Those prices on your 2017 invoice are (I assume) from existing generation sources (probably for some at least with long-term fixed price guarantees) - the numbers in the Lazard report are for newly built generation in 2018. There is also some international data on page 9 for solar, wind, gas peaker (open cycle), and gas CCGT (combined cycle).
So I don't expect to see emission continue to rise for much longer - just for straight economic reasons...
Then there's developments like Allam cycle gas power plants, which have a better basic efficiency than the current fleet of gas power plants, and these have CO2 capture baked in for free as part of the design. Getting someone to pay to bury that CO2 is likely to be way cheaper than paying someone to suck it out of the air at 600ppm, and then bury it.
See also Lazard's annual analysis of costs for power generation 2018 and check out the graph on page 7. Coal and gas peaker plants aren't coming back from those sort of price drops, and solar costs are still dropping. Yes, I know this isn't dispatchable generation, but demand-response, and long-distance transmission, will largely get you around that...
You don't really start needing a lot of storage until renewables are over 50% of the generation mix, and costs are falling for storage rapidly, so that there's a reasonable chance that solar + storage will be the cheapest form of generation by the time we get to 50% renewables (by just replacing generation plant on the usual replacement cycles i.e. without added cost) too.
If the learning for various low-carbon alternatives hadn't fallen drastically in the past few years, then I'd say you were correct, but as it is, this rise is just lag in the system I think...
Wind and solar generation LCOE are now lower than fossil energy generation in much of the world, and their prices are still falling. Fossil generation plant commissioning has dropped dramatically (see GE's profits forecast for their fossil turbine division - for example). TCO of a new electric car is now lower than that of fossil fuelled cars. TCO of heat pumps is lower than gas heating in many parts of the world too.
This is much like the smoking/cancer research (except a more difficult problem to prove in many ways). If you do not accept the link between bowel cancer and meat (especially "well done" meats, and preserved / processed meats), then there are significant environmental and land use impacts.
Err, meat produces about 4 times as much CH4 as rice. Both need to be tacked source. What's the problem with feeding them a bit of seaweed, that's been done for centuries in seaside farms anyway!
OK, well maybe, but we do have a bit of a better understanding now, and beef increases the risk of bowel cancer anyway. Maybe try watching the video and see what actually goes into that particular type - pretty much stuff you already eat...
Oh yeah, and the numbers themselves are the % of the instantaneous demand at the time they are shown. Full breakdown by source is shown in the sidebar when you click on a map area...
Renewable is a subset of low carbon. Low carbon will also include e.g. Nuclear (which is non-renewable because the fuel can only be used once).
lowcarbon - renewable = nuclear
low-carbon could also include e.g. gas with carbon sequestration, but this doesn't really exist on the grid (yet), apart from maybe one or two small demo plants.
See also https://www.electricitymap.org... for realtime CO2 intensity of electricity production across a big chunk of the world...
e.g. right now (morning peak), the UK's running on 28% gas, 24% nuclear, 19% wind, 8% coal, 4% solar.
Get on with it and suggest some right-wing plans. I'm not keen on unnecessary govt intervention, or ineffective anti-climate-change policies. Denial isn't a solution tho'.
Looks like the transition ship has sailed and will continue (because at least 50% decarbonisation - and eventually 100% - will be cheaper than not doing it) with the US in the Paris agreement or outside it.
I'm all for replacing coal with gas - it makes economic sense, even if you don't count the hidden pollution cost of coal.
I'm not a fan of big government and complex subsidies - just cancel all the subsidies (invest in R&D where it make sense) and cap+trade, cut income tax, and balance the income tax reduction with a carbon tax which reflects the actual cost of CO emission. Poof - externality disappears, and let capitalism get on with fixing things. Less tax on earning money, more tax on screwing up everyone's home instead.
That'll knock the insane corn-ethanol business out too.
Fortunately, it'll probably no longer make a massive amount of difference whether the US stays in the Paris agreement or leaves. Solar PV is now the cheapest form of energy generation in sunny areas (cheaper than new coal, and fracked gas), and it's still getting cheaper - solar PV module cost is halving every 5 to 10 years (balance of system now makes up the majority of costs for utility scale PV). The cost of battery storage is halving every 8 years. So whilst it'd be best for the US to stay in, it'll not actually have that much effect if they leave.
PV + lithium ion Batteries are already the cheapest form of generation in some parts of the world (e.g. Hawaii), and given the massive increase in R+D which that's causing, it's only heading in one direction. Seems pretty pointless to subsidise people to dig coal out of the ground that no one wants to burn anyway... Definitely a problem if you live in an area which is dependent on coal generation, but hey, the market in horse shoes and saddles isn't what it used to be either, and renewables employ more people than coal already anyway. Same story in China and most other places too.
References - see recent LCOE figures and Swansons law.
... otherwise it'll be the effective end of their democracies and government by the rich and powerful (who will make sure that the majority of the public believe the opposite is what's actually happened).
In the West, whoever can afford to buy your data and sufficient analytics and brains/AI to watch the campaign feedback are probably the next government.
The Chinese government have realised this, and are trying to make sure that data isn't available (commercially) for their individual citizens. They see it as a significant risk to their establishment I'd guess. I hope the EU countries pass similar laws.
WTF? You're basing your views on a junky TV show? Just look at the stats. Really, go and look at them. Please.
UK murder rate is less than 1 per 100,000 per year. US is more than 4 times higher at just under 4 per 100,000 per year for 2013.
For that matter, why TF are you worried about murders, you're more than twice as likely to be killed on the roads in the US as you are murdered. But you're more likely to be murdered in the US than you are run over in the UK.
But if you still prefer anecdote to facts, then I've lived in both countries, and I know which one I feel safest in.
Slashdot Mirror
Those prices on your 2017 invoice are (I assume) from existing generation sources (probably for some at least with long-term fixed price guarantees) - the numbers in the Lazard report are for newly built generation in 2018. There is also some international data on page 9 for solar, wind, gas peaker (open cycle), and gas CCGT (combined cycle).
So I don't expect to see emission continue to rise for much longer - just for straight economic reasons...
Then there's developments like Allam cycle gas power plants, which have a better basic efficiency than the current fleet of gas power plants, and these have CO2 capture baked in for free as part of the design. Getting someone to pay to bury that CO2 is likely to be way cheaper than paying someone to suck it out of the air at 600ppm, and then bury it.
See also Lazard's annual analysis of costs for power generation 2018 and check out the graph on page 7. Coal and gas peaker plants aren't coming back from those sort of price drops, and solar costs are still dropping. Yes, I know this isn't dispatchable generation, but demand-response, and long-distance transmission, will largely get you around that...
You don't really start needing a lot of storage until renewables are over 50% of the generation mix, and costs are falling for storage rapidly, so that there's a reasonable chance that solar + storage will be the cheapest form of generation by the time we get to 50% renewables (by just replacing generation plant on the usual replacement cycles i.e. without added cost) too.
s/fallen drastically/cut costs drastically/ ... in too much of a rush...
If the learning for various low-carbon alternatives hadn't fallen drastically in the past few years, then I'd say you were correct, but as it is, this rise is just lag in the system I think...
Wind and solar generation LCOE are now lower than fossil energy generation in much of the world, and their prices are still falling. Fossil generation plant commissioning has dropped dramatically (see GE's profits forecast for their fossil turbine division - for example). TCO of a new electric car is now lower than that of fossil fuelled cars. TCO of heat pumps is lower than gas heating in many parts of the world too.
Also, that definitely wouldn't explain Exxon's internal science team predicting a 2C warming by 2060 back in 1982?
Do you think those involved in that internal study thought that would help them keep their jobs at Exxon?
This is much like the smoking/cancer research (except a more difficult problem to prove in many ways). If you do not accept the link between bowel cancer and meat (especially "well done" meats, and preserved / processed meats), then there are significant environmental and land use impacts.
Err, meat produces about 4 times as much CH4 as rice. Both need to be tacked source. What's the problem with feeding them a bit of seaweed, that's been done for centuries in seaside farms anyway!
OK, well maybe, but we do have a bit of a better understanding now, and beef increases the risk of bowel cancer anyway. Maybe try watching the video and see what actually goes into that particular type - pretty much stuff you already eat...
This was studied by a Canadian researcher, who later moved to Australia? See 2016 blog post here: https://blog.csiro.au/seaweed-hold-key-cutting-methane-emissions-cow-burps/ Maybe fully synthetic beef is a better idea - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWtEVbrNdI8&t=158s?
Oh yeah, and the numbers themselves are the % of the instantaneous demand at the time they are shown. Full breakdown by source is shown in the sidebar when you click on a map area...
Renewable is a subset of low carbon. Low carbon will also include e.g. Nuclear (which is non-renewable because the fuel can only be used once).
lowcarbon - renewable = nuclear
low-carbon could also include e.g. gas with carbon sequestration, but this doesn't really exist on the grid (yet), apart from maybe one or two small demo plants.
Oh yeah, should have said - it's GPLv3 code is here - https://github.com/tmrowco/ele...
See also https://www.electricitymap.org... for realtime CO2 intensity of electricity production across a big chunk of the world... e.g. right now (morning peak), the UK's running on 28% gas, 24% nuclear, 19% wind, 8% coal, 4% solar.
See also here if you prefer your expletives with an English accent.
... when one of your space industry colleagues decides that the best place to continue observations is lying flat on the ground, best to take note...
The martian 25 hour day length should even things up a bit...
Get on with it and suggest some right-wing plans. I'm not keen on unnecessary govt intervention, or ineffective anti-climate-change policies. Denial isn't a solution tho'.
This would be a good start -
https://campaignforcleanenergyfuture.org/barrett-proposes-carbon-fee-to-help-reduce-greenhouse-gas/
S.1821 - polluter pays, everyone gets an equal share. No revenue leaves the country or goes to government.
The concept was "three of the regular ones strapped together", but actually it's required a lot more design changes than originally thought...
https://youtu.be/XqYPmshyCDU?t=28m24s
I can recommend the Archer C7 - as do some of the LEDE developers https://lwn.net/Articles/714019/
The state of progress in a few slides:
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2017/04/2017-04-25-Michael-Liebreich-BNEFSummit-Keynote.pdf
Looks like the transition ship has sailed and will continue (because at least 50% decarbonisation - and eventually 100% - will be cheaper than not doing it) with the US in the Paris agreement or outside it.
I'm all for replacing coal with gas - it makes economic sense, even if you don't count the hidden pollution cost of coal.
I'm not a fan of big government and complex subsidies - just cancel all the subsidies (invest in R&D where it make sense) and cap+trade, cut income tax, and balance the income tax reduction with a carbon tax which reflects the actual cost of CO emission. Poof - externality disappears, and let capitalism get on with fixing things. Less tax on earning money, more tax on screwing up everyone's home instead.
That'll knock the insane corn-ethanol business out too.
Fortunately, it'll probably no longer make a massive amount of difference whether the US stays in the Paris agreement or leaves. Solar PV is now the cheapest form of energy generation in sunny areas (cheaper than new coal, and fracked gas), and it's still getting cheaper - solar PV module cost is halving every 5 to 10 years (balance of system now makes up the majority of costs for utility scale PV). The cost of battery storage is halving every 8 years. So whilst it'd be best for the US to stay in, it'll not actually have that much effect if they leave.
PV + lithium ion Batteries are already the cheapest form of generation in some parts of the world (e.g. Hawaii), and given the massive increase in R+D which that's causing, it's only heading in one direction. Seems pretty pointless to subsidise people to dig coal out of the ground that no one wants to burn anyway... Definitely a problem if you live in an area which is dependent on coal generation, but hey, the market in horse shoes and saddles isn't what it used to be either, and renewables employ more people than coal already anyway. Same story in China and most other places too.
References - see recent LCOE figures and Swansons law.
... otherwise it'll be the effective end of their democracies and government by the rich and powerful (who will make sure that the majority of the public believe the opposite is what's actually happened).
In the West, whoever can afford to buy your data and sufficient analytics and brains/AI to watch the campaign feedback are probably the next government.
The Chinese government have realised this, and are trying to make sure that data isn't available (commercially) for their individual citizens. They see it as a significant risk to their establishment I'd guess. I hope the EU countries pass similar laws.
WTF? You're basing your views on a junky TV show? Just look at the stats. Really, go and look at them. Please.
UK murder rate is less than 1 per 100,000 per year. US is more than 4 times higher at just under 4 per 100,000 per year for 2013.
For that matter, why TF are you worried about murders, you're more than twice as likely to be killed on the roads in the US as you are murdered. But you're more likely to be murdered in the US than you are run over in the UK.
But if you still prefer anecdote to facts, then I've lived in both countries, and I know which one I feel safest in.
[sources wikipedia, and ourworldindata.org]