Review of The Climate Fix from the United Nations University
The
United Nations University Our World 2.0 blog has posted up a very thoughtful review of The Climate Fix. Here is an excerpt:
I would like to begin by saying how enjoyable a read this book is. It is one of the few climate science books that really pulled me in: Pielke writes well and explains complex scientific concepts in plain English. More importantly, the book constructs a set of arguments in a convincing and thoughtful manner. . . it should be required reading for all UN Framework Convention on Climate Change delegations and members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
19 comments:
Roger,
That is just terrific. Congratulations!
Mike
Roger,
You appear to remain unwilling to keep your promise of 7/31/09.
So, I will comment in the first 11 pages of your book (wherein you seem to -- very, very poorly -- make your case for why you consider it advisable for governments worldwide to take action to reduce CO2 emissions).
The IEA, by the way, has suggested that your goal of CO2 emission reduction would cost $45 TRILLION to implement. You can bet their estimate is low by at least a full order of magnitude. You can further bet that the cost/benefit ratio (assuming -- falsely -- that any reduction in warming is actually a “benefit”) would be no better than the abysmal failure of Kyoto.
On page 3, you assert that:
“adversaries on either side of that [climate change] debate have agreed about core aspects of the science”
There are two glaring problems with that assertion:
1) You (deliberately?) fail to delineate these alleged “core aspects of the science”.
2) You fail to offer any evidence to substantiate your extremely vague assertion of scientific consensus.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that you were suggesting that the 2007 IPCC summary for policymakers represents the “core aspects of the science” you were referring to. Yes?
-2-SBVOR
1. There is nothing in the first 11 pages about policy action
2. Keep reading, and don't make any bets ;-)
roger,
I was going to post a section of your book on another blog discussion and just noticed some figures that don't add up, p. 116:
2800 + 750 + 5000 does not equal 12,000
"... for the world to achieve a 50 percent reduction in its emissions below a 1990 baseline it could do the following. First, the world would need to eliminate all coal and natural gas consumption in 2006 and replace it with nuclear power stations. This could be done by adding about 2,800 new nuclear power plants. But that would not be enough to meet the target. More than 40 percent of 2006 petroleum consumption would also have to be replaced (eg. perhaps by using electric vehicles), necessitating about another 750 nuclear power stations. But then there will new demand beyond 2006 that has to be met. If global consumption of energy increases by 1.5 percent per year to 2050, that will imply a need for more than 340 new quads of energy, which, if met by nuclear power plants, implies another 5000 nuclear power stations. The grand total? More than 12,000 nuclear power stations worth of effort would be needed to reduce emissions to 50 percent of their 1990 level by 2050. (footnote: or about 2 million solar thermal plants or 8 million wind turbines). If we were to add in consumption needed to provide electricity to the 1.5 billion people in 2009 without access, it would necessitate the equivalent of thousands more nuclear stations"
..."a thoughtful review..."
Hmmm...I seem to detect a pattern.
All postive reviews are labled as "thoughtful".
:)
-4-Bill Kerr
Nice catch!
Yes, this is indeed a typo. I checked my spreadsheet and the number should indeed be 8,500, which is in round numbers about one per day.
I'm pretty sure that number went unchanged somehow when I switched from using a 2% growth in energy demand to 1.5%. The solar thermal plants and wind turbine numbers are correct as written.
Many thanks!
thank you
it's closer to one every two days with those numbers
40*365 = 14600
14600/8500 = 1.7
-7-Bill Kerr
This is 0.6 per day (8500/14600), which I round to 1 per day (in round numbers).
Given the very conservative nature of the calculations (all assumptions were made to be on the low side), it is more appropriate to round up rather than down. My numbers come out a bit lower than Caldeira et al. 2003 estimate of one-per-day because of these assumptions. Also, these numbers do not include expanding energy access.
But if you like 1 every 1.7 days, that is OK, it won't change the analysis in any way. Both numbers are well within any reasonable uncertainty bounds in any case.
Thanks!
Those particular figures were very useful as part of the argument that improved technology is required and hence more R&D, so its important to get them right
barry brook @ Brave New Climate has now responded on the thread I posted too, if you want to join in there
-9-Bill Kerr
Barry Brook's calculations are virtually identical to my own, here is what I submitted at his blog on the thread that you point to:
Barry-
Your estimate of 6000 GWe equals 8,000 nuclear power plants equivalent (@ 750 MW per), virtually identical to my estimate of 8,500. The margins of error here are huge as a 1% error in future energy demand is thousands of plants.
-10-
My comment disappeared into the ether over there ...
From memory I think your first comment at Brave New Climate is moderated but once the first one is let through then others appear immediately. Worth mentioning if others decide to post there.
-12-Bill Kerr
Feel free to post up my comment in #10 above
Also, you can get a sense of the uncertainty in such projections in this figure from Hoffert and colleagues:
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4393
ok, I did that
Roger, I posted this as a summary of your book on the BNC thread. (I'm probably still missing some important points since I haven't read the whole thing yet):
we will need VASTLY more energy in the future
the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is a big problem – both AGW and biogeochemical effects
so we have to decarbonise the energy supply, aka reduce carbon intensity C output / energy consumed (see Kaya identity section for more detail here)
decarbonisation makes sense from other perspectives too, eg. energy security for some countries (from a policy perspective it is important that there are some short and intermediate term gains from the pain or costs of policy)
the public will not accept a big C tax designed to change energy consumption behaviour – they will vote out any party that introduces it
small steps are better than grandiose plans that end up being rejected
there is not a linear relationship between climate science and government policy, Scientific findings in complex social issues do not dictate policy. Politics in a democracy required public support. A non linear or oblique approach might work. The direct approach has failed (Copenhagen)
the public will accept a small dedicated C tax (rising slowly over time) to fund R&D; there is consistent public support for some action on climate change but not dramatic action which will alter standard of living
We need more R&D because present technology is not sufficient to do the CO2 reduction that is required – taking into account future economic growth and removal of CO2 from the ocean to reduce harmful biogeochemical effects, as well as from the atmosphere
Since the above steps do not provide a guarantee for targeted CO2 reductions then a backstop is also required
CO2 air capture and storage (remediation) is a potential backstop, which could reshape the climate debate, one of the targets for further R&D
-16-Bill Kerr
Thanks! This is quite good.
One important aspect of my argument related to mitigation that I would add (from Chapter 9, so you likely haven't gotten there) is the idea of "policy jujitsu" and obliquity -- specifically, that the best route to accelerated decarbonization may in fact be through a commitment to dramatically expanding energy access, and supply, necessitating a diversification of energy supply technologies.
Thanks!
I believe that the factor of 3 (8500 vs 2800 nuclear power plants) also occurs on page 100. Instead of 189 new nuclear power plants, it should be about 570.
A. Hirsch
-18-Andrew
Thanks for your comment ... a response:
I am using the relationship 1 quad = 11 GW, so for the calculation on p. 100 it is
(12.9*11)/.75 = 189
Source:
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm
Post a Comment