![]() | ||
2011-03-14 16:48:35 | Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it | |
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.158.190 |
Here’s a post that I’ve written on the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report. It was launched a few months ago but hasn’t received the publicity I think it deserves – John, do you have any way of getting this into the Australian mainstream media? I might also add some figures from the report but I haven’t got around to it yet.
| |
2011-03-14 17:16:20 | ||
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.196.118 |
-The concrete needed is a tiny fraction of Australia’s resources I think the problem with concrete is the CO2 produced during cement manufacture. Are they going to be using flyash in the process to minimise this?. -In one possible scenario, electricity prices could rise by $8 per household per week, similar to what is expected under BAU. This isn't clear to me. Excellent post James. I wasn't aware so much work had gone into considering an alternative infrastructure, but maybe you need to make it more explicit up front, that the post deals with the power grid. You can just about guarantee that contarians will whine about transport, manufacturing etc if you don't. Mind you they'll probably do that anyway. I know you mention the other reports in your opening, but maybe the 3rd heading & lead-in should have more clarity. I take it this will be one of six posts in total?. | |
2011-03-14 19:19:08 | ||
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.158.190 |
"I take it this will be one of six posts in total?" Actually this is the only part of the Plan that has been released - because it's the most important and urgent. I understand the other parts are still in development. | |
2011-03-15 06:52:50 | comments | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
"Australia’s carbon budget runs out in just five years (the same goes for the US and Canada)." I didn't quite follow this bit. Why five years? Could you explain this part in a bit more detail? "In one possible scenario, electricity prices could rise by $8 per household per week, similar to what is expected under BAU." => agree with Rob, this could use more detail. What's the possible scenario, for example? The 'What would happen to fossil fuel industries' section could probably use a bit more detail too. Seems to me like they'd basically be out of business, but some of the impacted workers could switch to solar jobs, as you note some will be in similar geographic locations. Maybe there could be a job training program. Very good post though James. Interesting stuff. | |
2011-03-16 22:10:00 | Minor revisions | |
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.158.190 |
I have reworded the bits about Australia's carbon budget and electricity prices; hope that clarifies things. I don't think I need to go into detail on "What would happen to fossil fuel industries" as the report doesn't say much about it. | |
2011-03-17 03:38:49 | comments | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
I think I see what you're saying at the beginning now, but it could use a bit more clarity: "A common approach is to define a quota of future allowable global emissions to bring atmospheric CO2 levels below 350 ppm, and divide them up by nation per capita. At Australia's current rate of emissions, we will use up our share of the global budget in just five years (the same goes for the US and Canada). This gives Australia about a decade to make the transition." It would still be nice to give some details on the scenario under which electricity prices rise $8 per week. Otherwise this statement just doesn't add much, because you're just left wondering what the scenario is. | |
2011-03-17 05:59:33 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.121.84 |
- Aren't we at about 390 ppm already? | |
2011-03-17 06:53:21 | 390 | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
True, neal. I've revised my comments above from "keep CO2 below 350" to "bring CO2 below 350". Since natural carbon sinks absorb more than natural carbon sources release, if we bring our emissions low enough, atmospheric CO2 levels can actually decrease. | |
2011-03-17 07:01:40 | Question | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.187.101.78 |
How does the assertion that CST can provide baseload gel with our 'renewables and base load' rebuttal that says CST can only store heat from 6 to 7.5 hours? | |
2011-03-17 07:59:38 | Answer | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
The report does address that: "If ramped back to lower output overnight the plants can operate for longer than 7.5 hours if necessary" I think that's 7.5 hours of storage based on either maximum or average output. But obviously demands are much lower at night. They also recommend biomass co-firing using the steam turbines and other insfrastructure at CST plants to compensate when it's too cloudy out. | |
2011-03-17 13:31:23 | Not 350 ppm | |
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.158.190 |
Actually I’ve just realised the emissions budget they refer to (available here) is not even to meet a 350 ppm target! It’s to have a 67% of meeting Copenhagen’s 2°C guardrail (probably too high), assuming a climate sensitivity of 3°C (probably too low in the long term). The more you look into the question of targets, the more depressing it gets… | |
2011-03-17 13:40:43 | So even if we go to 100% renewable in 10 years, we're still screwed? | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.187.101.78 |
That is depressing :-( However, keep fighting the good fight, people! Remember climate impacts are not binary - it's not all or nothing. We know we have to mitigate, adapt and suffer. The question is how much of each. | |
2011-03-17 14:01:03 | Makes sense | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
Yeah that makes sense. Keep in mind we're already committed to 1.4C, so limiting warming to 2C would be a major accomplishment. Even Scenario B1 has us at like 2.6C above pre-industrial in 2100. Anyway, 2C is just the danger limit. Like you say, i's about limiting suffering and adaption. | |
2011-03-17 18:42:17 | ||
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.158.190 |
Okay, the latest version is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html I have added some images. | |
2011-03-18 03:03:41 | 2°C | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
Nice images, James. You should specify that the aim is for limiting warming to 2°C. For example: "A common approach is to define a quota of allowable future global emissions to limit global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and divide them up by nation per capita. At Australia's current rate of emissions, we will use up our share of the global budget in just five years (the same goes for the US and Canada). As currently written, it seems like the target is 350 ppm. |