Climate Change Experts "Lose Faith" In Renewable Technology

The Guardian:

Support for renewable energy technology to fight global warming is weakening in the face of worldwide economic problems and the true scale of the carbon reductions required, a survey published today has suggested.

Figures presented at the UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland, show that climate experts have less faith in alternative energy than they did 12 months ago.

Read the whole story: The Guardian

Comments

[Nooooorm]

I'm trying to understand...
Is there any "change" in climate that is not attributed to man-made global warming?
More precisely, what evidence, what data, what study would be enough to convince those that believe in man-made global warming that they are wrong?
Specifically, to those that believe in man-made global warming, what weather or climate events would cause you to doubt the man-made global warming theory?

[research]

I generally avoid the argument.

It really doesn't matter.

We want to shift to wind and solar and away from coal oil and nukes for a million other good reasons. Cheaper, cleaner, not resource limited, won't create mushroom clouds, etc...

[GuyRC]

Are you talking about scientists or bloggers? Scientists have concurred that there is an anthropogenic contribution to global warming that we should reduce as much as possible. You want to convince them they are wrong start publishing in a peer review journal instead of an oil company funded think-tank website. If you are talking about bloggers, well they believe whatever they choose to believe. No single weather or climate event would convince me of anything one way or another since I trust expert climatologists spending years of time to look at all the events on record. And I've looked at the credentials of the oil company funded think tank deniers and realize they are fossils only slightly younger than the fossils the oil companies make gas out of.

[SShaw490]

It's funny, because here the environmental lobby is castigating GM et al for being irresponsible, stuck in the past, making the same mistakes over and over, etc, etc. And what I see is an environmental lobby that's doing the same thing they've always done - for 30 years, environmentalists have tried to use confrontation and arm-twisting of politicians to achieve their goals, and for 30 years they've been poisoning their own well. They have succeeded in making environmentalism a pariah in society. And now they have a chance to change all that - they have a chance to find ways to mediate, to compromise, to rationalize; they have a unique confluence of public concern about energy independence and political leadership with the will to fix things. They can work to find real solutions to real problems. But all I hear is absurd, Flash Gordon reliance on wind and solar power as their solution, and they DEMAND that we do it that way. They hate it when people bring up conservation because "that will kill alternative energy". Well, as an energy professional and engineer, I can say that what's killing alternative energy is its own inablilty to provide enough energy to be a serious approach to the problem.

GM has a golden opportunity to restructure their business and go into the 21st centrury much stronger. Envrionmentalists have a golden opportunity to show that they're serious about solving problems and aren't just going to scream in an echo chamber.

[research]

I would hire you as an engineer.

You refused to correct you math: 7 cent/kwH = 70$per MWH = 61 cents per Watt Year.

You are engaging in a tautological fallacy:

Wind and Solar have not provided enough energy,

Therefore they cannot.

A 1 trillion or so dollars can replace nukes coal and oil electricity production with wind.

Links and calculation are on my profile.

[SShaw490]

If you think one trillion dollars is reasonable - and, for that matter, if you think 200 GW is achievable with wind and solar - then you know so little about the subject that you really should just stay out of it.

That's a perfect example of why the public has so little respect for environmentalists - they demand dollars that are ridiculous for projects that any rational person can see are silly. Thanks for proving my point.

[realpolitic]

SShaw490, you seem to assume that the public has little regard for "environme­ntalists." Perhaps on the extreme right there is little regard for environmentalists, but among most in this country environmentism is one of the chief concerns, especially among the young. Even those who may not be as concerned about the environment want to save money on energy costs, by being as energy efficient as possible and using alternative energies. For example, WalMart is installing solar panels on a number of stores to save money. Most environmentalists always emphasize conservation. You make a number of conclusions and assertions that are just not true, which leads me to believe you are just another agenda driven, far-right ideologue.

[SShaw490]

There is environmental consciousness - which is born of a love for nature that many or even MOST people share - and then there are environmentalists, which is a group of people seen by the overwhelming majority of Americans as irrational, lunatic fringe, knee jerk reactionaries who are passionately commited to the simple act of obstruction. I think this is a golden oppurtunity to appeal the the souls of Americans- souls that love the earth they live on; who want to be responsible, who want to leave a country to their children in which the wonder of nature is passed on as a deeply rooted ethic. Communicating with the inner nature lover is easy - but not if the image of an environmentalist is just a demanding obstructionist. People recoil from that in the same way they recoil from a fundamentalist telling them that they can't be gay or they can't use stem cells in medical research.

Environmentalists should be finding workable, reasonable projects for public transportation; finding ways to build virtual offices that span the country in which people can link via audio/video over the Internet; encouraging the enforcement of speed limits; encouraging public information about how much oil we're using and finding ways to use less; seeing nuclear power as a preferrable alternative to old coal technology - there are a thousand ways that environmentalists can WORK WITH society.

The environmental lobby has never understood that every time they obstruct and demand, they win a battle and lose

[peloquin]

Losing faith, eh? Well then, why bother, let's all just fry by 2050...sigh.

[research]

The article says:

Support for wind and solar is strong at 61% and 66%.

Less than last year. so what.

Losing faith indicates a negative view,

not an incremental decrease in enthusiasm.

[Exusian]

...continued

Fact no. 1.4: Knowing the diameter of Earth (it's cross section) and it's distance from the sun, the inverse square law allows us to calculate the maximum amount of sunlight that would reach Earth's surface in watts per square meter, and thus calculate its average surface temperature. This would be the temperature at which Earth's surface would radiate energy back to space, it's so-called black-body temperature. Taking into account Earth's average albedo of around 30%, that temperature would be around 255K, which would be around -18C, or just under 0F.

In other words, some other factor allows Earth to NOT be a frozen world over most, if not all of it's entire surface. That factor is the gases in Earth's atmosphere. (Part 2)

[realpolitic]

Where is part 2?

[fumes]

i was thinkin that same thing rp

[Exusian]

The argument in support of the hypotheses that humans are responsible for global warming, in whole or in part.
Part 1
Establishing Facts

Fact no. 1.1: Almost all (99.9%) of Earth's energy budget comes from incoming electromagnetic energy from the sun, mostly in the visible and ultraviolet wavelengths. The miniscule remainder comes from Earth's own internal geothermal processes (radioactive decay, fluid friction).

Fact no. 1.2: Some of the incoming sunlight is reflected back to space before it even reaches the surface by clouds. A bit is scattered in the atmosphere, and some of it is thus redirected back to space as well. More is reflected back towards space by a brightly colored or reflective surface, such as snow and ice, or water, or brightly colored sand or salt flats in desert areas. This is referred to as albedo. What isn't reflected or scattered is what heats Earth's surface.

Fact no. 1.3: In order for Earth to maintain a roughly constant surface equilibrium temperature, or temperature range due to the diurnal (day-night) cycle and natural variability (seasonal change), it must reflect or radiate to space roughly as much energy as it receives in the form of sunlight. If it sheds less energy it will heat up; if it sheds more, it will cool.

continued....

[realpolitic]

But some of earth's energy comes from the fireflies?

[Exusian]

Zippy asked for proof that humans are responsible for global warming.

First, anyone even remotely familiar with science would know that science does not deal in proof, that would be mathematics.
Science deals with the observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of hypotheses to explain those phenomena, and the observation and measurement of natural and experimental evidence that either supports or refutes those hypothesis.
When sufficient supporting evidence accumulates, and a hypothesis survives sufficient experimental testing and challenge from other scientists, it then becomes accepted as a theory by consensus. Becoming an accepted theory is the highest achievement in science.
However that does not mean that theories can not subsequently be proven wrong with new data and discoveries, but it does mean that science is a process that works--indeed works very well--to weed out false trails and more closely approximate reality and our understanding of it. Proof that it works is all around you: every single item of modern technology is based on application of the scientific method.

Now, on to the argument in support of the hypotheses that humans are responsible for global warming, in whole or in part.
It will be a multi-part step-by-step exercise across multiple threads since this one won't last much longer.

[realpolitic]

Extremely well said!!! (This is usually the point where the conservative global warming naysayers disappear!)

[research]

Support for wind and solar are strong at 61% and 66%

[SShaw490]

And how many people in America know anything about energy? This isn't a public popularity contest - it's engineering, and engineers know that wind and solar are fine for displacing natural gas for use as a fuel (Pickens' plan) but that there's no way to make enough power with wind and solar to power even a single city, much less the entire country.

The way forward is conservation, conservation, conservation. Stop commuting and work from satellite offices for starters - that's the biggest waste of gasoline, time, productivity and quality of human life that has ever been invented. Develop electric cars with onboard charging systems. Build public transportation systems. Work 4/10 schedules. STOP TAKING KIDS TO SCHOOL EVERY DAY IN SUVS for cryin' out loud - that's why God invented the bicycle. Enforce speed limits. Switch homes from heating oil to natural gas where it's possible to do so. Develop a website showing how much oil Americans are burning every month, compare that to historical averages, and slap on a gas tax if we aren't reducing enough to meet an aggressive but reasonable goal.

Make it a matter of patriotic duty to cut gasoline usage.

[research]

You are going to kill the alternative energy future with talk of cutting back.

Of course we want efficiency and conservation, but we and world want enough energy. Solar rooftop and wind can provide that.

[SonofLiberty1]

Like asking why we light up the night sky perhaps?
Not to would be good conservation , don't you think?

[johninoregon]

I've been a big supporter of renewable energy since before it was cool, but I get annoyed at articles like this that fail to refer to efficiency as our FIRST and best option.

When water is leaking out of a bathtub, we don't get a different faucet, we get a better plug. And that's where we need to focus---using technologies that allow us to squeeze additional work out of each unit of energy---from whatever source---that we expend. Many of those technologies (e.g., LED bulbs) already exist but have not been widely enough deployed or (in some cases) fully developed.

Amory Lovins, perhaps the world's foremost expert on energy efficiency, coined the term "negawatt" to describe saved units of electrical energy. Your appliance doesn't care whether it is powered by a negawatt that was saved through more efficient operation of another appliance. Everything works as well, no is inconvenienced, and money is likely saved. But in the case of fossil-generated power, less carbon is expended.

[greenworker]

While the global economic crisis is putting the brakes on large scale renewable energy projects that require large amounts of financing, there are a wide range of green businesses and projects that are low-tech and low-capital but have major impacts on reducing carbon emissions. Large scale reuse efforts, such as the growing network of reuse stores for building materials (i.e. ReBuilders Source Cooperative in NYC - www.rebuilderssource.coop) or recycling requirements for construction waste such as in San Jose, CA are important efforts that dramatically reduce the need for energy and natural resources. Just think of all of the fuel burned and natural resources sacrificed in the many steps of extraction, processing, transportation, and disposal. There are more options out there than solar panels and windmills.

[Palemoon]

Headline to me is pretty misleading. They haven't lost faith in renewable energy. They have lost faith in having the ability to do it, period. Largely because of the economic conditions the world is currently facing, combined with a lack of willingness and cooperation by the masses to push for it. The overriding factor seems to be economics, and the state of the economies, as the main problem.

They do point out some alternatives that have less support, and rightly so. I think it's stupid to push biofuels and a viable replacement to gasoline. It likely will never be able to be that, without seriously harming the world's food supply. So we would essentially be trading one evil, for a percieved lesser evil. Besides, biofuels are mostly being pushed by Big Oil as a way to ensure gasoline is around for a long time to come, since bio-fuels are added to gasoline, rather than replacing it. Giving Big Oil even more clout.

[research]

BS Headline ALERT!
"Lose Faith" ?!?!?!?!?!?

Support for wind and solar are strong at 61% and 66%

Instead they try to find failure, where there is success.
"Support for offshore wind farms, the bedrock for ambitious UK renewable energy plans, was down to 61%, from 65% last year. Solar electricity generation was rated as having high-potential by 66% of respondents, down from 74%. Support for hydrogen power was 32%, down from 36% in 2007."

[SShaw490]

The sad truth is that wind or solar power are woefully inadequate for powering America. Consider that a wind turbine makes a maximum of 3 megawatts (mw) of power. As an average, they generally run at 30% of their capacity because there's not enough wind to turn them, which means 1 mw, and they fall to zero at night in most cases. Well, that's nothing. A good-sized gas turbine based combined cycle power plant makes as much as 1000 mw and is capable of doing it 24 hours a day. A large coal or nuclear plant is 2000 mw. You'd have to build thousands of those things to replace even one plant. It's a fine effort, but you have to realize the scale of what you're talking about - it's a fools errand to try to run America that way.

The future is simply not USING energy - in mass conservation.

[research]

The is just the pessimistic tone this headline is trying to project:

Wind and Solar are already cheaper over the life cycle than anything but dirty coal, and wind even beats coal in many places.

Spend those trillions on energy, infrastructure, states, unemployed, facing foreclosure.

Order a trillion dollars in Wind turbines to install

200 GW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (600GW nameplate) 30% wind availability, 45% already achieved. These are real numbers from operating wind turbines. no BS.

Don't ya think that would jump start the economy?

Cover appropriate roofs with a trillion dollars worth of Solar Cells:

Generate an Average of 125-500 GW !!!!!

Electricity sells for roughly 1$ per Watt per year.

100 to 500B$ per year.

10 or as little as 2 years. Only Maintenance cost, from then on for 20-40 years.

ROI of 100% to 500% over 20 years

What's the ROI on War?

The New Deal cost 500B%

World War II cost 5 Trillion$

This is the TIME

SOLAR AND WIND

NOW.

[SonofLiberty1]

That's why you need to have so many and why they need to be located in the windiest part of the United States...midwest Texas northward as in Oklahoma where the wind comes whipping down the plain:)

[research]

Do the friggin math you moroon.

[SShaw490]

The great hope of a method of reductions in greenhouse gasses is now, and has always been, reduction in total energy consumed. If we simply reconfigured our workplaces to eliminate commuting for any employee who does not work in some kind of industrial or site-specific work - meaning every American who commutes from a suburb to a central business district - then the problem will be solved. If we as a country invested in upgrades to our broadband systems that would allow massive amounts of video carrying capability, and all office workers began working physically in satellite offices near their homes, and every worker had a small camera mounted on their PC and software that would allow them to "knock the door" of another employee and, if the employee "opens the door", the two employees could have a video conversation as if they were in the same room, then guess what? No more commuting. In one fell swoop, we fix our energy dependence and our greenhouse gas emissions problem all at once. Sure, people are still going to drive, but if we eliminated the massive traffic congestion and tremendous wasted time and resources represented by the simple act of millions of people getting in their cars, driving to work and then driving home, we'll have solved the problem.

[EdwardEdwards]

Good point. What makes me puke is when you know how many zillion people are flying back and forth across the world for simple business meetings? Are you kidding?

But this won't eliminate the problem as much as make a significant dent. What would really help things if we embraced the idea that humanity is more important than commerce in the first place.

[EdwardEdwards]

Maybe ONE DAY the planet will realize that turning Earth into a toilet via overpopulation trumps all other concerns, including 'economies'.

[zippy01]

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Perhaps you care to explain the above quotes if it is fact that humans are causing global warming.

[Exusian]

I see skippy is adept at copy & pasting excerpts from James Inhofe's Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority web page without attribution. (It's easy enough to use google to track down text strings when someone fails to properly credit their source.)

It's still an "argument from authority" though. And worse, I see nothing but opinion, or worse, in any of the the selections he quotes.

And this one:
"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity."
is flat out untrue.

[zippy01]

So I forgot to attribute them, I do not claim them as my own. At any rate, you should be on the UN comission since you are obviously smarter than any scientist, or anyone else for that matter. It must be tough being the all knowing. What are your credentials? What papers on the issue have you written? Have you done any studies on this issue, or are you relying on someone elses' work, your argument from authority?

[Exusian]

My arguments are all based on the work of others. I quite proudly stand on the shoulders of giants. Their work can be accessed by anyone with a desire to learn about the science of radiative physics and climate. Such a person might want to start here:
The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

[GuyRC]

It's a war of quotes posted (and endlessly repeated) on denial websites now? I thought you had to publish actual data and models in a peer reviewed journal to be credible. If these people can show the data and models are wrong why don't they publish? Could it be because they aren't really involved in climate science and are barely more credible on the issue than my dentist?

[dukeitout]

Who cares what these slugs think? Cleaner air and water are always beneficial to everyone and the energy sources that yield them should constantly be pursued.