August 2017- GLOBAL TEMPERATURES and GREEN ENERGY
The global average, lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2017 was +0.41 deg. C, up somewhat from the July, 2017 value of +0.29 deg. C. It has been swinging back and forth in a narrow range following the El Nino, a couple of tenths of a degree above the pre-El Nino averages. Unlike the previous very strong El Nino of 1998, the recent one was not followed by a La Nina, but that might still come. The El Nino/La Nina phenomena is well documented, but its causes are poorly understood. Our present global temperature is about 0.7 C degrees above both 1978 when the satellite record began and also above 1945, 73 years ago, when the IPCC says anthropogenic warming became significant (the graph was shown last month). This 73 year trend line results in less than one degree additional rise in global warming by the end of this century. An acceleration in global warming has been predicted for over thirty years and is indeed one possible scenario.
FORECASTING
Forecasting El Nino/La Nina events has not been very good and is based on dozens of computer simulations which produce a spaghetti graph. The vertical axis and numbers are degrees Celsius departure from average mid-Pacific, the "3.4 area", sea surface temperature. One and one half or more degrees departure from the norm for a period of 3 months or more is, by definition, an El Nino or La Nina. Temperatures of the vast Pacific ocean affect land/sea temperatures over most of the globe during and for months after the event. We have been in neutral conditions for the year following the strong El Nino.
Arctic Sea Ice
Arctic sea ice continues to recover. The greatest global warming and most ballyhooed climate change is the Arctic region, which always makes its annual minimum ice in September. As you can see below, this year's minimum will probably be the 5th lowest in our not very long satellite record. Gore and others predicted 10 years ago that the Arctic would be free of ice, at its minimum, by 2013. Now the prognosticators have pushed that date up to the 2020's. Do you think they'll be correct this time?
Following the El Nino warming temperatures, recent Arctic temperatures continue to hug the mean-
Air masses and regional temperatures
If you look closely at the sea ice and Arctic temp records above you'll see some dips and jumps that represent weather events, storms that push floating ice closer together or further apart, and warm fronts that show as quick jumps and dips in temperature. In Arctic summer when the temperature reaches freezing, any addition heat melts ice rather than raise temperature as you can see above.
GLOBAL VERSUS REGIONAL AND LOCAL WEATHER
One thing that should be clear about global weather is that there is much less change from month to month than occurs regionally from the volumes of warm and cold air that are pushed around by weather systems. A good example is the "polar vortex" when Arctic air moves south. Every direction from the north Pole is south! That cold air that moves south is, of course, replaced by air that is warmer, so when that Arctic cold air makes it south to us, the Arctic becomes warmer. Similarly, right now in the eastern U.S. we're having an almost record cold September. The northwest U. S. is having an almost record warm month. The jet stream and movement of weather systems often persists for days and weeks at a time.
Hurricane Irma
The category five hurricane devastated Caribbean islands and as a category 3 or 4 storm is now upon southern Florida. I'd hoped that the series of cold fronts we're experiencing in SC would make it to southern Florida, slowing Irma's movement and weakening it. That's happening somewhat. We'll surely hear all sorts of media claims about Irma and global warming, some of which may be true. We'll look at the southern Atlantic/Caribbean water temperatures next month, the historical temperatures, and other data, and try to determine any causality.
GREEN ENERGY- JUST DO IT? An introduction to magical thinking-
First, how close do you think we are to the 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and the 80% reduction by 2050 that so many, including those at the Paris Climate Conference, promoted? We've been ramping up our use of wind and solar energy for several decades. Are we getting close to that 50% by 2030, less than 13 years away? Several of you have emailed me asking about the status of green energy.
JUST DO IT?
Why don't we just go to green power and stop using dirty coal and all the rest? The two green renewables we read so much about, solar and wind, have been a godsend for remote off grid locations all over the world. Hydro electric has been around for over a 100 years and remains the greatest contributor to green energy as you'll see below, but because of the Earth's population spread, its build out is almost complete. There are few suitable places remaining on Earth where large reservoirs can be built and filled by nature.
Some Statistics on U. S. Electrical Generation
There are a few areas in the U.S where solar and/or wind contribute over 10% of the grid's electrical energy.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Service https://www.eia.gov/tools/faq
Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016 were-
Natural gas = 33.8%
Coal = 30.4%
Nuclear = 19.7%
Renewables (total) = 14.9%
Hydropower = 6.5%
Wind = 5.6%
Biomass = 1.5%
Solar = 0.9%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Petroleum = 0.6%
Other gases = 0.3%
Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%
Reducing Carbon Emissions and Retaining Low Energy Costs
Our successful U.S. fracking accomplishment (see above- 33.8% of the generation mix, mostly replacing coal) is the principal reason why the U.S. has maintained low cost electricity and led large nations in slowing carbon emissions. There's a strong correlation between the amount of wind and solar electrical generation and the cost of electricity. When countries, especially those without favorable solar and wind potential, like Germany, increase the percentage of wind and solar generation, their cost of electricity goes up. Energy is a very large component of all manufacturing, services, and transportation costs. Few countries will follow a "green agenda" for long if it makes them noncompetitive-
GREEN MOVEMENTS VERSUS ECONOMIC REALITY AND FUEL POVERTY
Despite the strong "green" movements in Germany, Britain, and other European countries, many are scaling back their green subsidies and have even returned to abundant and cheap coal generation in order that their industry remain competitive with countries whose electricity rates are lower. Unfortunately, the European "green energy" revolution in many European countries resulted in a worse recession, higher unemployment, and tragically, in "fuel poverty" where high electricity rates have made heating homes unaffordable. Many of the poor in those high energy cost countries have had to choose between food and heating their homes or flats.
REGIONS WHERE WIND AND SOLAR MAKE SENSE
Our desert southwest has very good potential for solar; the high plains of the U.S. from Montana to Texas and many high hilltop or mountain elevations in other areas have wind flows that support wind turbine efficiency. Some coastal or offshore areas also have sufficient wind flows that can support wind turbine efficiency, but wind turbines are unpopular in coastal areas and extremely expensive offshore.
CALIFORNIA AND ITS AMBITIOUS GREEN ENERGY PLANS ARE SUCCEEDING
California's economy is bigger than most European countries. It is well situated for both wind and solar generation and has greater hydro-power generation than almost anywhere else. It's one of the only places on earth where wind and solar contribute over 15% of the electrical generation mix. As we shall see in a few paragraphs, there are great obstacles to creating a fuel generation mix which includes much more than 20% non-dispatchable power generation. It will be instructive to see if California can do that.
Most of the World's Areas are Not Favored by Hydro-electric, Wind, and Solar Potential
Most areas have insufficient wind and sunlight for much efficient green power generation and can not supply their energy needs. Below are some real-time electrical generation and fuel mix data that you can examine online. One of the larger areas with real time online data is just to our north and includes parts of NC, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan plus all of Maryland , West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, a very populated area.
THIS MAY SHOCK YOU LIKE IT DID ME- Power generation on the East Coast
Look at the following data for that large area. You'll see that wind and solar sometimes contribute as much as 2%, but often 1 % or less, especially at night when there is no solar and little wind. Here's the link, and you have to refresh the link each time you want to see the most recent real time data. Look at it a few times during the day and at night-
Under the pie graph you'll see total MW and Renewable MW so can easily determine the renewable contribution. However, most of that renewable is usually hydro. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the contribution of wind and solar, add them together and compare with the total MW of the pie graph, and you can approximate the percentage of wind and solar, usually around 2% during the day and 1% at night.
With California's best case scenario for renewables and the above 10 state more representative, how close are we to the 50% renewables by 2030 and 80% by 2050?
Hydro, an Example of and Dispatchable Energy
Hydro electric is the preferred green energy because it is dispatchable just by controlling the water flow, not intermittant like solar and wind. Here's an analogy. Each one of us has to supply enough oxgen for the metabolism of our entire body. When we exercise, we have to immediately breathe faster to supply more oxygen. Extra oxygen beyond the needs of our body accomplishes nothing positive. If we breath harder than we need to, the extra oxygen is not used and goes to waste.
Similarly, the generation fuel mix has to instantly supply 100% of the demand which is constantly changing. Dispatchable power, like gas, oil, and coal- and including hydro power can be, almost instantly, ramped up or down to provide for changing demand. Matching supply and demand is done by computers with human oversight.
The Problem With Intermittent Generation
Intermittent fuel sources like wind and solar are not dispatchable. As with our body's need for oxygen, supplying more power than there is demand, accomplishes nothing and is wasteful. Providing too little is even worse.
Because wind and solar are intermittent and sometimes provide little or almost no power, there has to be exactly the same amount of other dispachable power (non- wind and non-solar generation ability) as if there were no wind and solar generation power at all. This will continue to be no matter how much wind and solar build out is accomplished until and unless we find an economical way to store or transmit electrical energy.
Storage of Electricity Is the Solution?
We're no where near creating economical storage batteries. Reservoirs themselves are usually the most efficient "batteries" when water is pumped up to a reservoir and then released to power turbines as needed. This is called pumped storage electricity. Although not efficient because of the pumping and infrastructure costs, it is dispatchable. As stated before, there's little available land to build such reservoir batteries.
The high cost of wind and solar power isn't just the cost of the wind and power generation equipment, but also the cost of the backup generation required from fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear, so even if we could momentarily supply 100% of power at noon on a windy day with wind and solar, we still need all the non-wind and non-solar backup generation fuel mix ready and waiting.
The Possibility of 100% Green Energy (or even 50%)
Say we want 100% green energy. The only solution, unless inexpensive battery storage some day is invented, is to ration electricty depending on the solar and wind generation at any given moment. TVs and LED lights consume little power, so we can read and watch. Air conditioning, hot water heaters, cooking appliances, and electric heat are extremely power hungry. We might only have enough electricity for them on windy days and when the sun is shining. And when do you charge your power hungry electric car? Not at night when there is no sun and wind tends to diminish. Maybe the next day there will be enough sun and wind to charge up the car batteries while at work if your battery is still able to get you to work and the infrastructure exists for charging car batteries there.
The Bigger Grid
How about this workaround? With a large enough grid, there might be enough wind and sunlight somewhere to supply enough energy for everyone's power hungary appliances most of the time. This is more likely than the battery solution, but still very unlikely because transporting electricty very far is incredibly expenive and inefficient. Just as a small diameter pipe creates friction and resistance to the flow of water, so the inherent electrical resistance of metal wires limits the amount and distance you can transport electricity.
We Want Electricity and Instead Heat the Transmission Wires
Electrical resistance turns the electrical energy into wasted heat. Using higher voltages and larger diameter wire reduces the effects of resistance, but for a given wire size and voltage, when you double the length of the transmission wire, you double the resistance and therefore double the amount of electricity turned into wasted heat. It is virtually impossible, no matter how many solar installations and wind generators, using even the largest diameter wire ever employed, to transport electricity over a very large grid that would include the sunny southwest, the windy high plains, and the rest of our country which has much greater population and much less potential for solar and wind energy.
The Undeveloped World
And how about the poor undeveloped world that has to build so much of its electrical infrastructure from scratch? In his new movie, Al Gore tells the Indian president and energy officials "don't do what we've done, but to go straight to green power." Does he realize that for reliable power they would have to build the entire fossil fuel and/or nuclear electric infrastructure in addition to the green power infrastructure he promotes?This makes it impossible for third world countries to bypass the fossil fuel/nuclear power infrastructure. They'll probably use the cheap coal which is plentiful in most areas.
Nuclear Power Can Provide All the Electricity Civilization Needs with Almost Zero Carbon Emissions
I'm not a proponent of nuclear energy for two reasons. First, despite the fact that there are fewer casualties from nuclear mining and energy generation per unit energy produced than for coal and oil, I fear the proliferation of nuclear energy in a world of sophisticated terrorists and unstable rulers like Kim Jong-un. Second, I think the likelihood of CAGW (human caused catastrophic climate change) is relatively low this century, lower than catastrophe from nuclear war. This is a judgement call, not science.
If, in your judgment, you think climate change is the greater threat, then we definitely need nuclear.
The Magical Thinking of Gore and the Green Alarmists
Gore, the UN World Bank, the UN World Meteorological Organization, almost all the Environmental groups, groups like 315.org, Climate Progress, many church groups, and most liberals promote doomsday CAGW as very likely if we don't reduce carbon emissions by 50% in 13 years and 80% by 2050. Almost all these same groups and people oppose nuclear energy, the only way we could fairly quickly reduce carbon emissions and provide civilization's energy needs. Many or most of these groups and individuals have also been opposing fracking the past decade. Worse still, most of these groups and individuals demonize anyone who tries to bring the conversation or debate from the level of morality to anything practical and useful such as data and realistic strategies for reducing carbon emissions and maintaining civilization's need for energy. I
don't doubt their sincerity and good intentions, but that's hardly enough...
There Are No Easy Solutions. Kill (or censor) the Messenger With the Bad News!
Actually, in my case, I was censored over three years ago for posting to my Unitarian Universalist Church's national global warming web site the "good news" that the posters great fear of accelerating global warming was mistaken, and that there had been almost no global warming this century (at the time 2013). The web site Administrator responded that I was a denier, and I have been blocked from posting ever since. A few months later I was in good company when the IPCC Fifth Assessment (AR3, 2013), reported the same thing which they called "the hiatus." On the UUA web site, the IPCC was immediately described as "caving in" to deniers, and then there was no more discussion about it the past 3+ years, only the usual complaining that little or nothing was being done to meet this existential threat.
CHANGING NEWS- SAME OLD RESPONSE
The news about global warming and climate change in 2017 isn't quite as good as 2013. There has been some modest warming this century and now, for the first time in 12 years, we have some powerful hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. However, whatever the data or the weather events, we get the same unhelpful response from the alarmists: It's all because of our CO2 emissions. Leave fossil fuels in the ground. Go to 100 percent renewable energy. Reduce carbon emissions by 50% in 13 years and 80% by 2050, all without any informed discussion of how that might be attempted and what the likely results would be if attempted.
Answer These Questions-
You'll often read that to prevent 1.5 or 2 degrees warming, we need to increase renewables to 50% of the total fuel mix by 2030 (12+ years) and to 80% by 2050 (32+ years). Is that possible? Is it likely? What do you think would be the result on the availability of on-demand electrical power? Am I too pessimistic about the future of wind and solar?
As you probably already know, I am in favor of something like a Manhattan project, an all out effort to find safe, dispathable sources of energy that will power civilization. In the meantime, I oppose what some call the neocolonialism of preventing the underdeveloped world from using cheap fossil fuel energy to create infrastructure, which is prerequisite for their joining the developed world, which includes everything we take for granted including modern health care, education (especially of women) and- here is good news- what has always followed- a stable or slightly declining population.
I think stabilizing population this century is a more important concern than climate change, and it requires increasing carbon emissions for at least another generation.
I received an email from one of you about contributions for the victims of hurricane Harvey. There are many good choices in addition to the American Red Cross.
Charity Navigator is a good way to find and evaluate them. Let's be generous. Let's also give for the victims of hurricane Irma very soon!
Doug Allen