2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record • Hacker News Board

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#221

Post by brandmeyer » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:23 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #133

illegalsmile wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubtful that will be anytime soon and we'll most likely always need some sort of baseline power system that's not a from a renewable source.

That ignores the price curve of batteries. Right now, wholesale prices for lithium ion batteries are $150/kWh of capacity, which translates roughly to $0.15/kWh of stored energy. This is less than the price swing in spot prices for energy currently, so we'll start seeing this market expand drastically. And as electric car batteries lose capacity and need to be replaced, those batteries will still have plenty of stora…

1) I think you're off by about 2x for wholesale lithium battery prices; they are closer to 300 USD/kW-hr.

2) a) The economics of battery energy storage are effectively a type of arbitrage in time, where you get some fraction of depth-of-discharge over the time in question.

2) b) In the most limiting case, lets assume that battery energy storage is only being used for daily cycling, that the maximum cycle depth is 75%, and that the investor expects to break even in 5 years. In order to be viable at that breakeven time, the price of energy needs to swing by over 0.22 USD/kW-hr over the day (RMS !). Considering that bulk energy is only 0.05 USD/kW-hr now (average!), that's a huge amount of volatility that needs to be exposed to the market.

I suspect that if customers are exposed to that volatility instead, that we will see enough voluntary adjustment on the demand side of the market to prevent 5x swings in price. With that much volatility available, consumers will demand the savings that aggressive time-of-use pricing offers in such a market.

On the other hand, the economics become much more favorable for energy storage in the frequency support market. For example, the market for primary frequency reserve (PFR) operates on 15 minute time scales and faster. Therefore, the time between battery cycles is two orders of magnitude smaller than the bulk storage market. Right now, there is enough PFR on the US grid (via coal-fired steam and gas-turbine power) that the price for PFR is very low. But as renewables continue to displace fossil fuels as a fraction of total power, the price for PFR will start to creep up.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#222

Post by rybosome » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:24 AM UTC

api wrote: post #25

orf wrote: post #17

It sounds bad but I'm very unoptomistic about our chances of stopping this. There is just too much pollution and too little meaningful global cooperation. Just imagine if Trump did get into office as well...

IMHO the problem with stopping this and many other forms of environmental degradation is that it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven so to speak. Poverty is worse than all but the most severe natural disasters. Infant mortality in many poor countries is probably a lot higher than it is in Miami during a hurricane . Poverty is worse than pollution or storms. Even if the sea level rises it would be better to…

I have this debate with my parents from time to time. They're big readers of James Kunstler, who seems to advocate for reverting to a primarily agrarian society as the only sensible and correct response to the impending climate crisis. My argument is primarily that the planet cannot support 7 billion people with 19th century technology, so best case we'd still be looking at a decimation of the human population. Additionally, as you said, people simply won't give up the security and comfort which technology provides for them (for which Kunstler deems them morons).

Technology got us into this mess, but only more advanced technology (along with good government policy and cooperation) will get us out of it.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#223

Post by brc » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:24 AM UTC

orf wrote: post #204

brc wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing. I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to…

> what is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Clearly in this context someone who denies the impact man is having on the climate. > In this I am intellectually honest. And monstrously short sighted. American, I assume? > Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. Who said anything about stopping all production? T…

So you define someone with labels and then argue against what you think that person thinks. Labelling and then arguing against that label is a good way to feel correct but fail to persuade. I am not American nor do I fit into any of the labels you wish to press onto my argument.

I don't 'deny' that human activities have an impact on climate. There is scientific and physical evidence that this is true. It also passes the 'obviously' test because any change to the state of a system will have an impact on the system.

What I do understand is that previous predictions as to the level and severity of impact are completely incorrect after several decades of study and predictions. On this even ipcc contributing scientists agree. What I also understand is that current policies are inconsequential even if the current sensitivity levels (which appear overstated) are correct. On this most politicians and activists agree as we can read from the sober observations from Paris.

What is true is that trying to socially engineer changes by banning certain types of technology or use of technology, or by erecting grand schemes are all doomed to fail, and are a complete waste of time and resources. What will change things are the development of new technology. The best way to get that is to stop trying to distort resource allocation in a specific way, particularly as doing so diverts resources towards negative or low eroei reruns which further hampers the ability to deliver new tech and lowers the ability to adapt to a changing climate.

If you're an activist, that's fine. But I write for the people reading this and thinking through positions, not to sway people by using labels and stereotypes.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#224

Post by brc » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:29 AM UTC

orf wrote: post #206

brc wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it was for economic reasons. The UK lost comparative advantage for coal production. The way they mine coal in the UK is positively archaic compared to monster open cut mines which out produce the UK deep pits by a wide margin.

> Actually it was for economic reasons. Well, a bit of both. True it was not economically sound, but the NUM (coal miners union) had a lot of leverage. All coal power plants had to buy British coal for example, which in turn meant that the government had to capitulate to their demands or face a shutdown. Thatchers decision to shut the mines was incredibly unpopular and to this day large swathes of the north despise h…

Yeah the way they were kept open and then shut down was purely political, no argument there. But they were doomed in an era of free trade. Arguably the UK should have moved to free trade earlier and reaped the benefits instead of arguing about coal mining. I don't have a lot of hope for people to ever agree on that though.

It's true that old mines can reopen during periods of high demand, but they'd be shutting again now as the coal price has plummeted again, probably due to the energy glut especially in gas. In an ideal world the mines would be owned by someone who would open them when it made sense, and close them again when it no longer made sense.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#225

Post by yongjik » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:37 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #217

orf wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "It was warm 1000 years ago, so climate change is a lie" bit. Choice quote from the link: > "Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead."

I didn't write any of that. You have inserted words into my argument and then gone on to debate something I didn't say. There is no scientific argument about the fact that the roman and medieval periods were as warm or warmer than today, because there is a lot of evidence. Even the linked article acknowledged this fact.

The graphs I found seem to disagree...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

> The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century temperatures.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#226

Post by prawn » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:40 AM UTC

flubert wrote: post #141

tahssa wrote: post #77

My 3 wishes.... 1. Every person on the planet should have a carbon consumption rating and have exponential taxes applied accordingly. 2. Automobiles should be banned from cities, roads should be turned into parks maybe with some commuter trains. 3. The top 62 richest people on the planet should give their money over to make wish number 1 and 2 come true. ;)

>Every person on the planet should have a carbon consumption rating and have exponential taxes applied accordingly. Anyone know how practical it might be to have a "progressive" carbon tax, similar in nature to a progressive income tax? I can't think of a good way to measure individual carbon-dioxide generation offhand, but that doesn't mean that there isn't. Maybe in a piecemeal fashion? Bringing back carbon based L…

Would piecemeal through household/business energy bills and fuel costs cover the bulk of it? I'd guess transport, home heating/cooling, etc to be a significant portion?

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#227

Post by MichaelMoser123 » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:50 AM UTC

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #218

pdkl95 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> destroying huge areas for good Even Chernobyl isn't destroyed for good, though it's still an expensive mess to clean up. Fortunately, nobody builds reactors with such an idiotic design (a positive void coefficient[1]). The actual site at Fukushima Daiichi is going to to be a long, expensive cleanup, but that's about the extent of the damage. Concerns about the surrounding area is just radiophobia and an extreme ove…

Caesium 137 has a fucking halflife of 30.7 years. There is still a lot of that material in Ukraine and Belorussia. The economy and agriculture of both countries sustained severe damage as a result http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/5-social-economic... now were just very lucky that there was no full meltdown of the reactor core. Can you claim without flinching that this will never ever happen? I doubt it. Jus…

The guys with the magic downvoting wand here exhibit a real tendency of groupthink. I am done with HN

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#228

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:56 AM UTC

13thLetter wrote: post #207

addicted wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had this discussion before, but nuclear is already more expensive than renewables, and getting more expensive. Renewables are getting cheaper. In addition, nuclear takes longer to setup, and the most feasible solutions being considered that are supposed to solve nuclear's current problems are all in the prototype stage at best.

This neglects how the great expense of nuclear and the long amount of time it takes to build is at least in part due to decades of anti-nuclear propaganda. There are certain activist groups who have created this problem and are now disingenuously pointing to the problem as if they had nothing to do with it.

No, even the French nuclear build showed negative learning effects that had nothing to do with anti-nuclear propaganda. A global nuclear build is going to do much, much worse than France did:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510...

Abstract The paper reviews the history and the economics of the French PWR program, which is arguably the most successful nuclear-scale up experience in an industrialized country. Key to this success was a unique institutional framework that allowed for centralized decision making, a high degree of standardization, and regulatory stability, epitomized by comparatively short reactor construction times.

Drawing on largely unknown public records, the paper reveals for the first time both absolute as well as yearly and specific reactor costs and their evolution over time. Its most significant finding is that even this most successful nuclear scale-up was characterized by a substantial escalation of real-term construction costs. Conversely, operating costs have remained remarkably flat, despite lowered load factors resulting from the need for load modulation in a system where base-load nuclear power plants supply three quarters of electricity.

The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that often assumed, including also cases of “negative learning” in which specific costs increase rather than decrease with accumulated experience.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#229

Post by epistasis » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 1:57 AM UTC

brandmeyer wrote: post #221

epistasis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ignores the price curve of batteries. Right now, wholesale prices for lithium ion batteries are $150/kWh of capacity, which translates roughly to $0.15/kWh of stored energy. This is less than the price swing in spot prices for energy currently, so we'll start seeing this market expand drastically. And as electric car batteries lose capacity and need to be replaced, those batteries will still have plenty of stora…

1) I think you're off by about 2x for wholesale lithium battery prices; they are closer to 300 USD/kW-hr. 2) a) The economics of battery energy storage are effectively a type of arbitrage in time, where you get some fraction of depth-of-discharge over the time in question. 2) b) In the most limiting case, lets assume that battery energy storage is only being used for daily cycling, that the maximum cycle depth is 75%…

Agreed, storage is arbitrage, but arbitrage that's going to have a ton of economic purpose and necessity, not just somebody being a middleman.

The Chevy Bolt's batteries have been widely reported to cost $145/kWh, see for example [1]. I'm not sure what's excluded from the whole component to get to the price, but it's a point of reference at least.

The full life of various lithium ion batteries is still being studied and will vary with chemistry, but roughly a partial cycle seems to count as a partial cycle in terms of battery life. So if you're only cycling 75% capacity on a day, then you'll make up the extra 25% in longer life. Most studies I've read of lithium ion battery life but the number of cycles at 1000 +/- 200, to maintain "most" of the battery's capacity, which is why I used the conversion factor of 1000. I would believe a 25%-40% swing in practice, in either direction.

Peaker power plants quite frequently operate at over $0.30/kWh, more than 6x the cost of bulk energy. Energy storage is already gaining in this space [2]. Of course, consumers never see $0.05/kWh pricing, averaging $0.12/kWh nationwide, which is why residential solar makes so much sense for so many people. Consumers that choose demand-based pricing are already exposed to price swings on the order of $0.20/kWh in time-of-use plans both on Southern California Edison [3] and PG&E [4].

The speed with which solar and batteries are changing is going to catch a lot of people in the energy industry completely flat-footed.

[1] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/10/05/chevy-bolt-battery-cells...

[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/batteries-...

[3] https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/residential/rates/Time-O...

[4] http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tou/index...?

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#230

Post by nikdaheratik » Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

karmawitch wrote: post #157

is it just me or is it quite rare to see such a low level of discussion on HN?

I think it depends on what kind of article you're looking at. It's related to a political issue early in the U.S. election year, so there's alot of noise from people who don't usually comment. Only 10.5 months until the nonsense goes away for awhile.