Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

Wyatt earp

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2012
69,975
16,396
Like I always said the AGW cult wants us to run around half naked, live in huts and hunt buffalo....


The costs of carbon cuts? 'Mass starvation, poverty and strife': Scientist


The world's historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world's way of life.

In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for "concrete action" to match the ambitions of last year's landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require "massive changes in the energy system" to prevent the globe's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.



Those vast sums are why M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, recently wrote that the push to restrict carbon "is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed." For that reason, Kelly is skeptical that initiatives like the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris will achieve its lofty goals.

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society."

COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."


Removal of all excessive carbon from the atmosphere "is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle-class people downgrading their own standard of living," Kelly said. He added that "humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality."


.
 
Actually they want us to empty our pocketbooks thus driving us to nakedness. :banana:
 
Actually, they want us to shift to alternative energy technologies as we are already doing. There's no such things as a free lunch, but I haven't seen anyone starve due to windmill and PV installations. Have you?
 
LOL. You guys are so full of shit that your eyes have turned brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

And that was a year and a half ago. In the meantime, prices for wind and solar continue to decline.
 
LOL. You guys are so full of shit that your eyes have turned brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

And that was a year and a half ago. In the meantime, prices for wind and solar continue to decline.


What does this have to do with the OP?



What now you don't like peer review?
 
The OP? An electrical engineer had an opinion. So? We're interested in facts, not opinions.
 
The abstract of Dr Kelly's paper. Not quite the tone his reviewers present.

ABSTRACT There are lessons from recent history of technology introductions which should not be forgotten when considering alternative energy technologies for carbon dioxide emission reductions. The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO 2 . An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse. In practice, the scale and the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action.
 
"Weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking action."

Doesn't sound like Dr. Kelly is recommending not taking action, only of putting thought into the results of whatever we do.
 
LOL. You guys are so full of shit that your eyes have turned brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

And that was a year and a half ago. In the meantime, prices for wind and solar continue to decline.


What does this have to do with the OP?



What now you don't like peer review?
Well, first you need to learn how to read. Dr. Kelly did not say what you implied he said. Second, your article included the terms of cost. Wind produces power at less cost than either coal or natural gas. Solar is already matching them, and will shortly surpass both in terms of economy. I could have added that the upcoming use of grid scale batteries will change the equation much more in favor of the renewables. You start talking costs, you lose.
 
Actually, they want us to shift to alternative energy technologies as we are already doing. There's no such things as a free lunch, but I haven't seen anyone starve due to windmill and PV installations. Have you?
when does this all take place?
 
The abstract of Dr Kelly's paper. Not quite the tone his reviewers present.

ABSTRACT There are lessons from recent history of technology introductions which should not be forgotten when considering alternative energy technologies for carbon dioxide emission reductions. The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO 2 . An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse. In practice, the scale and the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action.
why don't you first prove carbon is bad.
 
Like I always said the AGW cult wants us to run around half naked, live in huts and hunt buffalo....


The costs of carbon cuts? 'Mass starvation, poverty and strife': Scientist


The world's historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world's way of life.

In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for "concrete action" to match the ambitions of last year's landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require "massive changes in the energy system" to prevent the globe's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.



Those vast sums are why M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, recently wrote that the push to restrict carbon "is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed." For that reason, Kelly is skeptical that initiatives like the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris will achieve its lofty goals.

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society."

COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."


Removal of all excessive carbon from the atmosphere "is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle-class people downgrading their own standard of living," Kelly said. He added that "humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality."


.
The left wit morons always did want about 2/3 of the worlds population dead... all but them of course...
 
CO2 does what CO2 does. It's not a matter of being good or bad. I have never said we needed to go back 600 years (and nuclear power, fuel cells, wind turbines and PV are not from 600 years ago) or kill off 2/3rds of the population. So I have nothing along those lines to explain to you.

Have you met our new poster LaDexter. He also claims to have a physics degree and he seems to have about the same grasp of basic physics principles that you do. Perhaps you're school mates. Check him out. He has some novel ideas about ice ages and plate tectonics.
 
CO2 does what CO2 does. It's not a matter of being good or bad. I have never said we needed to go back 600 years (and nuclear power, fuel cells, wind turbines and PV are not from 600 years ago) or kill off 2/3rds of the population. So I have nothing along those lines to explain to you.

Have you met our new poster LaDexter. He also claims to have a physics degree and he seems to have about the same grasp of basic physics principles that you do. Perhaps you're school mates. Check him out. He has some novel ideas about ice ages and plate tectonics.


Ummm...........hate to break it to you but the new guy is cleaning the clocks of the 3 or 4 AGW regulars in here. Its school time near as I can tell and certainly to anybody checking in on these threads.

The only thing that matters in here is how the information plays to the casual reader coming in here to get some info on global warming........only thing that matters. They've heard all the standard crap in school and on the boob..........they get a whole new perspective in here. For example..........most idiots out there think renewable energy is freight training the energy landscape........but they come in here and find out its still at laughable levels and will be for decades. They also find out that CO2 is a trace gas.:fu:They also find out that global warming is a scientific opinion not shared by tens of thousands of scientists ( fake scientists according to the religion ). They also find out that the committed AGW religion is 100% against any scientific information that doesn't conform with their narrative........in other words, the religion gets exposed.:beer:

Kinda puts things into perspective........:coffee:..........at this point, this Ledexter guy is just putting an exclamation point on the domination.
 
Last edited:
Hey Crick.......me thinks you spending to much time out in the middle of the ocean!!! Suggest its time to come ashore for a bit and find out what's happening in the real world!!! Now worries........the ocean will always be out there.:2up:

Today in REALCLEARPOLITICS..............

World Sets Record For Fossil Fuel Consumption


But you keep telling yourself that renewables are on the cusp of taking over the energy landscape!!:bye1::bye1:
 

Forum List

Back
Top