No, this is not a post about the southern U.S. in ... 2030? 2040? It's about an enjoyable science fiction (actually, perhaps more fantasy) novel, Inferno, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, published a number of years ago.
Inferno is about a science fiction writer, Allen Carpenter (who goes by the name Carpentier to lend an air of sophistication). Carpentier dies falling out of a hotel room window while trying to impress fans at a convention and finds himself in what turns out to be a large bronze bottle. He's there for a long time, and ultimately screams, "For the love of God, someone help me!" Presto, he's out of the bottle and in the vestibule of Hell--or rather, Hell as described in Dante's Inferno. After a lengthy and entertaining journey through its various levels, he helps a fellow resident make his way out, and vows to stay and help others do the same.
So that's a very brief synopsis. Two points about this book come to mind when I think about global warming.
First, at one point, Carpentier encounters a priest who has been in Hell since the Middle Ages, when he was condemned for selling false "indulgences" (essentially, tickets by which the rich could supposedly buy their way into Heaven). Carpentier stops to talk to the priest, whose punishment is to wear a (massively heavy) solid gold robe. The priest says little and starts to walk away, whereupon Carpentier asks why he can't stop and sit down. The priest answers:
"I could fall on you. But it may be that you do not know what you say. If I stop, this robe grows hot. It is too hot now. It grows hot slowly, and it grows cool slowly. Now, goodbye." [emphasis added]
That's the thing about global warming--the Earth grows hot slowly (the good news). The bad news is that it grows cool slowly as well--it's irreversible, on a time scale of centuries. Also, the good news is not really that good, in that it has lulled us into a false sense of security--it's been 25 years since the heat wave of 1988, and we are just now beginning to see the weather extremes pile up.
Second, once Carpentier has figured out that Hell is real, and not just a stupendous feat of futuristic engineering, he focuses on a larger question--why does God allow it to exist at all? People are undergoing infinite torture as punishment for the finite sins, however loathsome, they committed during their lives. In the end, he finally decides on the answer:
"There's only one possible excuse for Hell, and I almost missed it in the ravings of a crazy psychiatrist. It has to be the final training ground. If nothing can get a soul into Heaven in its life, there's still Hell, God's last attempt to get [its] attention. Like a catatonic in a hotbox, like me in that bottle, if Hell won't make a man yell for help, then it was still worth a try."
Hell, in Inferno, is like the climate. We can ignore it, deny that it's changing, lose ourselves in sports and celebrities and politics and ethnic/religious hatred and all sorts of other distractions--but the climate doesn't care. It's just going to keep getting worse and worse, year after year, until we can't look away any longer. For all our sakes, I hope that day is soon.
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon dioxide. Show all posts
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Solar system turns 2000! (kWh)
I've been meaning to provide updates on the output of our backyard solar system, but have fallen behind due to the press of other activities (relating to wind power and climate change).
In any event, while the winter months were, predictably, very slow, electricity production has picked up in the past six weeks, and our system currently stands at 2.42 MWh (megawatt-hours), or 2,420 kilowatt-hours).
So, let's run the numbers again.
In terms of energy, it's the equivalent of 72 gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive one of our hybrid autos about 3,200 miles.
In terms of generating electricity, the numbers are bigger, because the combustion process for fossil fuels wastes energy. 2,420 kWh is equivalent to burning about 2,400 pounds (more than a ton) of coal, or 142 gallons of diesel oil (New England, where we are located, still burns plenty of diesel oil to generate electricity).
In terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the New England utility system gives off about 0.9 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity, so our 2,420 kWh means about 2,200 pounds of carbon dioxide has been kept out of the atmosphere.
From February 15 to March 15, our system generated 208 kWh, just over two-thirds as much electricity as we used (308 kWh). Looking forward to seeing our utility bills dip below zero this month.
In any event, while the winter months were, predictably, very slow, electricity production has picked up in the past six weeks, and our system currently stands at 2.42 MWh (megawatt-hours), or 2,420 kilowatt-hours).
So, let's run the numbers again.
In terms of energy, it's the equivalent of 72 gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive one of our hybrid autos about 3,200 miles.
In terms of generating electricity, the numbers are bigger, because the combustion process for fossil fuels wastes energy. 2,420 kWh is equivalent to burning about 2,400 pounds (more than a ton) of coal, or 142 gallons of diesel oil (New England, where we are located, still burns plenty of diesel oil to generate electricity).
In terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the New England utility system gives off about 0.9 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity, so our 2,420 kWh means about 2,200 pounds of carbon dioxide has been kept out of the atmosphere.
From February 15 to March 15, our system generated 208 kWh, just over two-thirds as much electricity as we used (308 kWh). Looking forward to seeing our utility bills dip below zero this month.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
EV or not EV? That is (not really) the question
My wife and I got a ride last evening in a Mitsubishi MiEV and were very impressed. It's a small but reasonably roomy 100 percent electric 4-person vehicle, range 50-60 miles, 22 hours to charge (from zero to full) on 110, 7 hours to charge on 220. Talking with its owner brought out an aspect to those numbers I hadn't considered, which is that if you drive it 20 miles, it can probably be fully charged again overnight because it won't be down to zero. Duh. Which means, in turn, that if your commute is not too long, you may be able to use it every day for several days ...
Anyway, that prompted a discussion, because my wife had seen a reference somewhere recently to how EVs (electric vehicles) may not be as clean as hybrids, depending on the fuels that the utility system in your region uses to generate electricity. I've also seen this issue raised a number of times, perhaps most prominently in a New York Times article discussing a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study on the issue.
I have a beef, not with UCS--which is a great organization--but with the implications that can easily be drawn from such a study, specifically the implication that anyone, anywhere, should feel free to go ahead and buy a gasoline auto if the utility system in the region depends heavily on coal. Don't do it!
I say not so, and here's why. The problem with carbon emissions from an EV, such as they are, is not inherent with the EV, it's a problem with the utility system, and a problem that can actually be fixed, by the utility building or purchasing more renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biomass) power plants. The problem with carbon emissions from a gas auto is inherent with the auto, and you're investing in a (small) piece of infrastructure that will never get better until it goes to the junkyard at the end of its useful life, 10 to 20 years from now.
The Times article, and the UCS study itself, suggest how easy it is to misread the issue. The article ends as follows: "'To prevent the worse consequences of global warming,' the report concludes, 'the automotive industry must deliver viable alternatives to the oil-fueled internal combustion engine, i.e., vehicles boasting zero or near-zero emissions.'" (emphasis added) But what about the utility industry? It's remarkable that it isn't mentioned, given the subject of the study. More importantly, it's remarkable because using electricity to break into the transportation energy market is a huge potential opportunity for electric utilities to expand their business. Geez.
(I've had at least one argument on the Web about a closely related topic. The people involved were very environmentally conscious, and dissing the idea of driving entirely for the same reason, saying that bicycling is the only way to go. In essence, I told them, "If you want to see gasoline autos for the indefinite future, just keep belittling EVs and that is what you will get.")
Luckily, it turns out that our region (northeastern U.S.) has a relatively low-carbon generating mix, and so an EV tops the best hybrid, which means there is a good chance we will pop for one. To me, it's a no-brainer, not only because of the reasoning above, but because buying or leasing it helps demonstrate there is a market and sends a message to other drivers who see it around town.
The one (very minor) downside? Owning an EV will boost our electric bills a tad, just as we are beating them into submission with a backyard solar system. Still, that's a minor issue, as driving an EV costs roughly 1/4 as much per mile as driving a gasoline auto.
Anyway, that prompted a discussion, because my wife had seen a reference somewhere recently to how EVs (electric vehicles) may not be as clean as hybrids, depending on the fuels that the utility system in your region uses to generate electricity. I've also seen this issue raised a number of times, perhaps most prominently in a New York Times article discussing a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study on the issue.
I have a beef, not with UCS--which is a great organization--but with the implications that can easily be drawn from such a study, specifically the implication that anyone, anywhere, should feel free to go ahead and buy a gasoline auto if the utility system in the region depends heavily on coal. Don't do it!
I say not so, and here's why. The problem with carbon emissions from an EV, such as they are, is not inherent with the EV, it's a problem with the utility system, and a problem that can actually be fixed, by the utility building or purchasing more renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biomass) power plants. The problem with carbon emissions from a gas auto is inherent with the auto, and you're investing in a (small) piece of infrastructure that will never get better until it goes to the junkyard at the end of its useful life, 10 to 20 years from now.
The Times article, and the UCS study itself, suggest how easy it is to misread the issue. The article ends as follows: "'To prevent the worse consequences of global warming,' the report concludes, 'the automotive industry must deliver viable alternatives to the oil-fueled internal combustion engine, i.e., vehicles boasting zero or near-zero emissions.'" (emphasis added) But what about the utility industry? It's remarkable that it isn't mentioned, given the subject of the study. More importantly, it's remarkable because using electricity to break into the transportation energy market is a huge potential opportunity for electric utilities to expand their business. Geez.
(I've had at least one argument on the Web about a closely related topic. The people involved were very environmentally conscious, and dissing the idea of driving entirely for the same reason, saying that bicycling is the only way to go. In essence, I told them, "If you want to see gasoline autos for the indefinite future, just keep belittling EVs and that is what you will get.")
Luckily, it turns out that our region (northeastern U.S.) has a relatively low-carbon generating mix, and so an EV tops the best hybrid, which means there is a good chance we will pop for one. To me, it's a no-brainer, not only because of the reasoning above, but because buying or leasing it helps demonstrate there is a market and sends a message to other drivers who see it around town.
The one (very minor) downside? Owning an EV will boost our electric bills a tad, just as we are beating them into submission with a backyard solar system. Still, that's a minor issue, as driving an EV costs roughly 1/4 as much per mile as driving a gasoline auto.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
As the solar odometer turns
We have a new residential solar electric (PV, photovoltaic) system installed about a month ago, and its "odometer" will soon turn over the 5 in 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity generated.
It's pretty impressive, just in a mechanical (or rather, non-mechanical) sense. It just sits there. Nothing seems to happen, but the kWh generated daily continues to rise. No muss, no fuss. Pretty neat.
But I digress. The reason for this post was to say something about what 500 kWh will represent, when we get there later today or tomorrow.
In terms of energy, it's the equivalent of 15 gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive one of our hybrid autos about 675 miles.
In terms of generating electricity, the numbers are bigger, because the combustion process for fossil fuels wastes energy. 500 kWh is equivalent to burning about 500 pounds of coal, or 35 gallons of diesel oil (New England, where we are located, still burns plenty of diesel oil to generate electricity).
In terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the New England utility system gives off about one pound of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity, so our 500 kWh means about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide has been kept out of the atmosphere.
So what? Well, that's where the numbers get truly impressive, because of the very long life and heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide. In a post on his blog, Quark Soup, science journalist David Appell quotes David Archer's book, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate, as follows:
"If we add up the total amount of energy trapped by CO2 from the gallon of gas over its atmospheric lifetime, we find that our gallon of gasoline ultimately traps one hundred billion (100,000,000,000) kilocalories of useless and unwanted greenhouse heat."
Burning one gallon of gasoline results in the emission of 19.6 pounds of CO2. That means that one pound of CO2, over its lifetime, traps 100 billion kilocalories divided by 19.6, or 5 billion kilocalories.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't use kilocalories much on a day-to-day basis, so, how much energy is that? Using the handy Google converter for units of measure, I find that it is 2 x 10 to the 13th (10e13) joules--still not a very meaningful quantity. However, one Hiroshima-size atomic bomb releases 63 x 10e12 joules, and one pound of CO2 traps 2 x 10e13 (20 x 10e12) joules. In other words, just three pounds of CO2 added to the atmosphere, over its lifetime, traps as much heat as released by the Hiroshima bomb (a unit of measure Mr. Appell calls the "hiro").
This in turn means that, in a little over a month, our residential solar system has kept enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to trap the equivalent, over time, of the heat that would be released by 167 Hiroshima bombs.
(It also says a lot about how much heat you're adding, over time, to the climate system with every gallon of gas--about 7 Hiroshima bombs' worth--and why it's silly to claim that the billions of tons of carbon dioxide we're adding to the atmosphere each year have no impact on the climate. But that's another blog post.)
I expect to use these numbers more in the future, in other posts and in comments on the Internet, so if you find any errors, please let me know (Mr. Appell has made the same offer, and nothing has turned up yet).
UPDATE (Sept. 8, 2012): The odometer now stands at 626 kWh, which means we have passed another minor milestone--the first barrel of oil equivalent (BOE). Burning a barrel of oil generates about 600 kWh--and produces 940 pounds (almost half a ton) of carbon dioxide.
It's pretty impressive, just in a mechanical (or rather, non-mechanical) sense. It just sits there. Nothing seems to happen, but the kWh generated daily continues to rise. No muss, no fuss. Pretty neat.
But I digress. The reason for this post was to say something about what 500 kWh will represent, when we get there later today or tomorrow.
In terms of energy, it's the equivalent of 15 gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive one of our hybrid autos about 675 miles.
In terms of generating electricity, the numbers are bigger, because the combustion process for fossil fuels wastes energy. 500 kWh is equivalent to burning about 500 pounds of coal, or 35 gallons of diesel oil (New England, where we are located, still burns plenty of diesel oil to generate electricity).
In terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the New England utility system gives off about one pound of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity, so our 500 kWh means about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide has been kept out of the atmosphere.
So what? Well, that's where the numbers get truly impressive, because of the very long life and heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide. In a post on his blog, Quark Soup, science journalist David Appell quotes David Archer's book, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate, as follows:
"If we add up the total amount of energy trapped by CO2 from the gallon of gas over its atmospheric lifetime, we find that our gallon of gasoline ultimately traps one hundred billion (100,000,000,000) kilocalories of useless and unwanted greenhouse heat."
Burning one gallon of gasoline results in the emission of 19.6 pounds of CO2. That means that one pound of CO2, over its lifetime, traps 100 billion kilocalories divided by 19.6, or 5 billion kilocalories.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't use kilocalories much on a day-to-day basis, so, how much energy is that? Using the handy Google converter for units of measure, I find that it is 2 x 10 to the 13th (10e13) joules--still not a very meaningful quantity. However, one Hiroshima-size atomic bomb releases 63 x 10e12 joules, and one pound of CO2 traps 2 x 10e13 (20 x 10e12) joules. In other words, just three pounds of CO2 added to the atmosphere, over its lifetime, traps as much heat as released by the Hiroshima bomb (a unit of measure Mr. Appell calls the "hiro").
This in turn means that, in a little over a month, our residential solar system has kept enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to trap the equivalent, over time, of the heat that would be released by 167 Hiroshima bombs.
(It also says a lot about how much heat you're adding, over time, to the climate system with every gallon of gas--about 7 Hiroshima bombs' worth--and why it's silly to claim that the billions of tons of carbon dioxide we're adding to the atmosphere each year have no impact on the climate. But that's another blog post.)
I expect to use these numbers more in the future, in other posts and in comments on the Internet, so if you find any errors, please let me know (Mr. Appell has made the same offer, and nothing has turned up yet).
UPDATE (Sept. 8, 2012): The odometer now stands at 626 kWh, which means we have passed another minor milestone--the first barrel of oil equivalent (BOE). Burning a barrel of oil generates about 600 kWh--and produces 940 pounds (almost half a ton) of carbon dioxide.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Emissions rise. Temperature projections too.
A couple of bad news items on the same day (May 24):
First, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 totaled 31.6 billion metric tons (tonnes), an all-time high and 1.0 billion tonnes (3.2%) above 2010:
"Coal accounted for 45% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil (35%) and natural gas (20%).
"The 450 Scenario of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, which sets out an energy pathway consistent with a 50% chance of limiting the increase in the average global temperature to 2°C [3.6 degrees F], requires CO2 emissions to peak at 32.6 [billion tonnes] no later than 2017, i.e., just 1.0 [billion tonnes] above 2011 levels."
Meanwhile, researchers with a German project called the Climate Action Tracker said their monitoring of countries' progress in meeting their greenhouse gas emission reductions pledges indicates that global warming cannot be contained to 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 Fahrenheit):
Marion Vieweg, a policy researcher with German firm Climate Analytics, told AFP the 3.5 C (6.3 F) estimate had been based on the assumption that all countries will meet their pledges, in themselves inadequate, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
"New research has found this is not 'a realistic assumption,' she said, adding that right now 'we can't quantify yet how much above' 3.5 C (6.3 F) Earth will warm." Climate Action Tracker is a joint effort of Climate Analytics, Ecofys, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Update - 25 May 2012: Climate Progress has a new blog that covers the IEA info in more detail, noting that IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol says the emissions data are "perfectly in line" with a temperature rise of 6 degrees C (11 F), which would be somewhere well beyond catastrophic.
First, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 totaled 31.6 billion metric tons (tonnes), an all-time high and 1.0 billion tonnes (3.2%) above 2010:
"Coal accounted for 45% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil (35%) and natural gas (20%).
"The 450 Scenario of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, which sets out an energy pathway consistent with a 50% chance of limiting the increase in the average global temperature to 2°C [3.6 degrees F], requires CO2 emissions to peak at 32.6 [billion tonnes] no later than 2017, i.e., just 1.0 [billion tonnes] above 2011 levels."
Meanwhile, researchers with a German project called the Climate Action Tracker said their monitoring of countries' progress in meeting their greenhouse gas emission reductions pledges indicates that global warming cannot be contained to 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 Fahrenheit):
Marion Vieweg, a policy researcher with German firm Climate Analytics, told AFP the 3.5 C (6.3 F) estimate had been based on the assumption that all countries will meet their pledges, in themselves inadequate, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
"New research has found this is not 'a realistic assumption,' she said, adding that right now 'we can't quantify yet how much above' 3.5 C (6.3 F) Earth will warm." Climate Action Tracker is a joint effort of Climate Analytics, Ecofys, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Update - 25 May 2012: Climate Progress has a new blog that covers the IEA info in more detail, noting that IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol says the emissions data are "perfectly in line" with a temperature rise of 6 degrees C (11 F), which would be somewhere well beyond catastrophic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)