Comments on: Must Read Climate Report from Lehman Brother http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:07:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5770 David B. Benson Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:30:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5770 Adding carbon to the active carbon cycle: Here are some of the uses of fossil fuels which add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and hence the entire active carbon cycle. Energy are in the range of 2--3% except the first, which might be as high as 4%. I have attempted to put these in order from the largest to the smallest, but make no claim this is completely correct. Coalbed fires, world-wide (the worst and most extensive are in China) Cement production (about 3%) World's ocean vessel fleet (2.7% est.) U.S. cars and small trucks World's airlines (2.2% est.) I doubt that many planners know about the first two, although they may have some comprehension of the rest of the list. Adding carbon to the active carbon cycle: Here are some of the uses of fossil fuels which add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and hence the entire active carbon cycle. Energy are in the range of 2–3% except the first, which might be as high as 4%. I have attempted to put these in order from the largest to the smallest, but make no claim this is completely correct.

Coalbed fires, world-wide (the worst and most extensive are in China)
Cement production (about 3%)
World’s ocean vessel fleet (2.7% est.)
U.S. cars and small trucks
World’s airlines (2.2% est.)

I doubt that many planners know about the first two, although they may have some comprehension of the rest of the list.

]]> By: IANVS http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5775 IANVS Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:03:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5775 Joe, Any initial thoughts? <a HREF="http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/09/a_92_squaremile.html" rel="nofollow">A 92 square-mile solar array to power the United States?</A> Joe,

Any initial thoughts?

A 92 square-mile solar array to power the United States?

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5781 Earl Killian Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:06:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5781 To IANVS: In 2005 the U.S. used 3.7*10^15 watts of electricity. With efficiency improvements (negawatts) this would have dropped to 2*10^15 watts. Add in 10^15 watts to replace petroleum with electricity (plug-in cars) and you are at 3*10^15 watts. Sunny places in the U.S. get between 2300 and 2800 kWh of sunshine per year per square meter. At 30% efficiency (e.g. solar thermal, which is better than PV), this is 700-800 kWh/m^2/yr. Divide and convert to square miles and you find you need 1500-1700 square miles, not 92. Factor in that the U.S. population is growing rapidly to plan for the future, and you are probably at 3000 square miles. This is still quite reasonable, IMO. A few thousand miles of the desert southwest U.S. is a lot easier to defend than the 169,234 square miles of Iraq, and using it won't destroy the atmopshere. To IANVS: In 2005 the U.S. used 3.7*10^15 watts of electricity. With efficiency improvements (negawatts) this would have dropped to 2*10^15 watts. Add in 10^15 watts to replace petroleum with electricity (plug-in cars) and you are at 3*10^15 watts. Sunny places in the U.S. get between 2300 and 2800 kWh of sunshine per year per square meter. At 30% efficiency (e.g. solar thermal, which is better than PV), this is 700-800 kWh/m^2/yr. Divide and convert to square miles and you find you need 1500-1700 square miles, not 92. Factor in that the U.S. population is growing rapidly to plan for the future, and you are probably at 3000 square miles. This is still quite reasonable, IMO. A few thousand miles of the desert southwest U.S. is a lot easier to defend than the 169,234 square miles of Iraq, and using it won’t destroy the atmopshere.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5783 Earl Killian Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:12:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5783 I see where the 92 came from. The blog IANVS cited titled his post "A 92 square-mile solar array to power the United States?" but the underlying reference talked about 92 mi x 92 mi, which is actually 8464 sq miles. This is a much more realistic number. (My estimate above was meant to disprove 92mi^2, and so just used averages, but in fact one would have to size the system to generate in December, when you get insolation of 6-7 kWh/m^2/day, vs. 8-10 kWh/m^2/day average, vs. 10-14 kWh/m^2/day in June.) I see where the 92 came from. The blog IANVS cited titled his post “A 92 square-mile solar array to power the United States?” but the underlying reference talked about 92 mi x 92 mi, which is actually 8464 sq miles. This is a much more realistic number. (My estimate above was meant to disprove 92mi^2, and so just used averages, but in fact one would have to size the system to generate in December, when you get insolation of 6-7 kWh/m^2/day, vs. 8-10 kWh/m^2/day average, vs. 10-14 kWh/m^2/day in June.)

]]> By: IANVS http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5786 IANVS Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:18:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5786 Earl, thx. I linked the SciGuy thread by its title, but 92x92 mi (8464 mi^2) is the actual number intended. I'm interested in the numbers behind the storage capacity Ausra is proposing. That'll be a key to reducing dependence on backup power sources, and the overall cost & viability of their proposal. Earl,

thx. I linked the SciGuy thread by its title, but 92×92 mi (8464 mi^2) is the actual number intended.

I’m interested in the numbers behind the storage capacity Ausra is proposing. That’ll be a key to reducing dependence on backup power sources, and the overall cost & viability of their proposal.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5796 Earl Killian Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5796 IANVS: Ausra has been pretty tight lipped about the method of heat storage. They won't say much other than it involves water (e.g. in contrast to molten salt, another technology proposed). I don't know why they are so reticent; you would think they would file a patent, and then brag about it to raise further funding (they just closed on $40M or so). I presume you read David Mills' paper (http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/files/ausra_david_mills_china_paper.pdf) It was linked to by the site you linked to. It talks about how well thermal storage works, but not how it is done. So I don't have "the numbers behind the storage capacity". IANVS: Ausra has been pretty tight lipped about the method of heat storage. They won’t say much other than it involves water (e.g. in contrast to molten salt, another technology proposed). I don’t know why they are so reticent; you would think they would file a patent, and then brag about it to raise further funding (they just closed on $40M or so).

I presume you read David Mills’ paper (http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/files/ausra_david_mills_china_paper.pdf)
It was linked to by the site you linked to. It talks about how well thermal storage works, but not how it is done. So I don’t have “the numbers behind the storage capacity”.

]]> By: IANVS http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5804 IANVS Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:24:34 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5804 Earl, Yes, thx, I caught that link and AUSRA's <a HREF="http://www.ausra.com/pdfs/SolarThermal101_final.pdf " rel="nofollow">Solar Thermal 101</A> as well. And no, AUSRA doesn't appear to provide any details or numbers on their water-based <a HREF="http://www.yourdomain.com/" rel="nofollow">thermal energy storage</A> methods. But potential investors appear interested in workable solutions. <a HREF="http://www.frallc.com/conference.aspx?ccode=b542" rel="nofollow">INVESTING IN ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY 2007</A> Earl,

Yes, thx, I caught that link and AUSRA’s Solar Thermal 101 as well.

And no, AUSRA doesn’t appear to provide any details or numbers on their water-based thermal energy storage methods.

But potential investors appear interested in workable solutions. INVESTING IN ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY 2007

]]> By: IANVS http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5805 IANVS Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:34:00 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/21/lehman-brothers-climate-report/#comment-5805 Earl, And no, AUSRA doesn’t appear to provide any details or numbers on their water-based <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage" rel="nofollow">thermal energy storage</A> methods. Joe, Like other websites, it would be nice to be able to preview our comments to correct any errors before posting. thx Earl,

And no, AUSRA doesn’t appear to provide any details or numbers on their water-based thermal energy storage methods.

Joe, Like other websites, it would be nice to be able to preview our comments to correct any errors before posting. thx

]]>