The Locomotive Will Rust in the Shed
Back in April I was driving across the country and mentioned the controversy over a coal power plant in Kansas. ( Climate in America). As fate would have it, this summer I have met Johannes Feddema who is a professor at the University of Kansas, and yes, a member of KEEP. KEEP? -- Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group. Johan wrote this blog - and the next one. So thanks from me, and be good to him. Here's a previous entry of mine on Texas Coal
The coal conundrum: should we or should we not build more coal power plants?
Part I: Coal and climate
Johannes Feddema
"Coal is everything to us. Without coal, our factories will become idle, our foundries and workshops be still as the grave; the locomotive will rust in the shed, and the rail be buried in the weeds. Our streets will be dark, our houses uninhabitable. Our rivers will forget the paddlewheel, and we shall again be separated by days from France, by months from the United States." ~ London Times English, editorial (1866).
As a Kansan who has closely followed the discussion of energy development and the saga of the Holcomb power plant over the last few years, I wish we would try a little harder to remove our blinders when it comes to solving our energy and climate conundrum. Some days I feel that we have not really progressed much in our thinking about energy and energy resources, well represented in the quote above, which holds the view that a particular energy resource is the one and only answer to our problem..
In a number of states, proposals for new coal fired power plants are being discussed, argued about, tabled and rejected or built. The proposed Holcomb coal fired powered plant in Kansas is perhaps the most contentious of all, and its development could have political implications for future power development strategies across the entire nation and the world. -- For more details on the Holcomb plant see The Kansas Coal Controversy, and at the Dole Institute - click on the picture of Rod Bremby 2/3 of the way down the page to see a video of the factors (.wmv) that went into the KDHE decision to deny a permit for the proposed plants.
Coal power plants have undeniable impacts on our well being, both good and bad. Electricity and all the other benefits from petroleum products have greatly benefited our societal development and well being, but they come at a great cost. Most of us now know that coal power plants produce a large amount of Carbon dioxide and other air pollutants that affect both climate and air quality in significant ways. Coal power plants in particular will produce some of the most significant environmental costs of energy production as we move forward (Analysis from greenmarkets.com).
Most often when we discuss these plants we only consider one side or the other. painting a stark black and white picture of the economic benefits or environmental costs . In addition, we, more often than not, do not evaluate the integrated impacts of these plants in a holistic way because we don’t really know how to.
In following the debate about these plants I have been struck by how little consideration has been given to factoring the environmental cost of these plants. Partly this is because of difficulties in measuring such costs. For example, how do you go about assessing the health impacts of an individual coal power plant? How far reaching are these impacts? How can we factor in the costs of potential climate change? As I watch all the signs of a changing climate, such as the possibility of an ice free pole for the first time in recorded human history. Is this event linked to other observed weather events (e.g. the present tornado season being not far from my mind in Lawrence KS) that seem to signal that perhaps we are entering uncharted climate territories? While I am not advocating that one tornado season indicates climate change (see Jeff Masters on 2008 tornadoes), the possible link between a reduced equator-pole energy gradient and more organized and stronger local weather systems keeps nagging at me (as is projected in GCM simulations).
So why are the coal power plant decisions so critical now? Think about the resources and commitment we make when we decide to build a new power plant today. When we build a new plant we are typically making a 50 year or longer commitment to maintain, fuel and operate such a plant. In today’s economy it can be argued that the instability of coal prices alone make such a plant a risky business, since the fuel costs could make a plant obsolete long before its project life cycle. These concerns and the uncertainty associated with CO2 emissions policy all contributed to a number of coal power plant projects being withdrawn for financial and environmental reasons (see LA Times). Yet, developers know that in the end society will pick up the tab should things go wrong; just as we have with the expense of nuclear fuel disposal.
Long term planning processes are even more critical for nuclear plants where there has been little consideration of whether there will even be sufficient fuel to operate all the operating and proposed nuclear plants around the world in 50 years’ time. Uranium is a limited global resource and projected to last “several decades” for “existing plants” (see from Euronuclear). It seems that societies are used to thinking about our energy resources in this large scale infrastructure way and have a difficult time conceiving alternative options or even the benefits of more distributed systems. The status quo and special interests suggest that we continue what we are doing, while the rest of us have a hard time conceiving of alternate paths.
I have to question what is causing this disconnect between our legislative discussions and our scientific knowledge. Is it that we as scientists are not adequately presenting our information to the public and legislature? Is it that our esoteric language just does not come across to the public and legislature (e.g. the meaning of theory in science vs. public discussion)? Or could it be that our political system is so entrenched with special interests and political infighting that it cannot see any but the path it is on and is unwilling listen to the warning signs and to consider alternative paths? How can we get beyond these problems to ensure a healthy fruitful discussion about our energy future?
Figure 1. Taken from The Holcomb Station Expansion Project. A photo simulation of the proposed Holcomb coal power plant.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 — Blog Index
Satellite measurements of the clear-sky greenhouse effect from tropospheric ozone
Helen M. Worden et al. Nature Geoscience 1, 305 - 308 (2008)
Radiative forcing from anthropogenic ozone in the troposphere is an important factor in climate change1, with an average value of 0.35 W m- 2 according to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change1 (IPCC). IPCC model results range from 0.25 to 0.65 W m- 2, owing to uncertainties in the estimates of pre-industrial concentrations of tropospheric ozone1, 2, 3, and in the present spatial and temporal distributions of tropospheric ozone4, 5, 6, 7, 8, which are much more variable than those of longer-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Here, we analyse spectrally resolved measurements of infrared radiance from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer9 on board the NASA Aura satellite, as well as corresponding estimates of atmospheric ozone and water vapour, to obtain the reduction in clear-sky outgoing long-wave radiation due to ozone in the upper troposphere over the oceans. Accounting for sea surface temperature, we calculate an average reduction in clear-sky outgoing long-wave radiation for the year 2006 of 0.48plusminus0.14 W m- 2 between 45° S and 45° N. This estimate of the clear-sky greenhouse effect from tropospheric ozone provides a critical observational constraint for ozone radiative forcing used in climate model predictions.
Another example involves weather and climate. Weather is short term. Climate involves long term averages.
See link for another description:
Scale analysis:"An analysis method usually using the nondimensional equations to determine which terms are dominant for a particular phenomenon or situation so that the smaller terms can be neglected, resulting in a simplified set of equations."
For example, the quasigeostrophic equations were derived by a scale analysis.Link
The models are not reliable.
One common talking point from those that doubt climate change science is that the climate system is too complex and the models therefore can not make reliable projections.
Here's an important paper that debunks that common myth.
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf et al. Science 4 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
Here's the key graph from the paper. Note that models consistently underestimate the rate of change. CO2 levels, global temperatures, and sea level have been increasing at rates that are either greater than the model predictions or near the upper estimates of the models.
Dotted lines are model projections and solid lines are real world observations.
As you can see the problem is not that the models exaggerate long term trends, but rather they consistently underestimate trends.
Nice graphs, why does the temp graph look so much more ominous than reality, not that I'm saying that your graphs are not reality just the presentation
larger View
Here are those actual temperatures 1975-2007(HadCrut) in degrees Fahrenheit.
56.910
56.768
57.211
57.094
57.283
57.328
57.398
57.229
57.508
57.166
57.133
57.261
57.520
57.513
57.396
57.645
57.565
57.326
57.387
57.504
57.686
57.448
57.825
58.147
57.744
57.699
57.931
58.019
58.037
57.999
58.055
57.960
57.913
So the largest difference in temperatures in that time frame 56.768 deg F(1976) and 58.147 deg F (1998) is 1.379 deg F. Which not so impressive to me, may be to some. Then again there are other things in the world which affect our climate other than the dastardly CO2
Larger view
source
Here is the sea level graph since 1994
Please note we are talking millimeters here, so the total rise in sea level, is just slightly over 2 inches in the past 14 years. The real question is are either of these trends accelerating? The C02 graph certainly seems to be, but if you look at the temperature and sea level, that does not appear to be the case. In fact the trend seems to be decelerating. The hypothesis of AGW maintains that over a period of time temperatures should continue to rise as should sea levels, we shall see.
JER
You are correct Salvadore. nothing is impossible. I'll rephrase, for all practical purposes Al Gore's proposal is impossible.
JER
The graph is directly from the peer-reviewed paper referenced in the comment. Your attempt to attack the credibility of it is a way of misdirecting from the main message of the paper. The paper compares 17 years of observational data with model projections. In short the models underestimate change and do not exaggerate trends.
So the largest difference in temperatures in that time frame 56.768 deg F(1976) and 58.147 deg F (1998) is 1.379 deg F.
And the models, that have preformed well so far, predict that it will get warmer than that.
You also have this weird view of temp increase. You tend to confound the relevance of daily local changes (1.3 F) that are imperceptible with global changes in the earth's energy budget that have major affects on the earth's biological and geophysical systems.
Your focus on short-term trends is also very misleading.
Here's what that looks like. And as you can see the temps rise irregardless of ENSO.
(Source)
Viewing: 301 - 312
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 — Blog Index