Such a world would
be radically different from today, with changes in the
intensity and frequency of extreme events, such as
floods and droughts, higher sea levels re-drawing the
coastlines of the world, and desertification re-defining
where people can live. These impacts could lead to
mass migrations, with the potential for widespread
conflict, threatening economic growth and stability.

Governments have started to recognise the scale
of the risks posed by unmanaged climate change
and have already agreed to reduce annual global
emissions to avoid global warming of more than 2°C.
In late 2015, governments are expected to gather

in Paris at the annual United Nations climate change
summit to sign a treaty that will commit everyone
to action that will achieve this aim.

Carbon capture and storage technology could, in
theory, allow fossil fuels to be burned in a way that
is consistent with the aim of reducing emissions.
However, this report shows that even a scenario for
its deployment that is currently considered optimistic
would only make a marginal difference to the amount
of fossil fuels that can be consumed by 2050.



Smart investors can already see that most fossil fuel
reserves are essentially unburnable because of the
need to reduce emissions in line with the global
agreement. They can see that investing in companies
that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing
reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky
decision.

But I hope this report will mean
that regulators also take note,
because much of the embedded
risk from these potentially toxic
carbon assets is not openly
recognised through current
reporting requirements.

The financial crisis has shown what happens when
risks accumulate unnoticed. So it is important that
companies and regulators work together to openly
declare and quantify these valuation risks associated
with carbon, allowing investors and shareholders to 
consider how best to manage them.

If these valuation risks are made more transparent,
companies that currently specialise in fossil fuels
will be able to develop new business models that
take into account the fact that demand for their
products will decline steeply over the next decades,
and to consider their options for diversifying in order
to maintain their value. Investors will also be able to
consider whether it is better to stay with high-carbon
assets, or instead seek new opportunities in those
businesses that are best positioned gain in a low
carbon economy.

This report provides investors and regulators with
the evidence they need that serious risks are growing
for high-carbon assets. It should help them to better
manage these risks in a timely and effective way.

Professor Lord Stern of Brentford, Chair, Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment, London School of Economics and
Political Science 

 

 

Of course this presuposes that humanity has enough sanity to eventually agree to limits,

storing energy from offshore wind turbines

Take a big hollow sphere and sink it to help anchor an offshore wind turbine.  Pump water out when you have extra wind and open a valve and let water back in, spinning a turbine connected to a generator, when it is calm.  Massive engineering, but it may be a viable way to store energy.

snip

...

Whenever the wind turbines produce more power than is needed, that power would be diverted to drive a pump attached to the underwater structure, pumping seawater from a 30-meter-diameter hollow sphere. (For comparison, the tank’s diameter is about that of MIT’s Great Dome, or of the dome atop the U.S. Capitol.) Later, when power is needed, water would be allowed to flow back into the sphere through a turbine attached to a generator, and the resulting electricity sent back to shore.

One such 25-meter sphere in 400-meter-deep water could store up to 6 megawatt-hours of power, the MIT researchers have calculated; that means that 1,000 such spheres could supply as much power as a nuclear plant for several hours — enough to make them a reliable source of power. The 1,000 wind turbines that the spheres could anchor could, on average, replace a conventional on-shore coal or nuclear plant. What’s more, unlike nuclear or coal-fired plants, which take hours to ramp up, this energy source could be made available within minutes, and then taken offline just as quickly. 

The system would be grid-connected, so the spheres could also be used to store energy from other sources, including solar arrays on shore, or from base-load power plants, which operate most efficiently at steady levels. This could potentially reduce reliance on peak-power plants, which typically operate less efficiently.

...

 There are any number of ways to store energy - the trick is finding one that is cost effective and efficient.  Perhaps this one makes sense.

 

 

democracy as been hacked

Al Gore gives an impassioned speech at the Stephen Schneider memorial at Stanford last week.

Al Gore @ Stanford | April 23, 2013 from Cyperus Media.com on Vimeo.

a carbon bubble

Of course this assumes that action will be taken at some point - I'm not terribly confidient that good choices will be made at this point - particularly in the three to five countries that can make the largest difference.

 

 

more on pollution in china

When will this mess break?  via the NY Times

snip

...

The boy’s mother, Zhang Zixuan, said she almost never lets him go outside, and when she does she usually makes him wear a face mask. The difference between Britain, where she once studied, and China is “heaven and hell,” she said.

Levels of deadly pollutants up to 40 times the recommended exposure limit in Beijing and other cities have struck fear into parents and led them to take steps that are radically altering the nature of urban life for their children. Parents are confining sons and daughters to their homes, even if that means keeping them away from friends. Schools are canceling outdoor activities and field trips. Parents with means are choosing schools based on air-filtration systems, and some international schools have built gigantic, futuristic-looking domes over sports fields to ensure healthy breathing.

“I hope in the future we’ll move to a foreign country,” Ms. Zhang, a lawyer, said as her ailing son, Wu Xiaotian, played on a mat in their apartment, near a new air purifier. “Otherwise we’ll choke to death.”

She is not alone in looking to leave. Some middle- and upper-class Chinese parents and expatriates have already begun leaving China, a trend that executives say could result in a huge loss of talent and experience. There are also reports of foreign parents turning down prestigious jobs or negotiating for hardship pay from their employers, citing the pollution.

There are no statistics for the flight, and many people are still eager to come work in Beijing, but talk of leaving is gaining urgency around the capital and on Chinese microblogs and parenting forums. Chinese are also discussing holidays to what they call the “clean-air destinations” of Tibet, Hainan and Fujian.

...

 

 

 

 

harvesting human energy

Every now and again you see an article like this on recovering kinetic energy expended by people.  Unless you are trying to harvest very small amounts of energy where it may be difficult to find it otherwise, these are on the foolish side.

We don't make that much energy available.  The human body is only about 20 to 25% efficient at converting the energy stored in food into kinetic energy.   A dedicated recreational rower might spend an hour doing about 200 watt-hours of work to the flywheel of a good rowing machine.  You might be able to recover 90 or even 95% of that with a very good (expensive) generator, but let's say you can get all of it.  A few hundred watt hours isn't much considering the average home uses about 25 kilowatt-hours of energy a day - not to mention a human powered generator is an extremely expensive way to make power.

There are great uses for human generated power - moving a person (and not much else) for distances up to a few miles is one of them - a bicycle is one of the most efficient ways to move people.  But dreams recovering significant amounts of energy from street tiles are just dreams.

One of the biggest levers we have for moving towards less impact on the environment is to conserve, but it is very important to note that to have any real impact we have to take big steps ... if everyone does a little it will only add up to a little.  

Think of it this way.  Everyone uses energy.  If you do something that saves a percent that's fine, but you are still using a lot.  If everyone else makes the same 1% change, the total energy drop is only a percent.  While that is not bad, it doesn't really change anything.  There is a real danger that people confuse these tiny changes with major ones.  

So if you can save a bit here and there go ahead and do it, but don't confuse yourself that you are doing well.  I've seen people very excited about installing new LED bulbs.  They often save money (but not always), but then the same people don't worry about much more significant change.

 

the acceleration of coal burning

While coal is dropping in importance in the US due to low natural gas prices, it is becoming much more important in many other areas of the world and we're helping out through exports.  Not a good trend - especially when you consider a coal plant is a piece of long-lived infrastructure.  An infographic from Technology Review that points to a few issues.