NASA: 2005 is hottest ever 27 January 06

that all his cooling places (which he used to argue against GW) are warming too?

Maybe the evil environmentalists are putting mega-heaters out there….

I saw where James Hansen of Goddard Institute within NASA says that he’s starting to be muzzled by the Bush administration. Was he the one who is responsible for this announcement that 2005 was indeed the hottest on record? A few weeks ago that the US thought it was the 2cd warmest, while the UK thought it was the warmest. However, I can’t remember if it was NASA or some other US research institute which had claimed 2cd warmest.(If so, then this is something of a revision).

Anyway, Hansen is a real hero for standing up for what he believes in!

momochan

Dear Mark and everyone reading this blog,

This is slightly off the immediate topic but relates to climate change and renewable forms of energy.

In connection with the recently-announced 3-month public consultation on UK energy policy, I am writing to propose an easy ‘action’, with other campaigners that I am writing to, designed to raise public awareness of the huge potential of renewable forms of energy.

At present, the nuclear lobby is making headway because politicians and the general public perceive renewable forms of energy to be worthy but somewhat impotent. If the real potential were better understood, there would be much less reason to accept the argument that building new nuclear power stations is the only way to plug the gap left as the old ones close down. Greater awareness that big cuts in CO2 emissions are possible without undue cost, inconvenience or risk should help smooth the path for mandatory 3% annual cuts in UK emissions of CO2 as proposed in EDM 178 (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28373).

The action I am proposing is simple: in the next two or three months, send one or more letters or press releases to the UK media about the potential of renewable forms of energy and how they can meet our needs quite easily without the expense and risks of building new nuclear power stations. Even if the letters and press releases don’t get published immediately, they may help to raise awareness amongst journalists that renewable forms of energy are much less feeble than currently perceived and thus lead to relevant newspaper articles or TV and radio programmes in the future.

To maximise the impact, it would be good if everyone were to focus on ‘concentrating solar power’ (CSP) because its potential is so enormous and because it is currently almost invisible in the media. Judging by the DTI and DEFRA websites, it is almost invisible in Government thinking too.

A page of information about CSP, with links to other websites, is at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/renewable_energy/csp.htm. Of particular interest are:

• The TREC vision of how CSP can provide electricity for Europe, North Africa and the Middle East at http://saharawind.com/documents/trec.paper.pdf.

• Detailed projections for the same area up to 2050 showing how CSP, with other technologies, can cut CO2 emissions from electricity generation by about 70%, with a phase-out of nuclear power at the same time (http://www.dlr.de/tt/institut/abteilungen/system/projects/Stk/TRANS-CSP/TRANS-CSP_Scenario_06.pdf).

• A paper from Nokraschy Engineering describing interesting spin-offs from CSP (http://www.nokraschy.net/107P0040.PDF).

Many people have their own lists of media email address and fax numbers but another one that may be useful is at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/resources/media_email_fax_list.htm.

An example of a letter that has been sent to UK newspapers is below this email but everyone will no doubt wish to send out letters and press releases in their own style.

With best wishes,

Gerry Wolff

MG1@mng.org.uk, 01248 712962, http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house.

Sample letter:

Dear Editor,

If the recently-announced public consultation on UK energy policy is not mere shadow-boxing while plans are laid to build more nuclear power stations, the Government should be looking closely at the huge potential of ‘concentrating solar power’ (CSP), a relatively simple, practical technology for tapping in to the enormous quantities of energy falling as sunlight on the world’s hot deserts (see, for example, the website of the US Department of Energy Sun Lab at www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/). Trough systems, for example, use parabolic trough-shaped mirrors, each one of which focuses sunlight on to a pipe containing oil or similar fluid that takes the heat to where it can be used to raise steam and generate electricity. Solar power plants like this can be replicated many times to generate as much electricity as required. There are methods for storing solar heat so that electricity generation can continue through the night.

The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) argue that it is feasible and economic for CSP plants in North Africa and the Middle East to provide electricity for the whole of Europe via high-tension power lines. CSP alone can provide inexhaustible pollution-free power very much more cheaply than nuclear power and without its many headaches (which include vulnerability to terrorist attack, facilitating the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the production of waste that is dangerous for thousands of years, and the release of significant amounts of CO2 in the mining, transportation and processing of uranium and in the transportation, processing and disposal of nuclear waste). When one considers that there is also great potential in wind power and interesting new developments in wave power and tidal power, it is abundantly clear that building new nuclear power stations would be a monumental blunder.

Further information about CSP may be found at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/renewable_energy/csp.htm.

Sincerely,

XXX

I would urge all UK readers of this blog to support this initiative as it has never been more needed than now. Most of the UK press is promoting a very biased picture of renewables giving equal coverage to views for and against, when in fact a very large number of people that I speak to outside of my work are either in favour of renewables or are misinformed as to cost, viability, and the effect of the alternative options. In our regional press recently, we even had a letter from someone objecting to the off-shore windfarm development expansion saying that since he saw the blades of the existing turbines turning on a day when there was ‘no wind’ he claimed that the power company were using fossil fueled power to drive the turbines to make it look like they were working (!!!)

This is the level of lunatic propaganda that the anti’s are putting out.

The main problem is that a mix of renewables coupled to a good energy efficiency programme will enable a good standard of living and huge CO2 emissions cuts, plus greater profitablility. The objections are coming from the vested interests in the Nuclear, fossil fuel and roads lobbies who will fight change no matter what.

Go for it!

best to all

Colin

The BBC, to their credit, have chosen to highlight the summary report from the Hadley Centre of their conference early last year. See Richard Black’s article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm and use the listen again facility to hear Roger Harrabin and others on this morning’s Radio 4 Today programme. Harribin featured on BBC TV News 24 in their 9.00am bulletin – item 2.

Douglas Coker

I think that if the only other viable choice over a nuclear plant is a coal-fired plant with unsequestered carbon dioxide, then I would rather see the nuclear plant instead only because the climate problem is greater than the nuclear one.

However, for countries like the UK and the USA, sufficient power generation already exists and I agree that energy efficiency in most cases alone can prevent the need for more power plants of any type. In fact, I think energy efficiency may be able to eliminate some power plants altogether. I would target the ones which have little potential for future sequestration or little potential benefits of ever using the waste heat as an additional energy resource.

When more power is truly needed then there is tremendous wind potential in the UK and plenty of opportunity for offshore wave generators. The wave generators can supplement wind energy during times of low wind yield as the waves are always there.

These 2 renewable sources can be coupled together sharing some of the same foundation infrastructure necessary for the wind turbines and also share some of the same power lines. The wave electric-generators can also be installed later after the wind turbines are operating if funds are limited. It is prudent to enable them to be coupled together though.

I am not sure, but what if a mechanical linkage were used to boost the wind generators via wave energy when the wind yield was low. Then 2 renewable sources are used to keep the electric generators going. A flywheel could be utilized in a unique design to balance the fluctuations in energy between wind and wave. If tidal aspects could be used, then maybe all 3 renewable systems could combine to establish a reliable electric grid similar to fossil-fuel generation which is already present anyway.

On Aesthetics, what is the difference between an offshore oil platform and a wind turbine if both are visible from the shore?

With regard to Peak Oil considerations and pressure for more off-shore drilling, then I can see no argument against wind on aesthetic grounds. I would suggest offshore oil wells be held in the same visual light with regard to aesthetics. I share this because some inevitable compromises tend to happen in these matters and this may help make an important point.

I wish the best for those trying to solve these problems in the UK and we need more attention to energy efficiency and renewable energy. I particularly hope you guys can kill all the misinformation out there on both sides. All ideas including nuclear can be weighed on an equal basis without resort to any form of bias or embellishment of their true costs, risks, and benefits.

Eliminating “spin” is useful. Our problems are complex and require honest analysis and consideration.

With that said, I still see no excuse for the UK not to develop its wind and wave resources at some level. I think we should be doing the same in the USA. Much of the world’s population is located near shorelines anyway. It seems like a no brainer to me!

I think these renewable forms of energy near shorelines can compete effectively on their on merits when all options are thoroughly scrutinized fairly on the basis of merit over politics.

All the best,

Dan

I forgot to include an idea not suitable for the UK but one which could be used in tropical areas where the temperature gradient of the ocean surface is 20 C higher than the deep ocean beneath.

This technology is being developed and has many benefits I have posted about before. The positive side benefits along with renewable electricity and no greenhouse gases include large amounts of fresh water and a significant reduction in ocean surface heat from large amounts of cold water pumped to the surface from the deep ocean.

This cold water can cool the ocean surface and reduce GW/CC in the local area (and influence other areas via ocean-surface currents). The amount of heat energy transferred is comparable to reductions in greenhouse gas equivalents and can be calculated on that basis. The site below:

http://www.seasolarpower.com/

With regard to the UK, these systems can be portable and sent to a tropical location in the form of a ship. Building energy-ships to enable nations near tropical waters to have renewable electricity seems like a good industry for a nation like the UK to develop.

So in addition to Wind, Wave, and Tidal, you have the ability to export renewable ocean energy as well. I think we should do the same and the site I provided is in the USA.

Maybe you chaps should contact them! I offer myself to be a liaison since I think this technology can prove to be very helpful for tropical countries and in particular those facing drought from climate change. This would serve to be an economic benefit to both the UK and the USA.

It is an idea worthy of further investigation.

Best Regards,

Dan

The Republican War on Science continues. See this from Chris Mooney http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/01/the_big_climate_news_1.php#more and this from Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=243

Douglas Coker

I forgot to mention that, if you have not done it already, you may like to make submissions to the Government’s public consultation on UK energy policy.

It would be good if lots of people were to emphasise the great potential of concentrating solar power and why the Government should be looking at it closely before talking up the need for nuclear power.

The online form for the consultation is at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/en_consult.shtml.

As before, there is information about CSP and links to other sources at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/renewable_energy/csp.htm.

An accessible, free, 22 page summary of the “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” report is available here http://www.stabilisation2005.com/Steering_Commitee_Report.pdf from the Hadley Centre/Met Office/UK govt.

Douglas Coker

Gerry,

I am afraid that the link to the energy white paper consultation is not working. I was just going to download a consultation form. I wonder if you might be able to find it on another web-page and let us know. Thanks!

Almuth

Is he on holiday? Has he realised how silly he is and just given up? I hope not. It’s not so much fun around here without him…

because Pres. Bush didn’t even mention it in his State of the Union Address last night. I guess he’s thinking, if we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.

And later on (after total eco-apocalypse)...If there are no humans left on earth to experience GW, is GW happening?

OTOH, he did say we were addicted to foreign oil (though not to oil per se), so maybe we should start thinking about alternative energy, like clean coal gasification, plus some things that would really help against GW—but not energy efficiency or conservation.

Make most of the other world leaders look eco-saints by contrast.

This was sent to me by a good friend. I think we all need a little humor and a morale boost.

I believe in Mark Lynas and all the good people on this blog. I always know I have friends here. I hope this cartoon below lifts everyone’s spirits.

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/movie/

All the best,

Dan

Yes, very good Dan – thank you. I’ll forward. And Shell have also just announced record profits – some huge mind boggling number!

Douglas Coker

As prices go higher, so does conservation and energy efficiency. Also, alternative energy becomes more competitive. As cheap oil depletes, then the remaining oil is more expensive to find and refine and there is less of it.

At some point much of Exxon’s profits will be directed to securing the expensive depleting oil. If they do not invest in alternative energy, then their profits may dwindle.

They still may do well with higher prices but the reduced supply of oil will reduce their total revenue since their infrastructure is better suited for high volume sales.

So, even with current market forces, Big Oil will decline with the depletion of the commodity which made them so powerful.

GISS is the only temperature record that shows 2005 to be the “hottest” year.

The CRU record (the one used by the IPCC) shows 2005 is well down in second (equal) place. The MSU satellite record (whichever version you choose to believe) agrees with the CRU record.

In any case it’s not possible for GISS to claim a record. Ground-based thermometers are only accurate to 0.1 deg C, the 2005 global temperature is supposed to have been warmer than 1998 by 0.02 deg C (TWO HUNDREDTHS OF A DEGREE). This level of accuracy cannot be specified – ask any mathematician.

Great message of Gerry Wolff! As my Dutch is much better than my English I have not much more to say than, in my opinion, Concentrated Solar Power is the best and most promising invention to save the world from an energycrisis as disastrous as you can never imagine. So spread the word about CSP woldwide.

theo muller.

The link does work. You have to be careful not to include the full stop at the end. Here it is again, without any full stop:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/en_consult.shtml

I hope that works.

Gerry

He (Norbert that is) has been working up a new way to try to deny AGW. Apparently proponents of AGW are propounding some sort of new religion. Well blow me. I seem to recall Marxists were accused of this decades ago!!

As it happens I’m with Richard Dawkins – no offence intended to people of faith – but he has a pretty impressive argument.

Douglas Coker