Frank, I'm out after this response. I take time to find sources and factual information to present to you, and you neither take the time to check my sources (or you willfully ignore them), nor provide any of your own, with the exception of the Germany limited case scenario. My initial response to the Germany comment took long enough I see you weighed in on Texas’s power generation/distribution woes with another ‘stacking the deck’ argument and no source to support your claim. No, wind power isn’t primarily the blame-holder (
1,
2,
3,
4), and in fact, it’s largely natural gas, even coal, political to a large extent (
1,
2 from Fox News,
3 from Fox News), and to a small degree, wind (
EIA on Texas’ power generation sources – 1/5 is renewables). In fact, you blaming renewables for Texas outages is the flipside of your own argument about 0.04% of the atmosphere driving 100% of the climate.
Fox News is eerily quiet about the causes of this crisis (
Google search for “Fox News Texas power”) now that their original claims have been debunked. They don’t retract, they move on to the next argument in a tactic/style called the Gish Gallop. But as I said, I’m out, and will not be reading any more of your responses in this thread. This response is for anyone else out there who’s interested in the sources and the facts.
Regarding the Forbes article on McKinsey's report of Germany's energy woes:
1. Thank you for providing a source. I read it and appreciate the data point.
2. This is Germany, and to a degree the immediate neighboring countries, Netherlands and Belgium.
1. The US generates less than 9% of its total power from wind and solar, and only about half (15.8%) of Germany's total including hydropower.
2. Mitch's sources addressed the cost, here in the U.S.
3. There is no reason to assume that Germany and the EU won't be able to correct for this. This article and report amount to "they screwed up." If any time someone screwed up, no one else ever tried something similar again, there would be no civilization. Europe has aimed to quickly transition. Quick is clearly not the U.S. modus operandi.
When you say that train left the station, it doesn't mean we can't turn it around and repeat the same mistakes made in Germany.This is what’s called a false dichotomy. We don’t need to turn around OR make the same mistakes as Germany. I agree that Germany’s issues are a lesson, part of good scientific and engineering process.
The 97% survey has been debunked as flawed because the survey hand picked 77 scientists.Here's a study of 11,944 abstracts, covering at least as many individual scientists. Again, you're suggesting that all the major organizations (IPCC, NOAA, EPA, NAS) are using extreme outliers, and as such it's an assertion on the level of conspiracy theory.
Fortunately Galileo didn't pay attention to polls.Indeed. But at this moment, your analogy is sort of backwards. One should not looks back at Galileo's work and says, "nah, the earth IS the center of the universe despite..."
I have problems with NOAA...One widely circulated and cited source challenging NOAA data
can be found here. Again, narrow and outdated window of time (2009), looking at a narrow dataset with narrow methods, published by the
Heartland Institute (far from unbiased), thoroughly debunked over a decade ago (
1 is a peer-reviewed journal article in PDF from scientists at the National Climate Data Center,
2 is from a site called SkepticalScience which aggregates sources addressing arguments like yours,
3 is the FAQ from Berkeley Earth).
For me the evidence is not convincing.I suspect we'd be able to discuss the nuances of the complex problem and solution if we both relied on staunch, factual material and good faith debate tactics. For example, you might be surprised to learn that I'm opposed to uranium and plutonium as fuels and poor safety mechanisms in the now-defunct technologies we have been using, but I think that nuclear power is an important part of achieving CO2-eq targets and a stable climate and power grids in much of the world. But I find your foundational stance of "CO2 doesn't cause climate change" to be an untenable launch point for that discourse.
Closing recommendation: seek robust, unbiased or minimally-biased and less editorialized news sources.
This is a great source for analysis/assessment of such, and you’ll note that I never offer up Huffington Post, and rarely even MSNBC/CNN for my arguments. Look to AP News (Associated Press is a non-profit association) for solid reporting, Reuters, NPR, ABC, BBC, and a few others.
Be well.
------------------------------
Ari Daniels, P.E., M.ASCE
Outland, LLC - Owner/Principal
Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. - Water Resources Engineer
Monterey, Virginia, USA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-15-2021 10:24 PM
From: Frank Burns
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Ari,
Germany is often looked at as the model country in converting to "green energy". Yet their energy costs have skyrocketed and their reliability of energy supply has plummeted, undermining your position.
Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report
|
Forbes
|
remove preview
|
|
|
Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report
|
|
A new report by consulting giant McKinsey finds that Germany's Energiewende, or energy transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation's economy and energy supply. One of Germany's largest newspapers, Die Welt, summarized the findings of the McKinsey report in a single word: "disastrous."
|
|
View this on Forbes >
|
|
|
When you say that train left the station, it doesn't mean we can't turn it around and repeat the same mistakes made in Germany.
The 97% survey has been debunked as flawed because the survey hand picked 77 scientists. We have all seen flawed polls.
Fortunately Galileo didn't pay attention to polls.
I have problems with NOAA and their ground temperature measurements and their claims of this year or that year being the hottest of record. When you look at their claims you discover that their claim of temperature increase is outside of measurement accuracy of their gauges! Not only that, I've learned that they adjust the temperature data that makes it warmer! I can't understand any reason for adjusting temperature data. Most of the higher temperature readings taken in cities are the result of the heat island effect of all of the hard structures absorbing heat.
For me the evidence is not convincing.
------------------------------
Frank Burns P.E., M.ASCE
Design Manager
Mint Hill NC
Original Message:
Sent: 02-15-2021 07:34 PM
From: Ari Daniels
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Mitch, thanks for weighing back in. And you're right about the train leaving the station, though my favorite variation on this adage is "that train has sailed."
As far as impacts, I'm somewhat familiar with order-of-magnitude levels, especially in terms of comparisons. I was primarily asking Frank for this because it was germane to his argument, and I openly invite intellectually honest debate. The EPA, IPCC, and NAS/E are all valid sources in my (and many, many others') opinion, but Frank seems actively disinterested in these. A very quick search of "[agency] cost climate change" gives a lot of substantive material concluding defensibly that the costs of not shifting to green energy are high, and there are lots of analyses about how those costs compare to the costs of shifting. Summary: it's cheaper to switch to green energy, even if/though the immediate cost is higher.
Chad, good points about another factor in the analysis - boundaries/scale. I also really enjoyed my electric lawnmower and trimmer, when I had a sufficiently small yard that it didn't require multiple sets batteries and charging cycles to get through a mow. And certainly individually these green energy sources make sense in certain areas and not others. Solar is great in the Southwest, but not as much in the Northwest, and wind is great in certain areas, not others.
Frank, Mitch's original post was about tipping point in costs. You made a subtle/indirect suggestion that cost to consumers might be higher with alternative energy, and I (thinking I identified some subtext which I now see was there/correct) asked for some substance to weight alongside what Mitch provided. You shifted to "the science doesn't support [the idea that CO2 causes climate change]", which I feel I substantially addressed, even though these days that should be unnecessary. I give people the benefit of the doubt when possible.
I grant you that there is now a certain bias to fall in line with the consensus, as there is in any arena. However, when you drill down to the actual scientific and debate substance, you'll find that the consensus is the side with solid and verifiable foundation. I'll offer that I know a licensed professional structural engineer (seems like he would be an authority on this subject) who believed (perhaps believes) and publicly professed that the earth is flat. Seriously. The consensus on this subject is not merely sociopolitical.
In response to your last comment to me (qualifier: I don't actually expect you'll follow and read these links):
...unwise to eliminate fossil fuel from the mix...
I didn't say we should eliminate fossil fuels, nor did Mitch. This isn't fair debate. But for the record, I think we should entirely stop investing in new fossil fuel sources and infrastructure, but mostly we should stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies.
...unproven theory that CO2 emissions causes climate change.
Actually, it is as close to proven as any science is, and I provided a source previously. If you think the U.S. government is a biased source on this matter, see the U.S. energy policy of recent past (drill / frack / mine, pump, burn).
0.04% of the atmosphere does not govern 100% of the climate.
Of course it doesn't and I didn't say it does. Again, not fair debate. Also, CO2 is at 410 ppm in the atmosphere. Cyanide in a human's bloodstream at 3 ppm will kill, and blood is only 7-8% of the human body.
That 97% number of climate scientists has long been debunked
Point me to the real number, or the debunking of it (if it's a significant difference). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Most scientists agree climate change is occurring but that happens independent of CO2 emissions.
This is false. You're also indirectly suggesting that EPA, IPCC, NAS, etc. are all finding and using the outliers/minority.
I've seen graphs of tornados and hurricanes over time and the storms are not in fact increasing at the present time.
I'll grant you half-truth on this one, though half-truth is a logical and debate fallacy. Tornadoes aren't even "on my radar" because they are short-lived, localized, and must be observed. Hurricanes on the other hand are tracked, and while we have observed solid increases here since the 1980s, a legitimate criticism of this is that we are working on a limited time scale. GFDL/NOAA (This could arguably substantiate your position on this specific point.) The problem with "limited time scale" as a response to good climate science is that by the time we have sufficiently long records to satisfy that single argument, it will be far too late to have changed course. This is an incredibly inertial system, and simply because you'll be dead long before the "I told you so" moment doesn't mean you should obstruct well-founded work. And lastly, hurricanes are but one tiny piece of a much larger picture.
Lindzen, Curry and Spencer...
Lindzen and Curry made some perhaps-legitimate points about keeping politics out of science, but none of those three (or a handful of others as well) offer current science that withstands scrutiny. Most of those arguments were made over a decade ago anyway, in a narrow time range when the pro-fossil efforts were at a fever pitch, primarily being propagandized likely because the economic viability was obviously beginning to fail. The "uncertainty means inaccuracy" argument is substantially different than "uncertainty means invalidity." By the way, Spencer argues there is as much scientific basis for Intelligent Design as evolution.
Regarding sea level rise 4mm/year is not alarming.
Not to you, but obviously it is to the people who understand the significance of this, and how this is changing (accelerating) and is likely to continue changing over time. The interconnected nature of this seemingly small number with other climate drivers and impacts is quite significant.
I believe that climate models are poor predictors of climate because of a poor understanding of the natural processes.
As mentioned, they are getting better, faster, and more congruent. Any sources for robust criticism? Once again, the "uncertainty means inaccuracy" argument is different than "uncertainty means invalidity," and even "uncertainty means inaccuracy" is itself inaccurate. I realize you didn't make that argument directly, but your references do.
Coal power plants remove pollutants such as NOX, SOX and particulates, so they are clean forms of energy. Gas turbines should be considered clean energy as well.
I presented you with a source showing that even "clean coal" wasn't clean. Here's another. Note that the steep drop off in emissions is partly the result of the 40% reduction in coal-fired power generation since 2007. At best, coal plants remove *some* NOX/SOX. Gas turbines are cleanER, but again, how "clean" something is doesn't address the CO2-eq.
Should we mention the problems of wind and solar energy? I don't know about you but it is not appealing to have so much land in solar farms.
By all means, offer up the problems of wind and solar. However, "it is not appealing" doesn't qualify as a quantitative metric, and I do my best to keep personal feelings out of discussions like this. See link below from Pew Research suggesting the overwhelming majority of Americans surveyed support solar farms.
Wind energy is killing birds...
Yup, killing birds. So is oil. Here are two studies comparing numbers/rates, normalized:
0.3-0.4 birds/GWh wind vs. 5.2 birds/GWh for fossil fuels
0.27 birds/GWh wind vs. 9.4 birds/GWh for fossil fuels
...and output is low considering the energy it takes to make them and to maintain them.
Isn't this all part of the initial cost-benefit analysis? No one is building wind turbines because it's fun.
NREL life cycle assessment of wind (vs coal just for good measure)
--
And since I see you responded to a more recent comment than the one I'm directly responding to above, here's that one, too:
Most consumers don't care how green their energy appears. Cost and reliability are the primary focuses as it should be.
Pew Research on that - summary is that most people support renewables.
Consumer Reports on that - same, most people surveyed do care.
The fact that electric utility companies offer and sell carbon offsets suggests that some, though perhaps not most, are even willing to pay more for cleaner energy.
Take care.
------------------------------
Ari Daniels, P.E., M.ASCE
Outland, LLC - Owner/Principal
Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. - Water Resources Engineer
Monterey, Virginia, USA
Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2021 07:09 PM
From: Frank Burns
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Ari,
It's wise to have a varied energy mix but unwise to eliminate fossil fuel from the mix based on the unproven theory that CO2 emissions causes climate change. 0.04% of the atmosphere does not govern 100% of the climate. No I'm not a climate scientist but I like to read and study the data for myself. I'm a structural engineer. That 97% number of climate scientists has long been debunked. Most scientists agree climate change is occurring but that happens independent of CO2 emissions.
I've seen graphs of tornados and hurricanes over time and the storms are not in fact increasing at the present time.
I suggest you read some scholarly articles by
Lindzen, Curry and Spencer just to name a few climate scientists offering different viewpoints. Judith Curry has a great blog called Climate Etc.
Regarding sea level rise 4mm/year is not alarming.
I believe that climate models are poor predictors of climate because of a poor understanding of the natural processes.
Coal power plants remove pollutants such as NOx, SOx and particulates, so they are clean forms of energy. Gas turbines should be considered clean energy as well.
Should we mention the problems of wind and solar energy? I don't know about you but it is not appealing to have so much land in solar farms. Wind energy is killing birds and output is low considering the energy it takes to make them and to maintain them.
------------------------------
Frank Burns P.E., M.ASCE
Design Manager
Mint Hill NC
Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2021 12:10 PM
From: Ari Daniels
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Frank, it sounds like your short answer is "no, I can't/won't point you to sources addressing the costs of not shifting to clean/renewable energy sources." Mitch posted about the competitive price and capacity of "alternative" or green energy delivery. I asked you for something addressing cost of inaction. You provided none. I provided some below (particularly numbers 3 and 7).
Your quotes in italics. My responses below.
1. > I've studied the science of climate change and the science does not support the theory that mankind's emissions are causing climate change.
Your assertion is that the overwhelming consensus of climatologists and other related scientists is wrong. I'm not suggesting that you aren't a similarly qualified climate scientist, but if you are, this puts you squarely in the 3%, opposed to the 97% consensus. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
2. > You mentioned rising sea levels and I've seen reports that land subsidence is occurring due to over pumping of groundwater.
Well, this is a contributing factor in certain areas, yes. But it is a single factor, and only in some areas. Take Hampton Roads, Virginia as an example. There are three or four contributing factors to the relative/effective sea level rise. First, the mean sea level is, in fact, rising. Second, groundwater aquifer depletion is causing some land subsidence, as you've read. There are efforts to recharge groundwater aquifers to combat this. Third is post-glacial land subsidence related to isostasy. Basically the ice that weighed down land to our north is melting (see global temperatures rising), and therefore that land is rising and we in Virginia are sinking. Fourth, and perhaps no longer a significant issue, is that the crater that is the Chesapeake Bay caused a heave in surrounding areas, and they subsequently settled. My understanding is this is now insignificant in terms of relative/effective sea level rise.
3. > ...we see that we can design coal power plants with minimal pollutants...
My understanding is that the "clean" modifier in "clean coal" is largely referring to NOx and other specific pollutants, having basically nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Also, the reductions in pollutants affecting air quality are highly variable, over-promised and under-delivered, and.. relating to your original point to which I asked for a little comparative substance, costly.
4. > I note how wildly inaccurate climate computer models are.
Have you noticed how, despite the ranges provided by models that are based on sufficient, robust, recent data, they all agree in terms of direction? Whether the magnitude is somewhat mild, or somewhat wild, they essentially all agree where we're headed. Also, they're now getting much better, much faster, just like with any other technological advancement scheme we see. You'll note that they are converging on "yes, this is real" as opposed to "oops, we were wrong."
5. > Storms are not in fact increasing in intensities.
I'm going to ask you directly for a staunch source on this one. Anything by a reputable institution/professional/authority, with documented and reviewable methods for the study, done within the last decade, and not already completely debunked. I'm open to having my mind changed, but this one's literally in my wheelhouse as a stormwater engineer.
6. > ...unreliable "green" energy."
I'm not sure what you mean by "unreliable." If you mean photovoltaic at night or in overcast conditions, or wind turbines when it's not windy, these are factors accounted for in any decent energy installation. If you mean that currently alternative energy can't meet baseload or peak demands, that's exactly why more production and more affordable storage needs to be developed.
7. > It would be unfair to our consumers to increase their utility rates for green energy when it's not necessary.
Too many examples to present here, but I'll give three:
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-much-does-air-pollution-cost-us#gs.syeqr9
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-ways-to-prepare-your-finances-for-climate-change-2016-12-20
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf
Cheers
------------------------------
Ari Daniels, P.E., M.ASCE
Outland, LLC - Owner/Principal
Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. - Water Resources Engineer
Monterey, Virginia, USA
Original Message:
Sent: 02-13-2021 02:09 PM
From: Frank Burns
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
I've studied the science of climate change and the science does not support the theory that mankind's emissions are causing climate change. You mentioned rising sea levels and I've seen reports that land subsidence is occurring due to over pumping of groundwater. I've also observed the cyclic nature of climate over time. We have vast coal reserves and we see that we can design coal power plants with minimal pollutants. I note how wildly inaccurate climate computer models are. They consistently overstate climate impacts. Storms are not in fact increasing in intensities.It would be criminal to put too much of our National energy mix to unreliable "green" energy. It would be unfair to our consumers to increase their utility rates for green energy when it's not necessary.
------------------------------
Frank Burns P.E., M.ASCE
Design Manager
Mint Hill NC
Original Message:
Sent: 02-13-2021 11:18 AM
From: Ari Daniels
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Can you please point me to a robust source/report on the consumer-level costs of not shifting to alternative energy options? I'm thinking of things like air pollution impacts on health, the devaluation of waterfront property, the eventual tax burden associated with municipal and state (and even federal) costs for failed infrastructure under the increasing frequency and intensity of weather "events" like hurricane Harvey, etc.? "No increase in cost" for Option A needs to be compared appropriately to the potential increase in cost associated with Option B.
------------------------------
Ari Daniels, P.E., M.ASCE
Outland, LLC - Owner/Principal
Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. - Water Resources Engineer
Monterey, Virginia, USA
Original Message:
Sent: 12-28-2020 09:33 AM
From: Frank Burns
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Personally I have no problem with alternative energy options as long as they do not raise costs on consumers.
------------------------------
Frank Burns M.ASCE
Design Manager
Mint Hill NC
Original Message:
Sent: 12-20-2020 12:56 PM
From: Mitchell Winkler
Subject: Are we approaching the tipping point for large scale electrification from renewables?
Several news articles in ASCE's news feeds have caught my eye in the last week on the massive improvements that have been made in the price of solar and price of batteries, and expectation that prices will continue to fall; and that the technology exists today to decarbonize the grid. It feels like we could be at the incipient point of change. How can civil engineers contribute? What opportunities do you see? One idea might adaptable infrastructure to accommodate future solar panels and batteries. Articles that I've found interesting follow below.
Solar Prices
https://www.fastcompany.com/90583426/the-price-of-solar-electricity-has-dropped-89-in-10-years?MessageRunDetailID=3904726839&PostID=23038317&utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io
Battery prices
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/electric-cars-closing-in-on-gas-guzzlers-as-battery-costs-plunge
General
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/renewable-energy-coal.html?MessageRunDetailID=3709506906&PostID=21832957&utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io
https://earther.gizmodo.com/we-already-have-the-technology-to-decarbonize-u-s-elec-1845888854?MessageRunDetailID=3936386377&PostID=23240585&utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io
------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E., M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------