[geo] Re: Public perceptions paper
This CF question is actually quite complex. You can have a CF of 0.7 for a nuke but actually that's because it's working 70% of the time and for 30% it is broken or undergoing maintenance (often for longish periods of days / weeks / months). A CCGT with a CF of 0.7 would most likely be modulating its output to meet actual demand and the 30% of non-generation would mainly represent times of low demand, with routine maintenance timed to take place during low demand periods. This means that the CCGT is making a far more valuable contribution to electricity supply than the nuke: there are times while the nuke is down when additional fossil supply will be needed to make good the shortfall (adding to the nuke's effective emissions); and there are periods when the nuke is generating when the CCGT would be on standby or shut down for the night (reducing the nuke's effective emissions reductions). So a KWh from a nuke does not directly compare to a KWh from a CCGT either in terms of value, or in terms of CO2 emissions. This needs to be taken into account. Yes, can you contact the authors for their view? Oliver. -- Oliver Tickell e: oli...@its.me.uk p: +44 1865 728118 a: 379 Meadow Lane, Oxford OX4 4BL, UK. On 23/08/2011 14:32, Stephen Salter wrote: Oliver Actual output for nuclear is typically around 0.7 but the carbon debt was all incurred before operation and turning them off does not reduce it. The carbon for the plant is all released before operation and if this is delayed we may ask if there is a carbon equivalent of interest. Let's ask Storm van Leeuwen. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 23/08/2011 13:36, Oliver Tickell wrote: Stephen, I was interested to see your recent post, below. Reading the paper, there is something I am not clear about. A nuclear power station is typically on full blast all the time giving a capacity factor of 1 (except when it has to go off). However a gas plant will modulate its output according to demand, giving I would guess a typical capacity factor of say 0.6 (guess). So, when the authors compare nuclear power and CCGT emissions, are they forcing the CCGT to have a CF of 1 like nuclear? If so this is to greatly exaggerate the actual CO2 emissions that you would expect from a CCGT. Another factor to consider is that as we get more intermittent renewables like wind and solar PV on the grid, the effect will be to further reduce the CF of gas plant - since when wind is generating strongly, CCGTs will scale back their output. This will further reduce the CCGT's CO2 emissions Regards, Oliver. == Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Aug 23 11:58AM +0100 ^ mailbox:///C%7C/Documents%20and%20Settings/Oliver/Application%20Data/Thunderbird/Profiles/s4tkdjyp.Oliver/Mail/Local%20Folders/Inbox?number=128158075#digest_top Hi All While a nuclear power station is working normally the main CO2 emissions are the plant operators driving to work or slipping out for a smoke. However quite a lot of oil is needed for more... http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/6c0b24968aac4022 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- -- Kyoto2 - for an effective climate agreement. w: www.kyoto2.org e: oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org.uk p: +44 1865 728118 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] WWViews - Citizen Participation in Environmental Global Governance
Hi All, this publication may be of some interest, not yet dealing with the option of geoengineering but anyway: In 2009, in 38 countries around the world, 4,000 ordinary citizens gathered to discuss the future of climate policy. This project, ‘WWViews’, was the first-ever global democratic deliberation - an attempt to enable ordinary people to reach informed decisions on and impact the global policy process. This book - which analyses the experiences and lessons from this ground-breaking event - marks the beginning of a new kind of democratic politics, providing practical lessons on how to increase the impact of global deliberation projects within the media and on official policy processes. http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=102843v=3270 (Paperback) http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?TabId=102844v=513732 (Hardback) Regrads Nadine * * **www.zirn-info.de* * * * * * * *Interdisziplinärer Forschungsschwerpunkt Risiko und Nachhaltige Technikentwicklung Universität Stuttgart Seidenstr. 36 70174 Stuttgart * * Nadine Brachatzek, M.A. Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin Tel: +49 (0)711 / 685 83930 Mobil: + 49 (0)176 / 430 72680 nadine.brachat...@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Toby et al., D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems. Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for more...invasive...procedures. I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering has so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, that the broad use of a term such as SAG is counterproductive for use in detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate. Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects. Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have the freedom to set out long term and somewhat Idealized standards. Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can lead to just that.given time and lots of early, intelligent and cooperative work. The core concept of Geoengineering is not good quality basic health care for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the concept of Geoengineering is so new that few people truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However, the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate engineering. Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and engineering developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than global SAG. We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate engineering as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for generations. Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only when the car crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social fences against climate engineering can be a close analogy. Thanks, Michael On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.comwrote: Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback. Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of SAG might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a policy that is less unjust than other policies available in those scenarios. Our paper is rather preliminary in the sense that it raises some ethical worries about SAG but does not take a position on whether it ought to be deployed. Perhaps, even with certain ethical imperfections, in some likely scenarios SAG would be the best option from a justice perspective. I don't know whether this would be the case. It seems that further work would be needed to get clear on that. As for unilateralism, our paper does not argue that there is a high probability of unilateral deployment but rather that such deployment would be unjust. As you know, there are a number of papers in the literature that discuss unilateral deployment. Josh's paper (which appeared after ours was in press) and Dan's comments raise some interesting points. Perhaps worries over unilateralism are overblown. That would be a welcome result from a procedural justice perspective, although non-unilateral deployment wouldn't necessarily be procedurally just (e.g., if some other countries, through no fault of their own, were still excluded from having a say in whether and how SAG gets deployed). Both Michael and Josh suggest that actual policies often violate the theories of procedural justice we consider in the paper. This may well be true, but that does not mean that those theories are false. What we
