In general, I see no factual flaws in your article. However some of the opinions expressed could do with some scrutiny. Restricting renewables to 15% by 2030 just because you think the grid cannot handle more than 15% wind generation is ridiculous. a) the PHEV's which you also promote, if used as storage systems for grid load levelling as they obviously should, can allow that rate to increase significantly. b) solar CSP, if supported in ANY way nearly as heavily by government as fossil, could contribute a significant addition. c) how are you going to keep the photovoltaic units, widely predicted to be generating power cheaper than coal by 2030, out of the country?

Much more, I'll leave it to others for now.

A large part of the problem is that we are asking the foxes for advice in how to save our chickens. The entire premise of this article gives no credence to the hundreds of distributed generation solutions showing as much or more promise as what the utility industry has to offer. How many clean coal, celulose or capture and sequestration systems are proven? How about all the efficiency and conservation 'awareness' programs? Even the cap and trade programs are proving to be easily gamed by those unwilling to actually reduce emissions. Case in point, the number of coal plant applicaitons has risen since carbon limits have come into the spotlight. I see most of these as nothing more than ways to profit from the turmoil of transition without actually doing anything - much like writing zero solution articles.

Len, Two different proposals call for Europe to receive upwards of 40% of their current electrical power from concentrated solar generated in North African plants and shipped via HVDC lines. Their estimated cost is cheaper than NG is today. There's a higher insolation in the Southwest US than in Africa. \:)

Kyoto was/is nonsensical. It certainly was/is not a "global solution". Achieving its "wishes" ("A goal without a plan is just a wish.") would not have accomplished the emissions reductions necessary to achieve concentration stabilization in the 500 ppm range. In fact, your own arguments in other threads suggest that global anthropogenic carbon emissions must be eliminated to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The performance of Canada and the EU relative to even Kyoto's ineffectual reduction targets further confirms the lack of political will to accomplish the reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.

Kyoto was a blatant attempt to get the developed world "a little bit pregnant", with full knowledge that it would be very difficult to stop getting more pregnant as time went on. (One could argue that the "success" of Kyoto to date is similar to a miscarriage.) Canada and the EU have been very quick to point out that "the check is in the mail", though it seems very slow in arriving; the UN has been equally quick to assure that "of course, I'll respect you in the morning". US citizens have long been sceptical when they hear: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Also, without storage, wind is limited in market share to the local conventional capacity reserve margin; that is, of course, unless you would be satisfied to have brownouts and rotating blackouts become commonplace.

Todd,

If there is not a utility response to carbon emissions reductions, there will be precious few reductions at all in the electric power sector. Roughly 95% of all electric power in the market is produced by utilities. That may change over time, but not drastically by 2030.

Ed Reid

Also, as I said above, a large fleet of PHEV's with a market managed by smart meters can eliminate most of your "storage" argument.

Discounting them completely in this or any other global solution can only be termed biased. Their technological roadblocks are often much more easily overcome than something like sequestration or coal gassification. The difference is that they are not the big fish going after the government worms. I honestly didn't see any utility solutions in this article that weren't tied to government money of some kind. What does that say about the real motives of everyone involved?

I discount nothing completely. However, residential power use is about 40% of the market. There are more than 100 million residential dwellings in the US. At 15 kW or less per system, it would take a major success to keep up with market growth, no less begin replacing existing central generation. Therefore, if carbon emissions are to be reduced in this timeframe, utilities must participate.

Ed

William Astley on Varying Solar magnetic fields and possible effects on Earth's Climate - Solar Cycle Changes 2007 & Climate, Maunder Minimum? - Physorg Forum

"To quote a mythbuster "I reject your reality and substitute my own". You speak as if you would only be happy had Kyoto demanded 90% reductions immediately. A ridiculous straw-man. Kyoto proposed, without penalties, the effort to try to do what could have been done had all developed nations tried, and not have had to compete with some who refused. If further scientific research then produced a strong case for going further, then that step should follow Kyoto."

I acknowledge that I am incapable of understanding your position(s) regarding AGW. After reading a number of your posts, I believed that you were in the camp of those who are convinced that the science is settled, the debate is over, all anthropogenic Carbon emissions increase atmospheric concentrations and all increases in anthropogenic concentrations are caused by fossil fuel use; and, it is all Bush's fault. I believed that you had concluded that further additions of anthropogenic carbon to the atmosphere must be dramatically reduced or eliminated to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at ~500 ppm or less.

Now you are talking about Maunder Minimums. I presume your point is that the advent of a Maunder Minimum would slow warming and provide more time to achieve carbon emissions reductions, though that seems to conflict with your criticism of the author for his negative comments about the Kyoto reduction schedule; and, his longer proposed schedule.

I gather you are not in the camp of former US VP Gore regarding "90% reduction by 2050" (which, by the way, is not quite "immediately"). Your defense of Kyoto, combined with your suggestion that, as we learn more, we might need to go beyond the Kyoto reductions, suggests that you might believe that 1980-1985 emission levels (~7% below 1990 levels) might actually be sustainable and result in capping atmospheric carbon concentrations.

I just cannot put all of these puzzle pieces together into a picture I recognize and understand.

Also, while I understand that developed nations compete with each other, I also understand that they compete with developing nations such as China and India. While adoption and ACCOMPLISHMENT of the Kyoto carbon emission reduction goals by all developed nations would likely not have adversely affected their competitiveness with each other, it is difficult to argue that it would not have affected their competitive positions relative to China, India and others.

China, as I am sure you are aware, is now projected to surpass the US in anthropogenic carbon emissions this year. I am unaware of any projection of a slowing of the rate of growth of China's carbon emissions. As I stated in a comment in a previous thread, the US could not possibly reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to offset the increases projected for China. In reality, I doubt the developed world could reasonably reduce emissions quickly enough to offset the increases projected from China and India. If that is true, even if the developed world met the Kyoto targets on schedule, carbon emissions would still be higher in 2012 than they are today; the increase would just be coming from different countries.

In re my apparent ambiguous position on the global warming, to clarify: My measure of all the science to date is that business as usual will very likely cause some nasty consequences for our future generations. For that reason I constantly hunt hopefully for any new science and criticisms and debate of same, as referenced above, which might offer any hope this may be avoided. I can tend to sound gleeful when I do find things which appear even on first reading to stand scrutiny, though I have been dissapointed more than once in the past. My measure of the present economic ethic is that there should be no reason for "economic growth" above the prevailing rate of population growth. Anything more which is achieved in a sustainable manner is great, but to sacrifice all of nature to simply increase the wealth the top 10%, as has been happening in the past 25 years, is criminally stupid. I'm getting a real bellyfull of this neo-liberal "trickle-down" economics, which doesn't, and which cannot be sustained in its present form. If you disbelieve me, do some research on relative shares of what used to be called the "middle class", or read Eisenhower, many others of common sense.

By your numbers, 100 million residences would need "a major success" to reach some level. You define this level as just "to keep up with growth" but no where near "begin replacing existing central generation". You used 15 kw per residential system which is 13.64 times an average home's average needs. With the total residences using 40% of the total "power market", that means supplying 2.5 times that market would supply the entire "power market". Am I correct so far? So if 100% of these residences were generating 15 kw, that would total 5.5 times the total need. In other words, we'd need 18.33% of the houses "to keep up with growth", to "begin replacing existing central generation" and to ELIMINATE all central generation. Stretching an 18% adoption rate over even 20 years, means less than 1% adoption per year. Yet you conclude without this simple analysis that it's unworthy of serious consideration. I would call this discounting it.

However, a more realistic scenerio would drop the 15 kw estimate down to ~4kw. It would include ~10 kw in heating and cooling savings. It would also include the hundreds of millions of other dwellings that are not residences. Those would most likely be more financially capable of installing these systems. This scenerio would also include dual use areas like highway medians, parking lots, interstate cloverleafs, feed lots and many others with medium-large scale potential. Most of all, it would include the massive commercial, industrial and merchant buildings which are capable of supplying tens of megawatts each. With any legislation supporting the potential of them to profit from the resale of their excess, they are poised to become major suppliers. An analysis I did last year estimated that less than 60% of the total WalMart roof space in the US could supply our 2020 estimated electricity needs and it could pay itself off in less than a decade at fair rates. All we need to do is change the status quo so that people begin to think in terms of every building including as much self generation as feasable instead of just accepting that it's the utility companies' job. Just because they've had a monopoly for a century, doesn't mean it's a right.

The propaganda that permeates society today is the main cause of this. Why are we suddenly seeing all BP commercials in eco colors? I've even seen green, child targeted clean coal commercials. Pathetic. It's all in support of what Len just referred to - "simply increase the wealth of the top 10%"

Basing calculations on average demand is fine, if: you have a system capable of storing excess energy in the demand troughs and delivering it to serve the demand peaks; or, you can shape demand to match availability. However, 60 amps at 240 volts is still 14.4 kW; and, very few homes are built today with 60 amp services. Therefore, if you can't load shape or store, it takes a 15 kW system to meet demand. Also, if the system is solar or wind, its capacity must be 3-4 times its actual applied load, because of its intermittancy. While that excess "capacity" exists, it is useless when the air is still or the sun is not shining.

The construction of ~1.5 million new homes per year, even at a 1 kW average demand, represents 1.5 gW of new generation per year. It is also 1.5 million system builds and installs per year. I certainly would consider that to be a "major success", especially compared to the historical sales numbers. Without load shaping or storage, it's 15 gW per year, which I would consider to be a "howling success".

US utilities are currently operating nearly 1,000 gW of generation. Total demand will likely grow by 1-1.5% per year going forward, unless someone does something to change the trend. On that basis, it will take quite a while to replace all utility generation with self-generation. However, it is a very large potential market in which approximately 2% of existing capacity must be retired and replaced each year; and, it is contestable. Go for it!

Wealth envy will not advance the cause. Transferring wealth from the "top 10%" to someone else will not advance the cause either; certainly, transferring it to the bottom 10% has not done so over the past 40 years. You are certainly free to try to turn the future into a "zero sum" game. However, you would likely discover that, even in a "zero sum" game, "some animals are (still) more equal than others". This has always been true, even in the world's "workers' paradises"; and, it will likely continue to be true until human nature changes. I fully expect to have achieved room temperature before human nature changes.

As I have mentioned before, a number of systems, including my company's, contain storage sufficient for up to multiple days. In ALL cases, this is a personal consumer choice with cost, return and hassle as it's factors. If and when it wins that argument in the consumer's eyes, it will become the norm. If we can give the utility companies the benefit of the doubt that they can make their up and coming tech developments smart enough to do that job, why don't the renewables get the same credit? Load profiling? C'mon, be serious. If you have the storage, I can build you a chip for $20 that will control that - especially with millions of customers in its target market.

When I used "average" to describe the output, I meant over a full 24 hour period. That wasn't referring to the average while the wind is blowing or while the sun is shining. Therefore its capacity is exactly as stated, not requiring 3-4 times more. See the averaging argument in the first paragraph. Any indepth discussion must include the interactions between electricity and other home supplied fuels like natural gas, as well as a realistic consideration of the future of auto power. All these are interconnected bidirectionally too, so any load leveling done at any stage needs to consider the trickle down benefits as well. Don't forget to credit all the mines and T&D right-of-ways saved and the big societal benefits which are why we went down this road in the first place. After considering all this, do you honestly believe that installation numbers equivalent to the old satellite dish number are all the Howling? And again, those numbers aren't accounting for the other markets I mentioned in my 'more realistic scenerio' above.

To be sure, renewables cannot supply all our needs. It has its own set of drawbacks. It is part of the mix that we will end up with. How big a part, no one knows. Certainly its broad applicability, stable cost, independance capability and the simplicity warrant the author's mention. These systems have no advocate groups yet. All the experts, researchers and developers are in bed with big energy. It's is just as if the ice suppliers consorted to discourage interest in the development of the in-home refrigerator a century ago. Sounds hilarious today, doesn't it?

At what point did anyone say anything about transfering any wealth TO anyone? The issue is the greatly increased percentage of total GDP now captured by the top 10% compared to 25 or so years ago. But I might also point out that running huge government deficits which currently go almost entirely to the military and it's support infrastructures as in fact a transfer TO the wealthy. History is littered with the corpses of regimes which tried to continuously spend more than they took in.

At this point, it's evident that reductions in CO2 emissions will ultimately need to be much deeper than mandated by the Kyoto accords. And, yes, the reductions will have to involve nations exempted in Kyoto 1.0. I don't see that as an issue. As Chris points out, a range of technology options to achieve the needed reductions already exists. It's just a matter of economics. Once the price of fossil fuels gets high enough, conservation and the assortment of non-fossil energy resources will take over.

The crucial question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether the shift away from fossil fuels will occur fast enough on its own to keep global warming within tolerable bounds, or whether it will require assistance from energy policy.

Some maintain that depletion of fossil fuel reserves will "solve" the problem of CO2 emissions before the build-up of atmospheric CO2 can reach troublesome levels. The atmosphere currently holds 750 gigatons of carbon; anthropogenic emissions are running about 7 gigatons per year. In the past, a little less than half of what we emit has remained in the atmosphere, contributing to build-up. The rest has been absorbed, mostly in the oceans, but also to some extent by other carbon sinks that are harder to measure and less well understood. At an accumulation rate of 3 gigatons per year, it would take 84 years for levels to reach the 500 ppm (from current 380 ppm) that the concensus holds to be a safe level. Long before then, depletion of oil and even coal reserves, and the increasingly high cost of development of new reserves, will have rendered fossil fuels uneconomical.

There are a couple of problems with that view. First is the assumption that the oceans will continue to sink over half of the CO2 that we emit. That's doubtful. There's already evidence that the oceans are not sinking CO2 as fast as they have previously. In fact the measured rate of atmospheric CO2 increases has accelerated substantially over the last few years. The recent atmospheric accumulation rate has been over 4 gigatons net per year. As the oceans surface waters begin to warm, they will sink still less CO2. (Warm water is less able to dissolve CO2 than cold water.) Eventually, the warming oceans will stop sinking CO2 altogether, and will begin releasing part of what they already hold. Then look out!

The other problem is that, based on what we're already seeing, 500 ppm is looking less and less like a "safe" level. The current 380 ppm--which will inevitably go to 400 ppm within the next decade--may already be high enough to cause major disruptions.

The bottom line, for me, is that we can't afford to wait until depletion drives up the cost of fossil fuels enough to curtail demand. There's a clear need for policies to accelerate the changeover.

Also I think your figures for current emissions are low. Last number I saw placed anthro fossil CO2 emissions at 27.1 Gt / yr (8 GT Carbon) and placed land "uptake" at -0.8 Gt Carbon, ocean uptake at 2.1 Gt Carbon. Difficult to find authoritatively though, so you may be correct.

I tend to agree regarding depletion of coal reserves, although the issue of relative costs complicates the picture considerably. Technological advances may make it economically feasible--by current standards--to tap deep reserves that aren't currently economical. But in the same time frame, technological advances should also reduce the cost of non-fossil alternatives. If the alternatives are cheaper, then hard-to-get coal and oil will be left in place.

But it would be foolish to bank on that to stave off climate change. We need policy assistance to drive the issue. The best form for that policy assistance is a separate discussion.

Regarding current emissions, I've seen different numbers from different sources. The variance is due partly to date--emissions are rising at ~3% per year, so a figure that's 5 years old will be substantially lower. More of it, though, is due to differences in what's included. One recent figure I saw was something like 7.1 GTC specifically for combustion of fossil fuels, but other figures include cement production and even from depletion of soil carbon reservoirs from human activity. I calculated the numbers for atmospheric accumulation myself, based on the record of CO2 levels measured at the Mona Loa station.

Happy Memorial Day. As usual, the talking past each other goes on apace, while solving next to nothing. However, there are many valid points and Mr. Reid is excellent as always. It is interesting to me that Ed called Len out for his apparent ambivalence. I now believe this is really the way Len's mind works. Before, I thought he was purposely messing with me (and others).

It is all well and good for the Canadian to call out the US for not doing its part and putting up the money to fund the R&D necessary to save the world from its excesses. Then in seeming contradiction, to condemn the capitalist classes for being so gauche as to want to perform work for profit. Now I understand that in Len's mind, there really isn't a contradiction, amazingly he can internalize completely divergent world views without conflict. My logic system has trouble with that so I would have to say Len has me beat there.

Here is someone Len should read, making many valid points from his own world view about the inevitable conflict between environmentalism and capitalism. From one world view, the author Curtis White is correct, man will ultimately come into conflict with nature in the name of progress. It is easy for him to sit in the comfort of his living room and type up the essays that make him a very comfortable living, while bemoaning the fact that we all can't live close to nature as (God?) intended. On the other hand, I could take Mr. White up to some interesting countryside where we could play a real-life version of "Man vs Wild". Something tells me Curtis would not survive the encounter. Nor in fact would the vast majority of the Western world's population.

People here have been quoting Malthus perhaps without realizing it. The fact that Malthus' predictions were completely debunked by reality have not dissuaded others from merely placing the date forward a few hundred years. What isn't acknowledged by them is the simple fact that it was TECHNOLOGICAL CAPITALISM which saved the day and allowed the world population to increase without the dire results predicted by Malthus. Malthus was completely correct however, when he pointed to the history of man; up to then nasty, brutish and short (but close to nature).

My personal world view says technology has its warts, but certainly beats the alternative. I've personally lived a subsistence existence in the woods for several months, mostly to test my own mettle but would not recommend it as a way of life. It is questionable whether I could have survived the coming winter, and I was in the best shape of my life at the time. Raising a family would have been impossible. It was merely survival, and I had the tremendous advantage of a vehicle for emergencies.

This is why I take immediate umbrage when I see statements on this site and elsewhere with people typing on computers, living in centrally heated and cooled shelters, consuming on average more than 300M BTU's per year per person, saying "we" are using too much energy and have to do something, including shutting down all the coal fired power plants etc. The reeking hypocrisy of it is a bit too much for me to bear, but then I can't hold diametrically opposed world views in my head at the same time.