Download Civilization 30 yrs of Climate Part1

Can civilization survive the
next 30 years of climate
change?
Part 1 - slides 1-60
Presented to
Sydney Social Sciences
and Critical thinking group
3 Dec 2009, and updated 11 Feb 2010
Ian Bryce
BSc BE
VP, Secular Party
Can civilization survive the next 30 years of
climate change?
This talk will address:
• The current situation - how real is CC, and the human
footprint problem?
• Initiatives to reduce carbon emissions - how
effective?
• Schemes to reduce power demand - how effective?
• Is there political will to address CC?
• Do we want schemes or a direct carbon tax?
• Population and climate projections
• Where will it lead?
• A plan for action.
How Real is Global
Warming?
The Evidence
For Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): Some
Milestones
• 1987 - Maquarie Uni - presentation by Professor Anne
Henderson-Sellers
My assessment: “It is on the balance of probabilities”
ie >50%, so we need action”
• 2006 - Scientists’ consensus “beyond a reasonable
doubt” ie 95%
• Yet John Howard repeated “I am not convinced”
he was still in denial!
How convincing is the evidence for
man-made climate change?
The black line is the measured temperature record (degrees C rise).
I have constructed a simple model to illustrate the statistical methods used.
Firstly the contribution to warming from volcanic dust - note the dips (cooling) following
known eruptions eg Krakatoa (1883) and Pinatubo (1993).
Secondly the contribution from the sun’s output - it goes in cycles, and has dimmed
since 2000, yet the planet has NOT cooled.
How convincing is the evidence for
man-made climate change #2?
Thirdly the contribution from CO2 (together with other greenhouse gases).
That ALONE explains most of the long-term variation.
Analysis and charts © Ian Bryce 2009. (Adapted from work by J Perkins.)
How convincing
is the evidence
for man-made
climate change
#3?
The CO2 increase
is clearly manmade. The deniers
say CO2 is not to
blame for warming.
Here we see that
adding CO2 to the
model dramatically
improves the fit to
measurements.
Reputable scientists #1
• On present projections, CO2 emissions will rise
50% by 2030… the climate will change rapidly,
and soon. As a result, "the very social cohesion
and political stability that we are burning the
fossil fuels to maintain will itself be put at risk.
- British professor Tom Burke, an adviser to Rio
Tinto and the Foreign Office.
Reputable scientists #2
• [Business as usual] will lead to 660 ppm, and hence mass
extinctions the likes of which the Earth has not seen for tens
of millions of years.
• …Cumulative carbon emissions to date have already
committed atmospheric carbon dioxide to remaining above
330 parts per million for at least the next thousand years.
• Returning to a safe level will necessitate creating new
mechanisms of extracting carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere.
- Dr Charlie Veron, Australian Institute of Marine Science
• In other words: to “cap” global warming after 2050 at
say 2 degrees, requires us to abandon fossil fuels and
stop net emissions entirely.
Climate Change Deniers
• The public is confused by deniers such as
Prof Ian Plimer
• at least he is a geologist…but on the Boards
of two mining companies!
• Many errors pointed out by scientists.
• Andrew Bolt (not even a scientist) - speaks
widely against AGW
• ignores the published trends, and picks
exceptions due to measurement noise
Summary on the reality of AGW:
• So there IS a consensus among climate
scientists
• Manmade climate change is
overwhelmingly likely
• The deniers are “public pests” undermining the efforts of responsible
people.
Distribution of
Lifestyle
Size of new houses (m2) 2009:
Size of new houses
Equality in housing?
• The energy consumed in transporting, building,
heating, cooling, maintaining, and demolishing…
• … is proportional to size (other things being
equal)
• Eg one 18 kW air conditioner - could support a
whole village in Asia or Africa
Equality in transport?
Summary on Inequality
• The developing nations see our extreme
extravagance
• Why should they curb their emissions?
• Clearly we need a more equitable
distribution of resources
• Including the carbon budget.
Human Ecological
Footprint
Ecological Footprint
• Another measure of sustainability - our
reliance on ecosystems
• An average of human usage of renewable
resources is measured by the “ecological
footprint”
• Includes land required sustenance - for food,
water, forest products
• Does not include non-renewable resources
such as minerals and fossil fuels.
Population and ecological footprint
Estimated sustainable level is
about 1.5 ha / person,
So “earth overload factor” in 2006
was about 1.3
However, wealth is very unevenly
spread – USA 7 times the
average, Aust 4, China 1.0, Africa
down to 0.4
Summary of “ecological footprint”
• (not including carbon)
• Western countries “human ecological footprint”
is about 4.7 earths
• Third world eg China aspires to match Western
prosperity
• If so, total human footprint will rise from current
1.3 earths to about 4.7
• Clearly not sustainable - the eco systems will
degrade rapidly and eventually collapse.
The
Carbon Intensity
deception
The Carbon Intensity
deception
• USA under George W Bush, 2003:
• Didn’t like being called the world’s worst
polluter of CO2 per capita.
• Faced with charts of escalating carbon
emissions
• The number is too big? Divide it by a bigger
number!
• Redefined “Carbon intensity” as CO2 per unit
GDP. Now they have reduced it by 40%!
Carbon Intensity - USA
USA carbon emissions are steadily rising….
How to make them go down? Divide by a faster growing
number!
Carbon Intensity - USA
Emissions per person is very embarrassing for Uncle Sam…
USA is Colored red. Need to redefine the terms.
Carbon Intensity - USA
They can now color the USA green on a map! (Don’t laugh, this was official in 2003.)
And they can wag a finger at the Bushmen of the Kalahari for lighting a campfire!
(Their GDP per person being 3 yams and a pig, their carbon allowance is small.)
Carbon Intensity
This approach was thrown out by all thinking
Americans.
It couldn’t happen again…could it?
Carbon Intensity - China #1
• China Daily 5 Nov 09: “Carbon intensity is the ratio of GH
gas emissions per unit GDP.”…
• “The precondition for China’s low-carbon [policy]… is to
ensure energy supply for rapid economic growth.”
•I say this naturally entails rapid ENERGY growth, and rapid
CO2 growth!
“The precondition for our maths classes is that 2+2=3”?
Conclusion: “Carbon intensity” is trick to allow carbon
growth while giving the illusion of reductions.
Carbon Intensity - China #2
Explosive growth in China:
• News 21 Jan 10: Industrial output from China's millions of
factories and workshops, rose 18 percent in the fourth quarter
[after GFC], and 11 percent for all of 2009.
• Factories and workshops? They use energy and resources!
• 11% growth! Even if we had 4 planets, this would reach their
sustainable capacity in 11 years! [currently at 1.3 planets]
Carbon Intensity - Australia
A letter to a newspaper:
Tony Abbott's emissions policy is nothing more than spin his focus on maintaining carbon intensity means electricity
generators can continue to generate more electricity at the
same level of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour without
penalty (''Abbott offers polluters billions in incentives'',
February 3).
•Given that electricity generation is growing at 5 per cent a
year, brown and black coal stations can continue to
increase their carbon emissions without constraint.
•I have emailed TA to confirm this interpretation.
Green Energy
initiatives - how
effective?
1. Wind vs Coal power
Wind vs Coal power
• The move to green power in Australia
is largely a shift from coal to wind.
• How beneficial is that?
Wind vs Coal power
• We often hear “The new wind farm will
provide enough power for 5000 homes”.
• That is… if the wind blew constantly at the
optimum speed!
Wind vs Coal
EON Netz (largest power company in Germany) “Wind Reports”:
Wind vs Coal
EON Netz (largest power company in Germany) “Wind Reports”:
“…wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity
of the system, by providing 8% of its installed capacity.”…
(ie to substitute for coal generating plant, you need to install
around 12 times as much wind capacity)
Or to put it another way: “…wind power construction must be
accompanied by almost equal construction of new conventional power
plants, which will be used very nearly as much as if the wind turbines
were not there.”
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-report-2004/
Wind vs Coal
Wind vs Coal power
• Note GHG being
emitted for a
wind turbine
blade - not in the
accounting!
• Don’t mention
manufacturing
GHG…
• …which is
overseas…
• …or the
shipping GHG!
Calculations: I Bryce 3 Dec 09.
Subject to confirmation.
Wind vs Coal
NOW
GROW 10%
WITH COAL
GROW 10%
WITH WIND
RESULT
1000
1100
1086
= baseline
+10%
+8.6%
With wind, the
direct saving is
tiny
INDIRECT CO2
– manufacture,
installation,
maintenance of
generation plant
baseline
Total capacity
is +100
Total capacity is
+192
Wind has much
greater indirect
CO2 cost
OTHER
IMPLICATIONS
baseline
None
Requires
extensive grid
expansion.
Introduces
severe control
problems
Wind requires
improvement of
the whole
network, with
much CO2 cost
TOTAL: LIFECYCLE CO2
baseline
large
larger
Using wind can
increase total
CO2
DIRECT CO2
OUTPUT
Summary: Wind vs coal
• So in Germany, it seems installing wind power
saves only a fraction of the coal
• And when life-cycle costs are included, installing
wind power generates more CO2 than simple new
coal-fired or nuclear power stations
• In Australia, the situation is likely to be similar
• Thus the billions spent on wind power is actually
counterproductive
• What we need is to scrap the distorted subsidies,
and to introduce a realistic carbon tax, so that ALL
contributions are accounted for
• Then market forces will find the really productive
technologies.
2. Clean baseline power
Solar
Gas
Fusion
Nuclear
Carbon Capture
Solar baseline power?
• To provide baseline, needs very large batteries
• Maybe use parked electric car batteries?
• A 3 KW system (with batteries) for 1 house costs about
the same as the house!
• And needs replacing every 10 years
Gas-fired power stations #1
• Basically Half the CO2 per unit energy
• BUT gas reserves are limited
• Far from where power is needed
Gas-fired power stations #2
• Hard to transport
(pipeline or ship)
Gas-fired power stations #3
• Leakage is 2-4%, and Methane is a very
strong GHG (short lived)
• On average, a minor reduction in GHG.
• Ref: the Revenge of GAIA, James Lovelock
Fusion power for baseline?
• 20-40
years
away
at best.
Past
tipping
points too late
Nuclear vs Carbon Capture
•
•
•
•
Nuclear?
The most feared (waste)
The danger is localized
Its radioactivity decays
away rapidly - typ. to 10%
in 30 years
• It can pose no threat of
mass extinction to
species
• The only danger is
deliberate use against
humans - ie terrorism
• Carbon capture and
storage?
• Entirely unproven
• Likely to use double the
coal, and double the other
pollution
• Stored CO2 Is dangerous
for ever
• A leakage can kill many
species and humans
Clean Baseline power Summary
• The only option in next 20-40 years is
nuclear.
• Well proven and very safe.
• Need to build NOW to avoid catastrophic
climate change.
3. Fuels for Transport
Oil replacements for transport
• The oil is running out, and some countries do not have oil
• Other options are sought
• Liquid fuel from gasified coal
- South Africa currently using it
- 2.5 times the carbon footprint of liquid fuel from oil.
• Biofuel - from plant crops
- Brazil using 25% ethanol - 75% petrol
- Takes away land needed for food, and rainforests needed
to regulate the climate
- The farm machinery needs to run on their own biofuel consuming up to 80% of the farm’s output (USA 2003)
Non-oil alternatives for transport
• Hydrogen
- only stores energy like a battery
- car can have a hydrogen tank (heavy and expensive)
- or a fuel cell to make electricity (requires high-purity H2)
- needs to be generated somewhere, eg an electric-powered
hydrolysis unit in the garage.
• Battery-Electric
- again need to be recharged, eg from mains in garage
- possible solar panels on garage charge during day, and
swap batteries
- but batteries require heavy metals processing and frequent
replacement.
• Hybrid
- Successful combination, reduces C02 40%
- Again, batteries have environmental costs.
Air transport
•
Fuel consumption per seat-km reduces at 1.8% pa
Air transport
• Passenger-km is forecast to GROW at 5% pa
• Much faster than GDP growth or population growth
• This leaves 3.1% pa net fuel growth (and hence
carbon)
• Also the oil is running out
• The air transport industry is desperately seeking
options
• Aircraft fuel from gasified coal…South Africa currently
using it… BUT 2.5 times the carbon footprint
• Passengers paying to offset their carbon emissions…
price currently $10/ton (way too low)
• But the principle is right - equivalent to a carbon tax,
simple to apply, transparent, no loopholes,
4. Other renewable energy
sources
Other renewable energy #1
• Hydro - all used up in most countries
• Solar - equally variable as wind, cannot store
• Tidal - very dilute, far from consumers
- all unreliable, no use for base load
• Nuclear - well proven, 60 year record, far fewer
fatalities than coal
BUT opposition in many countries
Other renewable energy #2
• Geothermal - very limited, far from consumers
• Gas power stations - good but gas is limited
• Biofuels - many costs and take food land
• Space solar - far in the future, if ever
- all have limitations
- eg only work when the wind blows or the sun
shines
- hence need storage - some methods under
research, but no viable solution in sight
- most are harder still to implement than wind.
5. Baseload Coal The Big Polluters
Big
Polluters possible
approaches
Pay for past
emissions - after
all, who did the
damage?
Pay for future
emissions
Don’t pay at all!
Free credits
Rudd
government
Abbott
opposition
Big business
- some rays of light
PROGRAMS IN PLACE WITH STATED
TARGETS:
• Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd - to make
London printing works carbon-neutral
• USA’s Wal-mart to halve its fleet fuel usage
• Coca-cola to make some plants water-neutral
• Chevron, BHP - mining & oil plants to reduce
pollution
Technological fixes
- some rays of light
• Solar hot water - proven and effective
• Use of garaged electric cars to store energy
from wind & solar
• Geothermal - for cities near to source
• LED lights - potential 90% power saving
• Solar cooking for third world
• Nuclear - proven and safe
• Reuse centres for filament globes
Continued Part 2…