10 myths about fossil fuel divestment are put to the sword here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Yours is #5. "To sell a stock you have to have a buyer. But the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap. Also, the buyers of the stock are taking on the risk that the fossil fuel stocks may tank in the future, if the world’s nations fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below 2C by sharply cutting carbon emissions. If these stocks are risky, then the public and value-based institutions primarily targeted by the divestment movement should not be holding them. The argument that owning a stock gives you influence over a company leads us neatly into the next divestment myth."
The thesis file seems to come up damaged. This image seems to suggest though that the number may have been miscalculated in the article. http://www.linda-goodman.com/u...
You might be asking is there such a thing as guilt? The basic answer is yes. So, a punishment must seem to be deserved to the one who is punished if a conscience is present. Otherwise, it cannot be a background for mercy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Imprisonment to death seems to work for civil courts. It used to be that armies on the march or in battle did not have the facilities to deal with mutiny less drastically so they would have to use summary execution, but these days that is probably not the case. The US executed one soldier for desertion in WWII, and that after a court martial. Still, it is the reason officers have sidearms.
It is worth considering that corporal punishment was also a lack of facilities issue. It is cruel and unusual now because prisons are available. But use of stocks or flogging or maiming are a sign of a society too poor to afford prisons. Justice must be seen to be done, and the punishment must be deserved. When a society is poor, it has to have punishments that still seem proportionate.
First, I should point out that land area is not an issue for solar. http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir... But when we speak of wind or solar doing the whole job, (about our only choice when the oil, gas, coal and uranium run out) certainly we can see how some energy needs will require fuels. Aviation would be difficult without jet fuel. But synthetic hydrocarbon fuels are already a part of Sachs' Deep Decarbonization Pathways. http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/d... Calm nights can be handled that way as well.
The pace for nuclear in China seems slow compared to wind and solar. http://www.worldnuclearreport.... and nuclear power seems to be in a rut so probably it's only contribution is not adding more opportunity cost by being moribund. http://www.worldnuclearreport....
The solar version of Moore's Law is called Swanson's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Note that the figure has a mistake where 2014 should be 2017.
Looks like subsidies don't dry up, especially for nuclear, so perhaps there is not that much to your thought there. For wind and solar, it is hard to see how they would shrink. A bankrupt wind farm gets sold and keeps producing power to give creditors some satisfaction.
Natural gas from gas wells is not just burned off or vented. It is sold. There is flaring from some oil wells that produce natural gas. The linked DoE study aims to lower the cost of wind power well below the cost of natural gas, so your main point seems mistaken. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f...
I recently noticed an interesting convergence. The long term growth of both solar and wind capacity is exponential. The growth rate for solar is higher than for wind power but wind power is currently ahead in capacity. If we take a capacity factor of 20% for solar and 30% for wind, how long does it take to cover the roughly 20 TW of world energy demand?
For solar, taking 200 MW of capacity in 1995 and 100,000 MW in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... we get to 100,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1995 since (log(100 TW)-log(200 MW))/(log(100,000 MW)-log(200 MW))/17 years)=39 years. So 2034 is when we may expect solar PV to cover all energy demand.
For wind, taking 7,600 MW of capacity in 1995 and 369,553 MW in 2014 http://www.gwec.net/wp-content... we get to 60,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1997 since (log(60 TW)-log(7,600 MW))/(log(369,533 MW)-log(7.500 MW))/17 years = 39 years. So, 2036 is where we may expect wind power to cover all energy demand.
So, within just a couple years of each other, either technology can be projected to grow to cover all current demand.
A driver for ongoing exponential growth for PV is the still falling cost of manufacture. It is expected that panels will cost $0.36/W to produce in 2017. http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
This seems to be a faster rate than pledges coming in for Paris are anticipating so we might have some confidence that those pledges are going to be met.
The text claims wind power was only 3% of new generation in 2014 but the figure give 23% with coal apparently not providing any new capacity. I suspect the figure is correct on this. http://breakingenergy.com/2015...
North Carolina does not allow planning to take account of sea level rise because it impedes permitting new development. http://abcnews.go.com/US/north... Florida faces wide scale loss of real estate which hurts some constituencies if dealt with honestly.
What you are calling a growth curve is often called a learning curve. It is the idea that costs reduce as more of the technology is deployed. People get bright ideas as they work in the field, going to greater scale means more can be produced with less labor, etc... You are correct that nuclear power gets more expensive with time. http://thinkprogress.org/clima... There are technologies where the more common behavior is seen. Wind and solar power are growing exponentially owing to lower and lower cost as more are deployed. At their current growth rates either can replace all the world's energy demand around the year 2035. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Slashdot Mirror
10 myths about fossil fuel divestment are put to the sword here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Yours is #5. "To sell a stock you have to have a buyer. But the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap. Also, the buyers of the stock are taking on the risk that the fossil fuel stocks may tank in the future, if the world’s nations fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below 2C by sharply cutting carbon emissions. If these stocks are risky, then the public and value-based institutions primarily targeted by the divestment movement should not be holding them. The argument that owning a stock gives you influence over a company leads us neatly into the next divestment myth."
Shouldn't it be an encouragement to get to work on carbon capture and sequestration to get off the sh*t l*st?
You seem to have made a mistake about solar energy payback times, which are about a year. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...
After a bit of work I did get the thesis and it aims to supply world electricity demand 20,200 TWh/yr from the Sahara.
The thesis file seems to come up damaged. This image seems to suggest though that the number may have been miscalculated in the article. http://www.linda-goodman.com/u...
You might be asking is there such a thing as guilt? The basic answer is yes. So, a punishment must seem to be deserved to the one who is punished if a conscience is present. Otherwise, it cannot be a background for mercy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Imprisonment to death seems to work for civil courts. It used to be that armies on the march or in battle did not have the facilities to deal with mutiny less drastically so they would have to use summary execution, but these days that is probably not the case. The US executed one soldier for desertion in WWII, and that after a court martial. Still, it is the reason officers have sidearms.
It is worth considering that corporal punishment was also a lack of facilities issue. It is cruel and unusual now because prisons are available. But use of stocks or flogging or maiming are a sign of a society too poor to afford prisons. Justice must be seen to be done, and the punishment must be deserved. When a society is poor, it has to have punishments that still seem proportionate.
Those are oil wells.
First, I should point out that land area is not an issue for solar. http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir... But when we speak of wind or solar doing the whole job, (about our only choice when the oil, gas, coal and uranium run out) certainly we can see how some energy needs will require fuels. Aviation would be difficult without jet fuel. But synthetic hydrocarbon fuels are already a part of Sachs' Deep Decarbonization Pathways. http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/d... Calm nights can be handled that way as well.
The pace for nuclear in China seems slow compared to wind and solar. http://www.worldnuclearreport.... and nuclear power seems to be in a rut so probably it's only contribution is not adding more opportunity cost by being moribund. http://www.worldnuclearreport....
The graph seems to have it close to right. http://breakingenergy.com/2015... Very little new coal power in 2014.
Usually, you would avoid shadows for places where you put solar panels.
The solar version of Moore's Law is called Swanson's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Note that the figure has a mistake where 2014 should be 2017.
Looks like subsidies don't dry up, especially for nuclear, so perhaps there is not that much to your thought there. For wind and solar, it is hard to see how they would shrink. A bankrupt wind farm gets sold and keeps producing power to give creditors some satisfaction.
It mixed up the percentage of coal and wind.
Natural gas from gas wells is not just burned off or vented. It is sold. There is flaring from some oil wells that produce natural gas. The linked DoE study aims to lower the cost of wind power well below the cost of natural gas, so your main point seems mistaken. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f...
I recently noticed an interesting convergence. The long term growth of both solar and wind capacity is exponential. The growth rate for solar is higher than for wind power but wind power is currently ahead in capacity. If we take a capacity factor of 20% for solar and 30% for wind, how long does it take to cover the roughly 20 TW of world energy demand?
For solar, taking 200 MW of capacity in 1995 and 100,000 MW in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... we get to 100,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1995 since (log(100 TW)-log(200 MW))/(log(100,000 MW)-log(200 MW))/17 years)=39 years. So 2034 is when we may expect solar PV to cover all energy demand.
For wind, taking 7,600 MW of capacity in 1995 and 369,553 MW in 2014 http://www.gwec.net/wp-content... we get to 60,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1997 since (log(60 TW)-log(7,600 MW))/(log(369,533 MW)-log(7.500 MW))/17 years = 39 years. So, 2036 is where we may expect wind power to cover all energy demand.
So, within just a couple years of each other, either technology can be projected to grow to cover all current demand.
A driver for ongoing exponential growth for PV is the still falling cost of manufacture. It is expected that panels will cost $0.36/W to produce in 2017. http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
This seems to be a faster rate than pledges coming in for Paris are anticipating so we might have some confidence that those pledges are going to be met.
Coal added very little new generation. http://breakingenergy.com/2015... The 23% appears to be wind, not coal as claimed in TFA. Look at the figure.
The text claims wind power was only 3% of new generation in 2014 but the figure give 23% with coal apparently not providing any new capacity. I suspect the figure is correct on this. http://breakingenergy.com/2015...
The original paper http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... does not seem to make a big deal about Winter so TFA may be adding that owing to this Winter's weather which has had record warmth this Winter. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
North Carolina does not allow planning to take account of sea level rise because it impedes permitting new development. http://abcnews.go.com/US/north... Florida faces wide scale loss of real estate which hurts some constituencies if dealt with honestly.
China is building this plant and China has never had a nuclear accident. It has to be safe.
The enhanced deuterium indicates much of the original hydrogen escaped to space.
What you are calling a growth curve is often called a learning curve. It is the idea that costs reduce as more of the technology is deployed. People get bright ideas as they work in the field, going to greater scale means more can be produced with less labor, etc... You are correct that nuclear power gets more expensive with time. http://thinkprogress.org/clima... There are technologies where the more common behavior is seen. Wind and solar power are growing exponentially owing to lower and lower cost as more are deployed. At their current growth rates either can replace all the world's energy demand around the year 2035. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Solar power displaces the use of those fuel based methods. They are used less, not more.