Politikk, religion og samfunn Klimaforskerne regnet rett Hva nå?

[kasol]

Litt mer ifra LinkedIn




Oscar L. MartinOscar L. Martin• 2
Follow
Is Nuclear Too Slow to Deploy Compared to Wind and Solar? This is a misconception that ignores the scale, reliability, and efficiency of nuclear power plants compared to intermittent sources. In fact, nuclear energy can increase the annual generation about three times faster than adding solar or wind.

COMPARING MEGAPROJECTS

Solar and wind can be quick to build when no large power lines are required and the total capacity is small. But since the trend is to build a massive capacity of solar and wind, let’s compare large nuclear, wind and solar megaprojects:

Barakah nuclear plant in UAE: 11 Years to build 5400 MWe (100% of the expected nameplate capacity)
Gansu Wind Farm in China: 14 years to build 10000 MWe (50% of expected nameplate capacity)
🪟 Longyangxia solar farm in China: 9 years to build 8430 MWe (44% of expected nameplate capacity)

COMPARING ANNUAL GENERATION

Let’s compare how much energy they generate per year:
Barakah at 92% capacity factor will generate 43.75 TWh per year
Gansu at 21.7% capacity factor will generate 19 TWh per year
🪟 Longyangxia at 15% capacity factor will generate 11.1 TWh per year

COMPARING DEPLOYMENT SPEED

So if we divide the additional annual generation by the time it takes to build:
Barakah: 43.75 TWh / 11 yr = 4 TWh of new annual generation per construction year.
Gansu: 19 TWh / 14 yr = 1.36 TWh of new annual generation per year construction year.
🪟 Longyangxia: 11.1 TWh / 9 yr = 1.23 TWh of new annual generation per construction year.

Clearly, nuclear increases the amount of energy generated by the grid three times faster than installing turbines in a massive wind farm or PV panels in a solar mega farm.

Naveesh Reddy provides an insightful analysis here (https://lnkd.in/gqEY3aHj) considering additional factors such as the difference in the operating time between nuclear (60-80 yr) vs wind or solar (20-30 yr). He also notes that In the past 11 years no country, except for USA or China, had deployed either wind or solar with annual generation over that of two Barakah NPPs (2x5400 MW).

The takeaway is clear. Nuclear takes time to build because it is a massive infrastructure only comparable to dams, but three times faster to deploy when comparing it to massive wind or solar projects.

Did we bet on the wrong horse?
Activate to view larger image,

Activate to view larger image,

• 
  
  
  40André Wakker, Ph.D. and 39 others

 

[larkrla]

Jeg er ikke imot kjernekraft.

Men hvis man legger til tiden det vil ta for å oppnå et politisk flertall i Norge for å bygge kjernekraft...det er nok ikke mye enklere å finne plassering for et kjernekraftverk enn for enn vindmøllepark...så det er vel (dessverre...?) ikke spesielt realistisk her på berget.

Det er kanskje det man egentlig satser på i Norge; at våre naboer bygger ut tilstrekkelig slik at vi slipper. Vi er jo en del av det samme energimarkedet.

 

[kasol]

Nok en gang hvorfor fokusere på å bygge i Norge? er jo bare å bruke pegene i land som Frankrike/Finland og Sverige etc som er har både kompetanse og er ok med det.
Tilby 100% finansiering tilsvarende hele norges forbruk og så kan vi kose oss med vår egen strøm

 

[Hardingfele]

Niks. For sent. Går ikke å bytte hjul på en bil som suser avgårde i toppfart ...

Earth’s health failing in seven out of eight key measures, say scientists

Groundbreaking analysis of safety and justice hopes to inform next generation of sustainability policy

www.theguardian.com

Har nevnt det her inne en del ganger. Verdens reforsikringsselskap ser med øks på risiko forbundet med klimaendringene. Følgene er dramatiske -- sterk økning i premier, eller at man simpelthen stenger for nye forsikringsavtaler. State Farm, det største forsikringsselskapet i California, tegner ikke nye avtaler med noen i delstaten.


The climate crisis is becoming a financial crisis.
This month, the largest homeowner insurance company in California, State Farm, announced that it would stop selling coverage to homeowners. That’s not just in wildfire zones, but everywhere in the state.
Insurance companies, tired of losing money, are raising rates, restricting coverage or pulling out of some areas altogether — making it more expensive for people to live in their homes.
“Risk has a price,” said Roy Wright, the former official in charge of insurance at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and now head of the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, a research group. “We’re just now seeing it.”
In parts of eastern Kentucky ravaged by storms last summer, the price of flood insurance is set to quadruple. In Louisiana, the top insurance official says the market is in crisis, and is offering millions of dollars in subsidies to try to draw insurers to the state.

And in much of Florida, homeowners are increasingly struggling to buy storm coverage. Most big insurers have pulled out of the state already, sending homeowners to smaller private companies that are straining to stay in business — a possible glimpse into California’s future if more big insurers leave.
Growing ‘catastrophe exposure’
State Farm, which insures more homeowners in California than any other company, said it would stop accepting applications for most types of new insurance policies in the state because of “rapidly growing catastrophe exposure.”

KLIPP --- Og Florida?


‘Just not enough wealth’
Florida, despite its challenges, has an important advantage: A steady influx of residents who remain, for now, willing and able to pay the rising cost of living there. In Louisiana, the rising cost of insurance has become, for some communities, a threat to their existence.
Like Florida after Andrew, Louisiana’s insurance market started to buckle after insurers began leaving following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Then, starting with Hurricane Laura in 2020, a series of storms pummeled the state. Nine insurance companies failed; people began rushing into the state’s own version of Florida’s Citizens plan.
The state’s insurance market “is in crisis,” Louisiana’s insurance commissioner, James J. Donelon, said in an interview.
In December, Louisiana had to increase premiums for coverage provided by its Citizens plan by 63 percent, to an average of $4,700 a year. In March, it borrowed $500 million from the bond market to pay the claims of homeowners who had been abandoned when their private insurers failed, Mr. Donelon said. The state recently agreed to new subsidies for private insurers, essentially paying them to do business in the state.

Mr. Donelon said he hoped that the subsidies would stabilize the market. But Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans and an expert in climate adaptation and finance, said the state’s insurance market would be hard to turn around. The high cost of insurance has begun to affect home prices, he said.
In the past, it would have been possible for some communities — those where homes are passed down from generation to generation, with no mortgages required and no banks demanding insurance — to go without insurance altogether. But as climate change makes storms more intense, that’s no longer an option.
“There’s just not enough wealth in those low-income communities to continue to rebuild, storm after storm,” Dr. Keenan said.

Climate Shocks Are Making Parts of America Uninsurable. It Just Got Worse.

The largest insurer in California said it would stop offering new coverage. It’s part of a broader trend of companies pulling back from dangerous areas.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Hardingfele]

En orkan i Florida stod for skader tilsvarende delstatens budsjett.

Insurance Politics at the End of the World

Shall we do climate change the hard way, or the harder way?

www.hamiltonnolan.com

At its core, insurance is a simple business. Companies figure out how much they will likely have to pay out, and then set their rates to ensure they make a profit. Success is dependent upon the ability to accurately assess risk. There is a huge financial incentive to have the most clear-eyed possible understanding of reality. Wishful thinking or misguided ideology will do nothing except lose an insurance company money.

Because of this, insurance can tell you things about reality. It resembles global investment firms in this: The people running them may be greedy, and the clients may be evil, but the business is all about understanding the true and unvarnished state of the world in order to manage risk in order to protect wealth, and therefore these firms do their very best to operate according to what is true, whereas politicians, for example, often do their very best to lie. This is why every leftist and revolutionary should read the Wall Street Journal. There are far fewer lies when money is involved.

 

[Elmer]

Og Støre et Co inkl Barth E. danser til musikk levert av oljelobbyen , NHO og LO. På tide å lyse ut enda flere letekonsesjoner i Nordsjøen og Barentshavet.




- Ingenting vi har sett før (dagbladet.no)

 

[JMM]

Det kan bli et interessant år, sånn værmessig. Ellers synes jeg kanskje ikke man kan single ut Støre og DumDum for å danse til oljelobbyens lystige toner når det samme kan sies om de fleste partier i inn- og utland. Det blir neppe noen endring i klimavennlig retning etter neste valg og verden rundt er det kun mikropartiene som ser tegninga. Ikke fullt så lystige toner det, når vi allerede er alt for sent ute.

 

[Petterone]

Ja mykpornobladet Dagbladet har løsninger og innsikt, betyr vel bare att vi skal få litt sommervær, snart på forsiden att Kloden koker

 

[JMM]

Hadde det bare vært Dagbla som nevnte det så hadde det vært så sin sak, men det er jo ikke helt sånn....

 

[OMF]

Et litt annet perspektiv:

Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract
Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today's welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.
Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.
Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.
Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.
Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.
Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC's two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today's poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.
Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off.
The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.
More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

 

[JMM]

Så flott. Spesielt siden forfatteren ikke er kontroversiell i det hele tatt.

 

[Hardingfele]

Så flott. Spesielt siden forfatteren ikke er kontroversiell i det hele tatt.

Har møtt Lomberg noen ganger.
«Manufacturing doubt» er hans spesiale, men argumentene har kort holdbarhet.

Gjengangeren er at det visstnok er dyrere å gjøre en Innsats nå enn å la våre barnebarn ta støyten.

 

[Disqutabel]

Har møtt Lomberg noen ganger.
«Manufacturing doubt» er hans spesiale, men argumentene har kort holdbarhet.

Gjengangeren er at det visstnok er dyrere å gjøre en Innsats nå enn å la våre barnebarn ta støyten.

Som tidligere nevnt, regningen kommer, og vi har ingen som helst makt til å bestemme tidspunktet. Og regningen for å ikke gjøre noe, blir definitivt større enn å brette opp ermene og sette i gang. Ref. din link til kostnadene i Florida. Sannheten er at fakturaene allerede har begynt å forfalle, og intervallene mellom dem blir merkbart kortere.
Jeg er bekymret for at kommende El Niño og tilliggende herligheter vil vise dette i all sin gru. Og aldri har jeg håpt mer på at jeg tar fullstendig feil.

 

[Elmer]

Det kan bli et interessant år, sånn værmessig. Ellers synes jeg kanskje ikke man kan single ut Støre og DumDum for å danse til oljelobbyens lystige toner når det samme kan sies om de fleste partier i inn- og utland. Det blir neppe noen endring i klimavennlig retning etter neste valg og verden rundt er det kun mikropartiene som ser tegninga. Ikke fullt så lystige toner det, når vi allerede er alt for sent ute.

Nå er jo ikke de fleste land oljeprodusenter, og EU som et eksempel er jo i ferd med å ta kraftgrep mht fossil avhengighet. Noe vi ser bort i fra. Og våre partier, nei det blir nok ikke noe sporskifte med en eventuell Ernaregjering. Men Venstre, SV, Rødt og MDG er jo klare i sine standpunkt, dessverre har de marginal innflytelse. Og nordmenn (spesielt menn ) er de mest klimaskeptiske i Europa .

Here we go, lets dance.

 

[Elmer]

Et litt annet perspektiv:

Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract
Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today's welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.
Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.
Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.
Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.
Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.
Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC's two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today's poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.
Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off.
The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.
More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

Her er en som plukker Bjørn Lomborgs bok "FALSE ALARM" fra hverandre bit for bit.

"But, like his previous contributions to this issue, Dr Lomborg’s arguments are based on fantastical numbers that have little or no credibility. Overall, the numbers presented by Dr Lomborg, who has a PhD in political science, understate the potential economic impacts of climate change and exaggerate the costs of cutting greenhouse gases. And he has promoted them apparently secure in the knowledge that they will not be fact-checked by book publishers or newspaper comment editors."

Og avslutningen

Hence Dr Lomborg’s central claim that the optimal level of global warming by 2100 would be 3.75˚C was completely out-of-date before his book was even published.





A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment (lse.ac.uk)

 

[JMM]

Nå er jo ikke de fleste land oljeprodusenter,

Sant nok, men de aller fleste har nok likevel en oljelobby med flusst av penger og derav også flusst avd innflytelse.

 

[Hardingfele]

This one goes to Eleven!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666514450931941376

This one doesn't.

Må kutte 13 ganger raskere

Klima- og miljøminister Espen Barth Eide (Ap) har lovet å innføre klimatiltak som regjeringen aldri vil gå inn for, skriver Dagbladet-kommentator Sondre Hansmark.

www.dagbladet.no

 

[Asbjørn]

This one goes to Eleven!

For bare å ta grafen øverst til venstre: Nå har vi hatt noen år med La Nina og solarminimum, som under den «flate» perioden rundt 2010 som det ble gjort så stort nummer utav. Nå ser Stillehavssirkulasjonen ut til å vende til El Nino og solarmaksimum kan ventes ca 2025.

Tilhengere av å bruke kort linjal mellom utvalgte punkter må gjerne forsøke igjen om et par år. Kommer ikke til å bli pent.

 

[Hardingfele]

NOAA erklærte idag at ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) er på gang, måneder før forventet og med store temperaturutslag allerede.

Blir "interessant" å følge. Vi får satse på at alle istidsmelderne får rett. "CO2 is plant food!"

NOAA declares the arrival of El Nino

www.weather.gov

 

[Hardingfele]

Heia! Heia! Heia!

Nå går det unna, dere!!!

(Det har vært varmt før. Vikingene på Grønland dyrket hvete. CO2 er plantemat)

- Verste i historien

Varmerekordene faller i Sibir.

www.dagbladet.no

 

[Dr_BASS]

Siste skolestreik for Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg gjennomfører i dag sin siste «skolestreik for klimaet». Hun er nemlig ferdig med videregående skole. Det ble 251 uker med skolestreik for klimaaktivisten. – Da jeg begynte med klimastreikene i august 2018, hadde jeg aldri forventet at det faktisk skulle lede til noe, skriver...

www.nrk.no

Det ble 251 uker med skolestreik for klimaaktivisten.


Thunberg understreker at hun vil fortsette med klimaprotestene, selv om det ikke lenger er en skolestreik.

– Vi har ikke noe annet valg enn å gjøre absolutt alt vi kan. Kampen har bare begynt, avslutter hun innlegget med.

Hu har vel heller ikke så mye valg når hun mangler over 6 år med skolegang

 

[Hønndjevelen]

Siste skolestreik for Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg gjennomfører i dag sin siste «skolestreik for klimaet». Hun er nemlig ferdig med videregående skole. Det ble 251 uker med skolestreik for klimaaktivisten. – Da jeg begynte med klimastreikene i august 2018, hadde jeg aldri forventet at det faktisk skulle lede til noe, skriver...

www.nrk.no

Det ble 251 uker med skolestreik for klimaaktivisten.


Thunberg understreker at hun vil fortsette med klimaprotestene, selv om det ikke lenger er en skolestreik.

– Vi har ikke noe annet valg enn å gjøre absolutt alt vi kan. Kampen har bare begynt, avslutter hun innlegget med.

Hu har vel heller ikke så mye valg når hun mangler over 6 år med skolegang

Så du fikk ikke med deg at det var på fredager hun skolstrejket?
Heller ikke at hun tross sitt store engasjement gikk ut av videregående med bestått?
Med uvitenhet kjemper selv tåper forgjeves!

 

[Dr_BASS]

ja sorry, jeg skulle jo selvfølgelig ha bakgrunnsjekket før jeg postet en artikkel fra nrk hvor det sto at det var 251 uker med skole streik
bare for å legge til:
Når hun ble en kjendis havnet hun i kategorien kjendis hos meg og jeg har derfor ikke brydd meg så veldig om hva hun har gjort

 

[pedal]

Når VG er god, så er de veldig gode. Her en omfattende feature med historiske værdata for Norge siste 70 år, spesifisert ned på kommune-nivå. Nedbør og temperatur, og kombinasjonen av disse (snødager). Gir god innsikt i historikk og prognoser for der du bor, eller der du har hytte.

Den auto-genererte teksten i sammedragene, kan være noe misvisende, så forhold dere til kurvene og trekk deres egne konklusjoner.
Med hytte på Norefjell, testet jeg Krødsherad, og fant at temperaturen har vært stabil siste 20 år, snøforholdene har vært stabile siste 30 år og nedbør siste 20 år er på samme nivå som på 50-60 tallet.
Endringene er trolig større langs kysten.


LINK: https://www.vg.no/spesial/klima/slik-endres-norge/

 

[JMM]

Tok en kjapp titt på Fredrikstad og kommunen jeg vokste opp i. Rimelig heftige endringer begge steder, men mest i Fredrikstad. +2.4C, 71 færre dager med snø og 120mm mindre nedbør siden 60-tallet.

Veldig interessant greier; mange takk for link!

 

[Elmer]

Når VG er god, så er de veldig gode. Her en omfattende feature med historiske værdata for Norge siste 70 år, spesifisert ned på kommune-nivå. Nedbør og temperatur, og kombinasjonen av disse (snødager). Gir god innsikt i historikk og prognoser for der du bor, eller der du har hytte.

Den auto-genererte teksten i sammedragene, kan være noe misvisende, så forhold dere til kurvene og trekk deres egne konklusjoner.
Med hytte på Norefjell, testet jeg Krødsherad, og fant at temperaturen har vært stabil siste 20 år, snøforholdene har vært stabile siste 30 år og nedbør siste 20 år er på samme nivå som på 50-60 tallet.
Endringene er trolig større langs kysten.


LINK: https://www.vg.no/spesial/klima/slik-endres-norge/

Tusen takk for den. Den er knallbra. Har sendt linken til en som kaller seg klimarealist......
Ser ut som det er samme folka som stod bak den supre Coviddatasiden.

 

[Hardingfele]

Vi har en vinner når det gjelder klimaløsninger.

Jeg tillater meg et lite spørsmål ...

MSN

www.msn.com

... har eksperten en løsning når det gjelder Månen og dens rolle med tanke på livet på Jorden og bevegelsene i Jordsystemene?

Sukk. The Daily Mail åpner for eksperter. Redaktørene mener vel at det å komme med falske anklager mot klimaforskere er gammelt nytt. Vi får se det som et fremskritt. Avisen har vært tumleplass for fornektere i snart tyve år. Nå kommer de med "løsninger"!

 

[Dr_BASS]

Skulle aksjonere mot bensinslukere - tok elbiler

Flere eiere av biler i Oslo våknet søndag morgen opp til en bil med flate dekk. Lappen på ruta viste at miljøaktivister aksjonerte mot bensinbiler. Men - flere av bilene uten luft var elbiler.

www.vg.no

Dette øker nok oppslutningen til klimakampen

 

[Hardingfele]

Alle vet at NASA lyver, og i Kokkmokkdalen i Øvre Haraball er det en bre som vokser, det er det, altså.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668361010951118848

 

[Asbjørn]

Om å gi full (klima)gass i nedoverbakke:

Global greenhouse gas emissions at 'all-time high'

An update of the key indicators of climate change since 2019 has found that human-induced warming is increasing at an unprecedented rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, and that annual greenhouse gas emissions are at an all-time high.

www.rte.ie

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence

Abstract. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement that...

essd.copernicus.org

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/essd-15-2295-2023.pdf

 

[Hardingfele]

Det har ikke vært avholdt møter i det Arktiske rådet siden invasjonen.

The success of the Arctic Council depended on its geopolitical balance. It is not a security alliance and has always tried to remain independent from politics. Five of the eight countries were part of Nato; the other three were not. That has now changed. Finland joined Nato in April. Sweden is in the process of joining. Soon, Nato will literally be surrounding Russia in the Arctic.

As the ice melts, a perilous Russian threat is emerging in the Arctic | Barry Gardiner

Putin is weakened and fears Nato encirclement. His militarisation of Russia’s northern border is intensifying, says Labour MP Barry Gardiner

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hardingfele]

«Blir det nok mat til kyrne,» spør bonden i denne VG-reportasjen.

Forrige uke ruslet jeg bort til naboen, som driver med melkekyr.

Jeg tilbød ham å ta gresset på et jorde ved min gård. Trenger det ikke i år og jeg vet at mange bønder alt nå bestiller slakt av deler av bølingen, fordi de regner med fôrbrist i år, på grunn av tørken.

Han var ikke vanskelig å be. Alt samme kveld tok han gresset og pressa kom like etter.
Meget takknemlig nabo. Det ble mange rundballer.

Ekstremtørken – VG

Nå tørker matfatet vårt. I fronten mot klimaendringene står norske bønder.

www.vg.no

 

[Hardingfele]

Alt er ikke svart. I Texas forsøkte en lobby bestående av petroholikere å stanse delstatens innfasing av fornybar energi. De fikk solid støtte fra guvernøren og regnet med lett match i delstatsforsamlingen, når ny lovgivning skulle innføres.
Målet var å bremse fornybart og å fremme fossil energi.

Burde gå greit i Texas.

Men, nei. Næringslivet mobiliserte mot loven. Texas har allerede en meget høy andel fornybart og det har spart store beløp for delstatens næringsliv, som får lavere energikostnader. Riktignok forsøkte guvernøren å gi vindmøller skylden for at strømnettet knelte under en frostbølge, men den anklagen var så latterlig at han la den vekk.

Motstanden mot petroholikerne var så formidabel at lovforslaget også ble lagt vekk. Texas viser vei.

Over the past few weeks, a once unthinkable parable about the green transition has played out in Texas, the very picture of a recalcitrant red state soaked with fossil fuel. Legislators friendly to the oil and gas business staged a desperate fight with the market — and lost.​

This is one fight in one state legislature, but it marks a much larger phase shift. Clean energy provided about 25 to 30 percent of Texas power last year, up from less than 1 percent in 2002. So Republicans in the State Legislature, following the lead of the climate skeptic Gov. Greg Abbott, launched a counteroffensive, putting forward a series of bills to undermine renewables, prop up fossil fuel production and effectively kill clean energy in the state. ​

At first blush, it looked as if it would be the same old story — conservatives fighting green energy — with an inevitable-seeming conclusion. But then?​

“A remarkable coalition of environmentalists, industry organizations and business groups — including more than 50 chambers of commerce, manufacturers, generators, oil and gas advocates and others — stopped very real efforts to shut down the renewable energy industry in Texas,” the energy consultant Doug Lewin wrote when the legislation was defeated, singling out the “pro-business, anti-nonsense Republican” state representative Todd Hunter of Corpus Christi for his relentless emphasis on the question of what handicapping renewables would cost Texas consumers.​

Hunter knew that undermining green energy would lead to higher energy bills and slower economic growth. And he had recent history on his side. Last year, according to analysis by Idea Smiths, existing wind and solar power reduced the state’s wholesale energy spending by about $11 billion — almost three times the savings of the previous year. According to research by Energy Innovation, the green-energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act are poised to create more than 100,000 jobs in Texas by 2030 — which would add more than $15 billion to the state economy over that time.​

The gains are estimated to be similar in Florida, where Energy Innovation projectsmore than 85,000 new jobs and $10 billion in state G.D.P. gains by 2030. But it’s not just a couple of red states: The logic of the energy transition has been transformed across the country.​

A decade ago, after the collapse of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, it seemed intuitive to most Americans that without expensive political interventions and market manipulations, market forces and consumer preference would keep fossil fuels dominant in America, leaving green energy for the moralists and the saints. It was a caricature, even then, but a common one: that fossil fuels had every competitive advantage, and that green energy couldn’t thrive in the status-quo environment, requiring instead political interventions and market manipulations to clear a path toward viability.​

Just a couple of years ago, when the progressive Squad in Congress first began touting a Green New Deal, the talking points on the right were the same: a green energy revolution would immiserate Americans, and bringing it about would require considerable and heavy-handed distortions to the energy market.​

In his 2021 book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” Bill Gates said one of the central challenges was overcoming the cost burden of clean alternatives — what he called the “green premium.” He devoted much of the book to the question of how to pay for or overcome it​

We live in a different world now, just a few years later. It is no longer clean energy that requires political interventions for survival. And increasingly it is fossil fuels flailing about for political lifelines to impede market forces. Partly because of the climate-forward interventions of the infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, and partly because of market and cultural momentum much larger than American energy legislation, the status quo has been effectively inverted.​

A few months ago, after the passage of the I.R.A., I wrote that the wave of new investment could accelerate American depolarization over green energy, since so much of the money was flowing to red states and districts.​

The path was never going to be smooth, and there were some brief digressions in that narrative; the Texas standoff is just one of the recent bumps in the road. There’s also been the transitory Republican threat in debt-ceiling negotiations to scuttle the I.R.A. tax incentives, and scattershot fights by state legislatures and attorneys general against socially conscious investments. But in the big picture it looks like these are just bumps along the same road.​

The trend predates the impacts of the I.R.A. Solar power is already as much as 33 percent cheaper than gas power in the United States, according to an analysis from last year; onshore wind may be nearly 45 percent cheaper. And when American investors are drawn to opportunities, they find themselves overwhelmingly in red states like Texas. When Bloomberg analyzed green energy investment in the summer of 2022, before the passage of the bill, it found that of the 14 congressional districts with the most wind, solar and battery tech capacity, 13 were represented by Republicans and only one by a Democrat. This was, in its way, as logical as it might have seemed counterintuitive — more than two-thirds of American renewable potential today resides in mostly rural areas, which lean heavily Republican.​

The I.R.A. turbocharged these dynamics. A bill originally estimated at $370 billion may ultimately yield a trillion dollars or more in federal subsidies, and the result is already an unprecedented manufacturing boom — with some measures of new construction almost doubling year over year and projections suggesting the trend will only grow. Nearly a hundred new clean energy manufacturing facilities or factory expansions have been announced since the bill, marking more than $70 billion in new investment, according to Canary Media. This is the rundown offered by the former director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, Brian Deese, last month:​

Companies have announced at least 31 new battery manufacturing projects in the United States. That is more than in the prior four years combined. The pipeline of battery plants amounts to 1,000 gigawatt-hours per year by 2030 — 18 times the energy storage capacity in 2021, enough to support the manufacture of 10 million to 13 million electric vehicles per year. In energy production, companies have announced 96 gigawatts of new clean power over the past eight months, which is more than the total investment in clean power plants from 2017 to 2021.​

This is a satisfying turn of events for those of us pushing for evermore decarbonization and horrified by the environmental costs of inaction. But it is not a triumph.​

The price of renewables has crept up over the last year, thanks first to supply chain issues and then increased demand (though the price is still down dramatically from even a few years ago). And while renewables are much cheaper than fossil fuels, they aren’t quite profit machines, which complicates some private sector investment decisions. There is more potential clean energy sitting offline, in a backlog awaiting connection to the grid, than the total clean-and-dirty capacity of the grid as a whole supports today, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. This is perhaps one reason that, for all the new spending on renewables, the amount of clean power actually installed may be falling for the second consecutive year. The same permitting and regulatory obstacles which could derail 80 percent of the gains of the I.R.A. are still in place, unfortunately. And even in best-case build-out scenarios, the I.R.A. isn’t expected to bring the country all the way to its climate emissions goals.​

But the Texas showdown does still memorably mark the direction of change. If, for a generation, clean energy advocates might’ve felt like they were rolling a boulder ever so slowly up an excruciatingly steep hill, now they can watch the ball finally rolling forward, worrying instead about what obstacles it might run into on the way down.​

 

[4-string]

Texas viser vei, who woulda thunk that.

 

[OMF]

Texas, Australia og sikkert en haug andre steder har jo veldig gode forutsetninger for solkraft - fordi de bruker mest strøm når solen er som varmest (Aircondition).

Det betyr ikke at sol er like lurt i Norge hvor vi trenger mest strøm når det er er korte dager og mørkt. Som alltid må det tenkes helhetlig og på systemnivå.

 

[Disqutabel]

Texas, Australia og sikkert en haug andre steder har jo veldig gode forutsetninger for solkraft - fordi de bruker mest strøm når solen er som varmest (Aircondition).

Det betyr ikke at sol er like lurt i Norge hvor vi trenger mest strøm når det er er korte dager og mørkt. Som alltid må det tenkes helhetlig og på systemnivå.

I varme områder med mye sol bør man også satse mer på solkraft som oppvarming av masser, slik at man kan benytte varmen til drift av dampturbiner gjennom natten. Mens i Nordsjøen blåser det selv når det er stupmørkt og vinter.

 

[Asbjørn]

Texas, Australia og sikkert en haug andre steder har jo veldig gode forutsetninger for solkraft - fordi de bruker mest strøm når solen er som varmest (Aircondition).

Det betyr ikke at sol er like lurt i Norge hvor vi trenger mest strøm når det er er korte dager og mørkt. Som alltid må det tenkes helhetlig og på systemnivå.

Apropos det: Jeg installerte et solardrevet dryppvanningsanlegg sist helg. Det tar vann fra en gammel gårdsbrønn som ikke lenger er i bruk og forsyner fruens kjøkkenhage med jevn vannforsyning. Perfekt match: Mye sol, mye vann; lite sol, lite vann. Utenfor både strømnett, drikkevannforsyning og eventuelle kommunale vanningsforbud.

 

[Hardingfele]

Apropos det: Jeg installerte et solardrevet dryppvanningsanlegg sist helg. Det tar vann fra en gammel gårdsbrønn som ikke lenger er i bruk og forsyner fruens kjøkkenhage med jevn vannforsyning. Perfekt match: Mye sol, mye vann; lite sol, lite vann. Utenfor både strømnett, drikkevannforsyning og eventuelle kommunale vanningsforbud.

Naboen har satt opp det samme, fra en liten bekk som renner mellom eiendommene våre. Fungerer utmerket.

 

[Hardingfele]

I Sverige er det over 200 "vingårder". Produsenter lenger syd i Europa er begynt å kjøpe opp lovende områder i Skandinavia, fordi de må flytte produksjonen nordover på grunn av klimaendringene. De beste druene vil ikke ha 40ºC i ukevis, under blå himmel. Danmark regnes som meget lovende, på grunn av høyt innhold av kalk i jordsmonnet, men Norge har også fine ting å by på.

Klimaendringens søte oppside

Siste nytt fra Aust-Agder og Vest-Agder. Lokale nyheter og utvalgte aktualiteter fra NRK Sørlandet.

www.nrk.no

 

[PederP]

Disse grafene går viralt: Hva skjer med havet?

«Global oppvarming på steroider», skriver twitter-brukere. De rekordhøye havtemperaturene i Nord-Atlanterhavet bekymrer forskere.

www.nrk.no