Sunday
Apr292012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Pielke Jnr's lecture at ANU
Apr 29, 2012 Climate: WG3 This is well worth a look...
It is helpful to have the slides to hand too.
Update on Apr 30, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Keith Kloor wonders why commenters here are so agitated about Pielke Jr's position.
Reader Comments (123)
It is increasingly clear that AGW does not represent a threat to civilization.
Trillions of barrels (at a minimum) of technically recoverable (with current technology) shale oil ensure we will have 100s of years of oil available to us.
China is producing shale oil at a cost of $18.46 per barrel. Shell thinks they can produce shale oil at a cost of $30 per barrel. The Rand Corporation estimates shale oil production costs to be "between $70 and $95 per barrel". Even if, in the USA, the cost of producing shale oil is $95 per barrel, shale oil is becoming increasingly economically viable. That explains why there are currently no less than 10 new shale oil projects underway in the USA and no less than 24 worldwide.
In any case, growing global demand will almost certainly result in continued price increases resulting in continually growing incentive for alternatives.
If we return to sanity and rely upon private sector innovations and market forces we will eventually find sensible alternatives. If we rely upon the so-called "investments" in public sector crony capitalism, we never will.
My expectation? The entitlement mentality will result in the total fiscal collapse of all of Western Civilization (and total anarchy) long before alternatives to hydrocarbons become economically viable.
Hi All,
I've been following RPjr for years and find him to be a pragmatic man who believes in AGW science but not the hype. He is just as likely to criticize those who make doom ridden, fear mongering statements and predictions or attribute a singular weather event to AGW as he is to chastise someone for stating that co2 has no radiative properties and AGW breaks the 2nd rule of thermodynamics. I'm a skeptic / lukewarmer and I respect his point of view.
He does seem to believe in government's ability to spur innovation and I wholeheartedly do not. Not because it cannot work, but given cronyism and political realities (not to mention government waste), it's more likely a government will take any dollars earmarked for innovation and spend them in the wrong place. Witness the US Government investing in solar, wind and car battery companies destined to fail because they can't compete in an unsubsidized world, while natural gas got cheaper and cheaper.
D. Robinson (May 1, 2012 at 9:12 PM),
I agree. Pielke Jr. is -- in many ways -- a reasonable and pragmatic fellow.
But, he has two fatal flaws:
1) He has a blind faith in the (now discredited) CAGW myth (emphasis on the C).
2) As a so-called "Progressive", he has a blind faith in the benevolence and efficacy of big government (even global governance).
From Roger's blog, visit his profile page, follow the link to the "Progressive" think tank he is involved with (The Breakthrough Institute) and examine their objectives. I believe that The Breakthrough Institute is pursuing the exact tactics defined long ago by the Fabian Society.
If Roger and his fellow "Progressives" continue to have their way, the outcome will be "progressively" more destructive.
- - - - - -
Roger Pielke Jr.,
I appreciate your response to my questions and enjoy this interesting opportunity to interact directly with you. (Bishop Hill - and I thank for you for providing this open venue that creates this opportunity for dialog)
My Q #1 was: Totally independent of the many important ongoing scientific discourses on climate science that have finally (after 20+ years) really stated to open up to scientists independent of the IPCC’s consensus assessment process, is it your most fundamental premise that C02 emissions by burning fossil fuel must have a significant impact in total on the Earth-atmospheric system which must threaten the existence of human life on Earth?
The reason I thought that question contained the premise of your ANU talk was you appear in that talk to maintain a fundamental position (a premise if you will) as follows:
So your response (Roger Pielke Jr. on May 1, 2012 at 7:40 PM) to my Q #1 leaves me still wondering if you predicate your policy advocacy on an 'a priori' premise that there is a life threatening problem with CO2 emission by burning fossil fuels. Thus here we are again back at the un-settled climate science and it’s so called consensus.
John
Johnathan,
"Alternatively it could change if there was a major technological breakthrough, leading to cheap non-fossil-fuel energy, but it would have to be a real breakthrough, and there's nothing in the pipeline at the moment, unless it's very well hidden."
Alternative energy is a mirage. There is not going to be another fuel or source of energy that will be better than fossil fuel derivatives. No amount of 'innovation' or research and development is going to produce a 'low-carbon future' - i.e., a future where some non-carbon-based energy source provides for the same level energy consumption, or even more, as today.
The only technology that can do this, exists, and has existed for several decades.
Secondly, I would ask you to reflect on 'the Pielke Paradox':
Pielke Jr says that the general public the world over, exhibit enormous amounts of support to climate action - the 'law of climate policy.' Pielke Jr also says that the general public would demand 'heads on plates', as you suggest, when it comes to paying for climate.
Do you know of anything the public wants so badly, that they will only part with two dollars to pay for it?
Climate Science survives in nature, but there's a Spiegelman Monster loose in the culture.
=========================
I fully support the comment by Chris M. It is worth repeating.
"Dr Pielke's contribution seems to me to be positive overall in that his manner of presentation encourages fellow "progressives" to focus on the facts rather than wallow in the comfort of self-affirmative myth within their own limited view of the world."
I'm glad I listened through Pielke's talk, but I won't buy his book either, not least because I gnawed my left leg off while he slalomed through the 'settled' science.
shub said:
"Alternative energy is a mirage. There is not going to be another fuel or source of energy that will be better than fossil fuel derivatives. No amount of 'innovation' or research and development is going to produce a 'low-carbon future' - i.e., a future where some non-carbon-based energy source provides for the same level energy consumption, or even more, as today."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving aside the breathtaking power of prediction that shub has assumed in this comment for the rest of human history, he seems to think that the various current and developing options with regard to nuclear power are a non-event.
It is true that fossil fuels are predominant for the forseeable future, but unless we discount nuclear options and have a crystal ball, this is just a silly proposition.
May 2, 2012 at 2:26 AM | johanna
It is true that fossil fuels are predominant for the forseeable future, but unless we discount nuclear options and have a crystal ball, this is just a silly proposition.
Part of the presentation was about the UK, so let us apply what you say to the UK:
1. Coal-fired power stations - CCA 2008 says "no coal without CCS", this prevents the construction of the replacement capacity. The current crop of 27GW capacity power stations were designed when the design life was specified as 35 years because the specifier (CEGB) had in place a rolling programme of replacing ageing plant before it reached 35 years old. Most of current power stations are over 40 years old. It is unlikely that there will be any new coal-fired capacity in the UK in the foreseeable future.
2. Gas-fired power stations - CCA 2008 says that the installed plant must be designed to permit the retrofitting of CCS equipment, one of the requirements being that a large space adjacent to the plant must be reserved for that purpose, even though nobody knows how much space might be required. Electricity generation companies in the UK are becoming increasingly nervous about building new capacity on their own account to the extent that the UK government is proposing to set up a new organisation, "CEGB lite" to procure more gas-fired power stations to be in place by 2020 "to keep the lights on". What could possibly go wrong?
3. Oil-fired power stations - the 3 power stations that are due to close on or before 31 December 2015 started off with a total LCPD hours allowance of 3 x 10,000 hours = 30,000 hours. On 1 January 2011 they had 26,670 hours remaining but by 31 January 2012 they still had 26,623 hours left, that is, during 13 months they were smoking for a paltry 47 hours. Presumably they are either clapped out or they are not competitive. It is inevitable that there will be no new oil-fired capacity in the UK in the foreseeable future.
4. Nuclear - it seems that potential providers of nuclear power stations in the UK are backing-off now because, they say, there is no money; more likely reason is they do not trust the politicians, and who would blame them. It is unlikely that there will be any new nuclear capacity in the UK in the foreseeable future.
So, for the foreseeable future in the UK, neither fossil fuels nor nuclear will predominate as more and more clapped out proper power stations are retired or forced to retire!
With regard to security of supply (i.e. "keeping the lights on"), it seems to be overlooked by the anti-coal loons that it is possible to store at least a one year supply of coal adjacent to the boilers, as was proved during the coal mining strike of the early 80s.
Without the emotion, I must agree with SBVORs fundamental point.
Roger jnr advocates invasive public policy aimed at forcing a "decarbonisation" of the economy.
When questioned why on a premise that the dangerous AGW hypothesis appears to be far from proven his response is "the science is irrelevant, decarbonisation is a reason enough".
Whe questioned why "decarbonisation" is necessary (such that warrant invasive public policy) hi response is "read my book".
As this list of comments clearly indicates, Roger's book does not in fact make the case for "decarbnisation", it simply presents the
I can understand SBVORs frustrations. Surely it isn't beyond Roger's gift to provide the elevator pitch for "decarbinisation". We could also "desuflurise", "deoxygenate". We could, but WHY?
My theory is, again as highlighted by comments here, that Roger is a policy wonk. Without policy there is no Roger. Or as a career policy wonk is want to say "for every clever policy I can devise I can find you problem".
I do think it is unreasonable that Roger waves away a very simple question with references to his books.
As an aside, Roger also wrote a book entitle "The Honest Broker". It is of course the common tale of the management of conficts of interest (or the "principle/agent" problem). Roger is somone who prospers with the advancement and encroachment of public in general and his policy prescription more specifically. In the debate about climate change mitigation, or "decarbonisation" policies we need first to establish whether we need such policy.
"Because" - the argument publically available from Roger jnr, just doesn't cut it. The electorate deserves more. I don't think we can be surprised if emotions rise when there is steadfast refusal to explicitly state the case, while continuing to insist that you have the policy solution. Especially when it is Roger who has the ear of power - the policymakers, while us poor internet nobodies will be required to live with the policy implications.
Roger, it does seem to me, a casual observer of this thread, that it would be helpful if you were to address the question of just why you think that we should decarbonise the economy. That is your position, is it not?
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that your Dad does not support that position. He argues that man IS having an impact on local and regional climate, but due to a range of land-use factors. He seems to think that CO2 is not really a problem. I may have that wrong. If so, can you please enlighten us.
Thanks.
johanna
(1) Finding a fuel/energy source better than a carbon-based one is a physical impossibility, not a prediction on human history. This is not an opinion, and more importantly this is not my opinion and I am not that knowledgeable in physics to make such predictions, It comes from Robert Laughlin. I was initially quite shocked when I came across it. For example:
The above is from his book: Powering the Future. He explains the idea in a few pages in the chapter "Carbon Forever".
Secondly, I did talk about nuclear power in the same post and you missed it. The only source of energy with greater density than carbon-based fuels is nuclear power.
Gecko:
As you rightly note: Pielke Jr does not explain the "why". The Hartwell group does. The argument is (1) completely circular, and (2) completely based on the premise of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and the precautionary principle.
Here is the relevant passage from their report:
In other words, we need to get rid of carbon (i.e., 'decarbonize') because we need to get rid of carbon (!)
I have read Roger's book "The Climate Fix" and watched him debating it with Benny Peiser in London, I also had the pleasure of briefly chatting with him. My understanding of his position is that decarbonisatiion is something good in itself; it's happening anyway, it should happen because carbon-based fuels are getting more scarce, so why not help the process along with R&D, investments and the like. AGW is another reason why that should be done, but not because of panic due to stuff like hurricanes, or extremely crude and unrealistic policies such as the UK's Climate Change Act of 2008.
That's my understanding of his position, which Benny Peiser called obsolete given the recent shale gas developments.
"Yes, I would happily eliminate NIH and at least 90% of the remaining counterproductive federal bureaucracies that are not authorized by the United States Constitution. "
Ah, radical libertarianism mixed with tail of that old chimera, original intentism -- a nice toxic brew. Like I said, the madness here is strong.
Try to account for biomedical science achievement in the USA (with global repercussions) since WWII, absent the existence of the NIH. Throw in the NSF too, since you'd probably want to eliminate that as well. Go ahead, I dare you, *patriot*. Then spin me a fantasy of what biomedical & biological research would be like here in your 'free market' corporatist utopian future. Then as an encore describe what big-ticket basic physics research would be like without government funding.
Should be good for a laugh.
It is interesting to see the concern over the word "decarbonization." It was coined around 1980 by Jesse Ausubel to describe a process that had been in place for a century or longer -- the ratio of carbon to GDP was declining, he observed. This process was the result of greater efficiencies and transitions to less intensive sources of energy. And decarbonization has been a good thing -- it is closely associated with the expansion of economic activity and growing wealth. To be against decarbonization does not make sense -- you are essentially arguing for a return to coal burning stoves and/or reduced wealth (but I am sure some would indeed long for such things;-). The current move toward shale gas is a part of this larger trend, and every lower-cost gas power plant that displaces an equivalent coal plant works to decarbonize the economy, by making energy cheaper and cleaner. Shale gas is a great example of gov't/private sector collaboration in fostering innovation. Thanks.
Shub said:
johanna
(1) Finding a fuel/energy source better than a carbon-based one is a physical impossibility, not a prediction on human history. This is not an opinion, and more importantly this is not my opinion and I am not that knowledgeable in physics to make such predictions, It comes from Robert Laughlin. I was initially quite shocked when I came across it. For example:
Thus, how much energy a fuel can pack away in a small space, something central to its function, is fixed by quantum mechanics, not serendipity. It isn’t an accident that carbon-based fuels carry the amount of energy they do. It’s more or less the maximum energy density we can ever get with any substance without resorting to millions of atmospheres of pressure. Not only is it impossible to increase gasoline’s energy content using processing tricks, it’s also impossible to do it by substituting other atoms for carbon in the fuel.
The above is from his book: Powering the Future. He explains the idea in a few pages in the chapter "Carbon Forever".
Secondly, I did talk about nuclear power in the same post and you missed it. The only source of energy with greater density than carbon-based fuels is nuclear power.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shub, I have carefully examined your post and there is no mention whatsoever of nuclear energy in it. Perhaps we are at cross-purposes, otherwise my point stands. Unless the Bish or some nefarious power has deleted parts of your post as part of the Worldwide Conspiracy, there's not a lot to add.
Carbon this and that,
Lie under the magic hat.
Slip slidin' away.
==============
How honest is that,
Burnished golden gleam of eye?
Carbon cyclomad.
===========
Pere et fils we prize.
Who's but half the measured man
Yet? Moving finger.
===========
Johanna
What I wrote is here:
Perhaps I should have spelt out 'nuclear'.
I understand your being ticked off at my prediction that a 'low-carbon' future is "not possible". Never say never, right? That was not my intention. And I've thought long and hard about this matter, and I base my ideas on human energy supply on what Laughlin has to say, and my digging into wind power schemes.
Brownedoff et al
One reason why there will be no new nukes in the UK for the foreseeable future is that the potential suppliers are having a hard-time financially.
http://cityunslicker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/fighting-energy-talk-dont-mention-war.html
My understanding of Roger Pielke Jr.'s position wrt CO2 emission by burning fossil fuel is he has already decided something must be done about it and it must be done by government policy. He has moved on to promoting a government intervention as necessary now.
He simply takes 'a priori' that there already exists sufficient certainty that CO2 emission from burning fossil fuel threatens human life on Earth; he has decided science is settled. Then he says that even if that is not true, it is necessary to abandon most of the current fossil fuel use quickly because of the mere existence of the free market economic principle of supply and demand; indirectly he is stating that it is certain and settled that fossil fuels are imminently near exhaustion. He has not yet made the single remaining possible argument to support a CO2 emission policy. That single remaining argument is the religious one; the argument that the Earth Goddess Gaia simply hates industrialization involving fossil fuel but she loves other energy sources for use in industrialization.
Roger Pielke Jr.'s profession is to promote policy on reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. He appears to be creating a set of multiple, independent, and fail-safe backup arguments for governmental policy decision makers to use to justify CO2 emission control in the case that the climate science arguments continue their accelerating failure.
Note: I think Pielke Jr. is incorrect about the certainty in and settled status of both climate science and the supply of fossil fuels on Earth. I also think he is incorrect about the inherent capability of government wrt effective and efficient management of social concerns about environmental issues.
John
off topic but I see that BBD is getting the usual shafting over at Kloor's site. Same domineering tactics and the usual brick wall.