Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

[weller2]

A hand-held computer costs even less, but that doesn’t mean you can heat your home in North Dakota with them or fire a blast furnace with them.

An often repeated claim is that the worlds poor need fossil fuels to survive. This article demonstrates that they don’t, and in fact are actively diversifying into renewables because the fossil economy is begining to collapse as reserves dwindle.

And yes, you definitely can heat a house in North Dakota with renewables because that’s what people have been doing before the fossil era: fire wood, for one, is a renewable resource. That said, you don’t really need to go 100% renewable overnight; the important thing to realize is that fossil fuels will continue to be available for decades, but at steadily growing price. The correct course of action is to find ways to reduce your energy use. And leveraging modern knowledge and technology the amount of energy required for heating can be greatly reduced:

In the United States, a house built to the Passive House standard results in a building that requires space heating energy of 1 BTU per square foot (11 kJ/m²) per heating degree day, compared with about 5 to 15 BTUs per square foot (56-170 kJ/m²) per heating degree day for a similar building built to meet the 2003 Model Energy Efficiency Code. This is between 75 and 95% less energy for space heating and cooling than current new buildings that meet today’s US energy efficiency codes. The Passivhaus in the German-language camp of Waldsee, Minnesota was designed under the guidance of architect Stephan Tanner of INTEP, LLC, a Minneapolis- and Munich-based consulting company for high performance and sustainable construction. Waldsee BioHaus is modeled on Germany’s Passivhaus standard: beyond that of the U.S. LEED standard which improves quality of life inside the building while using 85% less energy than a house built to Minnesota building codes.[46] VOLKsHouse 1.0 was the first certified Passive House offered and sold in Santa Fe New Mexico.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

The real problem in US (from what I have seen when I was over there) seems to be that the houses are designed on the assumption that cheap energy is always going to be available, and so e.g. the thermal insulation is pretty much non-existent. (Actually, the entire society seems to be designed around the paradigm of infinite supply of cheap energy!) Further it appears that for multiple reasons the US does not currently have the money for a crash program into improvement of building efficiency.

So, it looks like the Americans have painted themselves into the corner: an economy which requires cheap energy, no more cheap energy, and no capital for retooling.

 

[weller2]

which is why Germany found “renewables” too expensive and are now increasing their use of brown coal; the dirtiest coal there is.

No, it’s increasing the use of brown coal because the green idiots decided to decomission nuclear power plants instead of building more of them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, it’s increasing the use of brown coal because the green idiots decided to decomission nuclear power plants instead of building more of them.

That, I take it, is one opinion. Another I have read is that the “energy mix” was too heavy on “renewable energy”; chiefly the Baltic windmills, making energy too expensive to keep German industry competitive.

 

[Ridgerunner]

An often repeated claim is that the worlds poor need fossil fuels to survive. This article demonstrates that they don’t, and in fact are actively diversifying into renewables because the fossil economy is begining to collapse as reserves dwindle.

And yes, you definitely can heat a house in North Dakota with renewables because that’s what people have been doing before the fossil era: fire wood, for one, is a renewable resource. That said, you don’t really need to go 100% renewable overnight; the important thing to realize is that fossil fuels will continue to be available for decades, but at steadily growing price. The correct course of action is to find ways to reduce your energy use. And leveraging modern knowledge and technology the amount of energy required for heating can be greatly reduced:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

The real problem in US (from what I have seen when I was over there) seems to be that the houses are designed on the assumption that cheap energy is always going to be available, and so e.g. the thermal insulation is pretty much non-existent. (Actually, the entire society seems to be designed around the paradigm of infinite supply of cheap energy!) Further it appears that for multiple reasons the US does not currently have the money for a crash program into improvement of building efficiency.

So, it looks like the Americans have painted themselves into the corner: an economy which requires cheap energy, no more cheap energy, and no capital for retooling.

I agree that wood is a “sort of” renewable energy source. If one lives where I do, it’s definitely so, because there are lots of forests. On the Great Plains, it’s a different story.
Wood, of course, also produces a lot of CO2, reduction of which, I thought, was the whole purpose behind the emphasis on “renewables”.

It’s quite possible to design houses that are energy efficient. But there are always downsides to them.

It’s interesting to observe that old houses have little or no insulation, huge windows, transoms, high ceilings and other energy-inefficient features nobody builds into houses today. There are a couple of reasons for that. Heat dissipation in the summer mattered before air conditioning, so ceilings needed to be high, with the hot air venting through tall windows and transoms. Also, of course, people largely heated with coal, which was so inexpensive the heat loss didn’t justify herculean and expensive efforts to avoid it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That, I take it, is one opinion. Another I have read is that the “energy mix” was too heavy on “renewable energy”; chiefly the Baltic windmills, making energy too expensive to keep German industry competitive.

If A+B+C < D, how can anyone say that the reason for it is that A or B or C are individually too small? (This question goes out to weller2 as well as to you.)

 

[weller2]

Wood, of course, also produces a lot of CO2, reduction of which, I thought, was the whole purpose behind the emphasis on “renewables”.

If the forest mass is allowed to replenish, then firewood is CO2-neutral.

Anyway: my point is that the claim that you cannot run a civilization entirely on renewables is false. Medieval Europe was running entirely on renewables!

Also, of course, people largely heated with coal, which was so inexpensive the heat loss didn’t justify herculean and expensive efforts to avoid it.

Because in US, you can strip-mine coal. Not the case in Europe, so over here it has always made purely economic sense to reduce coal use.

 

[weller2]

If A+B+C < D, how can anyone say that the reason for it is that A or B or C are individually too small? (This question goes out to weller2 as well as to you.)

The German government had a really brain-dead idea to replace nuclear with renewables, instead of replacing coal with renewables. Then again, don’t expect logic from the children of the 1968 revolution…

http://energytransition.de/files/2013/03/RTEmagicC_German-Electricity-Mix-1990-2012_02.jpg.jpg

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The German government had a really brain-dead idea to replace nuclear with renewables, instead of replacing coal with renewables. Then again, don’t expect logic from the children of the 1968 revolution…

But wouldn’t it also be reasonable to call this a failure of renewables to supply what was needed? It’s not that they wanted to burn coal. It is that they had to burn coal.

 

[weller2]

It’s not like the limitations of renewables were unknown in 1990s. Renewables were just intended as a window dressing, the plan was to get rid of nuclear and switch to Russian natural gas. Then a new government came in and realized that Russia cannot be trusted…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Gazprom

 

[Theo520]

A hand-held computer costs even less, but that doesn’t mean you can heat your home in North Dakota with them or fire a blast furnace with them. Nor, it appears, can you in Germany, which is why Germany found “renewables” too expensive and are now increasing their use of brown coal; the dirtiest coal there is.

Germany learned you can make windmills with steel but not steel with windmills.

An often repeated claim is that the worlds poor need fossil fuels to survive. This article demonstrates that they don’t, and in fact are actively diversifying into renewables because the fossil economy is begining to collapse as reserves dwindle.

They need cheap energy to climb above abject poverty, not to survive. Expensive energy keeps them in abject poverty.

The real problem in US (from what I have seen when I was over there) seems to be that the houses are designed on the assumption that cheap energy is always going to be available, and so e.g. the thermal insulation is pretty much non-existent. (Actually, the entire society seems to be designed around the paradigm of infinite supply of cheap energy!) Further it appears that for multiple reasons the US does not currently have the money for a crash program into improvement of building efficiency.

Your view is sadly outdated, certainly pre-70’s. US insulation standards are on par with Europe and Canada. scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2332&context=theses

It’s not like the limitations of renewables were unknown in 1990s. Renewables were just intended as a window dressing, the plan was to get rid of nuclear and switch to Russian natural gas. Then a new government came in and realized that Russia cannot be trusted…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Gazprom

I didn’t think Germany made the anti-nuclear push until the Fukushima disaster? Russian Natural Gas would have been a step up vs burning coal.

 

[weller2]

They need cheap energy to climb above abject poverty, not to survive. Expensive energy keeps them in abject poverty.

Solar is already cheap, and they have better conditions to deploy it than Germany. The era of cheap fossil fuels is already over. It’s a basic geological fact.

Your view is sadly outdated, certainly pre-70’s. US insulation standards are on par with Europe and Canada. scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2332&context=theses

Thanks. But I haven’t seen any insulation retrofits being done when I was in several places in US over this decade.

Or take LA – zero rooftop solar panels, zero attempts at passive heat rejection, everyone relies on A/C.

I didn’t think Germany made the anti-nuclear push until the Fukushima disaster?

No, the decision to phase out nuclear was made in 1990s. See the graph above – the nuclear capacity starts dropping in 2005. Fukushima only blocked the plan to to stop de-nuclearization.

Russian Natural Gas would have been a step up vs burning coal.

Yes, but it was also making German economy too dependent on Russians, which Merkel’s government realized. With nuclear out of the picture they went with coal.

Again, you cannot expect the children of the 1968 revolution to be logical. They all made their careers with disassembling a functioning society.

 

[Ender]

Solar is already cheap…

If solar was (commercially) cheap, Solyndra wouldn’t have gone bankrupt. Given that they couldn’t make a go of it even with massive government support your assertion does not fit with what has been observed.

Ender

 

[bibcat]

The Vatican’s representative at UN offices in Geneva has proclaimed that there is “no further room for denial” that "human-induced climate change is a scientific reality."Speaking to a …

More…

I used to scoff at the “Empty Throne” radtrads. But after reading this pronouncement, I think they may have a point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I used to scoff at the “Empty Throne” radtrads. But after reading this pronouncement, I think they may have a point.

–duplicate post–

You already posted this comment in the thread on the encyclical. If anyone wants to respond to this post, please do so there.

 

[bibcat]

–duplicate post–

You already posted this comment in the thread on the encyclical. If anyone wants to respond to this post, please do so there.

Well, it is kind of a duplicate thread, so …

 

[weller2]

If solar was (commercially) cheap, Solyndra wouldn’t have gone bankrupt. Given that they couldn’t make a go of it even with massive government support your assertion does not fit with what has been observed.

Solyndra went bankrupt precisely because their CIGS tech was too expensive and they have been undercut by silicon panels from China:

On August 31, 2011, Solyndra announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, laying off 1,100 employees, and shutting down all operations and manufacturing.[26] In Solyndra’s quarterly employee meetings, employees were told that the company was losing money, and that production costs, while declining, were still higher than the also-declining market prices for solar panels. The decision to lay off employees and cease operations came about as the result of a board meeting on 30 August in which mutually agreeable terms for the injection of additional capital never materialized, leaving Solyndra with virtually no cash.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

And the fun part about Solyndra is that thin film tech generally tends to be cheaper than silicon, at the expense of lower efficiency. Solyndra, on the other hand, has managed to achieve both higher price and lower efficiency than traditional silicon. Who in their right mind will pay more for an inferior product?

 

[Ender]

Solyndra went bankrupt precisely because their CIGS tech was too expensive and they have been undercut by silicon panels from China:

And the fun part about Solyndra is that thin film tech generally tends to be cheaper than silicon, at the expense of lower efficiency. Solyndra, on the other hand, has managed to achieve both higher price and lower efficiency than traditional silicon. Who in their right mind will pay more for an inferior product?

So where are all the solar farms built with the cheap Chinese panels? Also, the fact that Chinese panels were cheaper to buy doesn’t necessarily mean that Solyndra’s were necessarily more expensive to produce. We were subsidizing Solyndra; it is not unreasonable to suspect that the Chinese may have been even more aggressive in subsidizing their solar industries. I don’t know the truth of the matter; I only note that without that information one cannot know whether it was Solyndra incompetence or Chinese subsidies that accounted for the price difference.

Ender

 

[KSU]

We are 18 pages into this topic, but we still don’t know the degree to which Pope Francis believes “human-induced climate change” exists.

More importantly, we don’t know his definition of that term, or if he has a scientific definition. The posters to this thread certainly can’t agree on a definition of “human-induced climate change”, and the Pope would be the first to acknowledge that some of the posters are far more scientifically knowledgeable than he.

We can be sure Francis believes that man has harmed the environment through deforestation and pollution, and that it must stop; what knowledgeable person doesn’t? But is that the core of his understanding of the term “human-induced climate change”? Has he been influenced at all lately by the scientists who deny measurable “human-induced climate change”?

In any case, it wouldn’t be too great a surprise if the reported allegation by so-called “Vaticanist”, Sandro Magister, was correct: Francis postponed publication of his encyclical because he realized that, as drafted, it would not receive approval from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Not that the Pope is subject to the CDF, but it’s theological opinion is not something to be ignored.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The era of cheap fossil fuels is already over. It’s a basic geological fact.

.

“cheap” is relative. I recall reading that gasoline, for instance, has always cost between $2.00 and $4.00 since the early 20th century, if you adjust for inflation. If the era of cheap fossil fuels was truly over, that wouldn’t be the case.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Anyway: my point is that the claim that you cannot run a civilization entirely on renewables is false. Medieval Europe was running entirely on renewables!

.

Medieval Europe was also running out of wood. By the early modern era, it was very serious, which is why one of the major exports from colonial North America was wood. Kind of interesting, in passing, to note that the vaunted British navy of the 17th to the early 19th centuries was largely constructed of live oaks imported from the southern U.S. There were not enough trees of the right kind and large enough left in the British Isles to make the massive timbers required for men-o-war.