Paris climate summit: destined to fail; Obama flails with a Hail Mary for his legacy

http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-power.html

 

Germany thinks it can get to 80% by 2050, and they don't exactly have the resources the US does. I thought it was nuts to totally dump nuclear and lignite for a transition to renewables when Merkel announced it, but Energiewende appears to be a national project the majority of Germans take very seriously (including Sir Jackie, if I recall).

My understanding was that it prioritized closing nuclear plants before lignite (much more polluting to the air but I guess the anti-nuclear sentiment captures the voters' collective concerns more) and that it would make energy prices higher for the short to medium term as well as rely more on imports of natural gas from Russia, none of which made sense to me, but I don't pretend to understand the energy industry or German politics.

I would think the US could get to the 80% mark in two generations with less trouble than Germany if it was committed to it (mostly willing to pay higher prices for the foreseeable future) but without a major change in the way voters see the issue, I don't see the political capital to make that happen.

 

Money makes strange bedfellows:

Natural gas resources in the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) are enough to meet the needs of both Turkey and Europe, the head of the KRG’s Parliamentary Committee for Industry and Energy said on Sunday.

KRG natural gas is planned to be delivered to Turkey and Europe by 2017.

Gas reserves in Irbil, Duhok and Sulaymaniyah are estimated to stand at more than 5.7 trillion cubic feet, but will reach up to near 8 trillion cubic feet if the disputed areas between the KRG and the central Iraqi government in Baghdad, including Kirkuk, joins forces with the regional government.

Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Cevdet Circo, said that Turkey and KRG hold a strategic agreement with regards to the delivery of gas in 2017.

"Kurdish gas will reach Europe via Turkey. The Kurdish region can fill the gap created by Russia's gas cut-off to Europe," Circo said.
Additionally, head of Energy Committee of Sulaymaniyah, Galip Muhammed, said Sulaymaniyah is the richest province in the region in terms of gas reserves, holding 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas alone.

"Sulaymaniyah has almost 80 percent of the natural gas reserves of the KRG," he said.

Muhammed also claimed that Sulaymaniyah's gas has the best quality in the region but has not been evaluated yet.

http://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/iraq-krg-gas-enough-for-needs-of-turkey-and-europe/482935

 

The source of that graph is a "personal communication". Took me 15 seconds to google for this: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_5.pdf

In 2014, .488% of primary energy production in the US came from solar, and 89% came from hydrocarbon and nuclear sources. Just eyeballing the graph leads me to believe that the solar portion of the graph is larger than .488%, and hydro-power (according to the EIA) is about 2% - it is almost non-existent in the graph above.

What's going on there? I understand he is trying to normalize for the business as usual (BAU) scenario, but it still look misleading to me.

 

It's an idealized projection illustrating a possibility in response to the question "does anyone believe that renewables can supply 100% of our energy needs".

No one can predict the future, certainly not the possibilities of fusion energy that might render all forms of energy obsolete by 2050. The one thing we do know is that burning carbon is screwing up the one planet we know supports human life. It seems important to change that.

 

<script height="342px" width="640px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=b171980b65ae4996bffea4da902c7846&ec=9uYnA4eTpXnAEaclxqlFNPsu9HYAt2tV"></script>

 

Didn't watch it but how is science propaganda and why would anyone engage in it? Science is sort of the opposite of propaganda.

 

The graph shows that somebody knows how to draw a graph. Are you implying that global warming threatens the ability of the earth to support human life?

 

was supposed to happen by 2015.

Spoiler

 

Unchecked, yes possibly. But again the future is unpredictable, you have take your actions according to the best information available and the most reasonable projections.

If you just want to consider what could happen... mass migration away from flooding coast causes civil strife and warfare (from the DOD), extended heat and drought in traditionally productive regions could cause food shortages, changes in ocean currents could devastate fishing zones. Or it might make Siberia and Canada bloom into the world's breadbasket ...... you just don't know. But the risks are real enough to command action.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=50&q=effects+of+global+warming&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&as_vis=1

not yet

ITER fusion project to take at least 6 years longer than planned
http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2...ion-project-take-least-6-years-longer-planned

 

I would love for just one person to explain to me how global warming is one massive propaganda campaign engineered by the media and climate scientists while the billions of dollars that O&G has poured into global warming denial campaigns is not.

 

It's the opposite. Science seeks the best explanation of observed phenomena, it's subject to independent testing and peer review. Propaganda assumes a position beneficial to it's perpetrators, ignoring or suppressing the best evidence if it is a contradiction to the assumption.