tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post4558431986756397956..comments2024-03-15T05:59:53.929-07:00Comments on Ambivalent Engineer: The Limits to GrowthAmbivalent Engineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-36244678415189596312009-08-21T12:51:45.211-07:002009-08-21T12:51:45.211-07:00The US has about 25 gigawatts of wind turbines, wh...The US has about 25 gigawatts of wind turbines, which cost between 30 and 40 billion dollars, and displace around 30 million tonnes of CO2 per year, primarily by displacing gas turbine power. The same money would have purchased 3 or 4 Palo Verde nuclear plants (the whole facility, not just one unit), each of which displaces 25 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Obviously 3 or 4 would displace a lot more CO2.<br /><br />If the US did what the French have done (nuclear generation and fast trains), we'd be down around 10 tonnes/person/year. To get down to French levels, we would need, in addition, to switch to more fuel efficient cars, and change our long-distance freight from trucks to electrified trains. I don't have exact numbers yet, but I think that gets us to 8 tonnes/person/year. After that it gets a lot harder.Ambivalent Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-74758812935531845622009-08-21T12:23:59.298-07:002009-08-21T12:23:59.298-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gaetano Maranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00500435490402119385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-15038162774842965912009-08-19T10:41:32.652-07:002009-08-19T10:41:32.652-07:00Hi Ian - -
I just wanted to point out this recent...Hi Ian - -<br /><br />I just wanted to point out this recent paper by Meinshausen et al (www.nature,com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html), which finds that in order to exceed 2 C warming with 50% likelihood, global cumulative emissions would need to be 1440 Gt CO2 from 2000-50. This works out to be 28.8 Gt CO2/year, or 4.25 t CO2/yer/per (current-day) person. For comparison, the US, at 5.75 Gt CO2/year uses an alotment of 18.9 Gt CO2 per person per year. <br /><br />So if we emit our fair share of this 1440 Gt for the next 50 years, we would emit 0.304 billion people * 4.25 Gt CO2 * 50 years = 64.46 Gt CO2. In other words, we will blow through our share in a few years. The implications of this is that we, the US, would need to completely decarbonize the economy post haste to avert warming that we know will cause bad things. That's going to require changes not just in fuel substitution (nuclear, wind, CSP, PV, etc), but end-use efficiency in buildings and industry, and as you say transportation infrastructure. Probably some negative emissions would be required to make this emissions target. Nope, as you say, not easy.<br /><br />There is another recent interesting paper on individuating global CO2 emissions by individual income (no surprise, richer people emit more . . but following a power law with diminishing returns) Turns out we can solve the carbon problem if we all emit as though we made $40,000 a year!<br /><br />www.pnas.org/content/106/29/11884.full<br /><br />- - AdamAdam Wolfnoreply@blogger.com