Climate Change in Australia (Part 1)

Study narrows range of Earth’s warming response as greenhouse gases rise

New research has sharply narrowed the likely estimate of how much the Earth will warm with a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, potentially honing estimates that have stood for a quarter century.

The long-standing estimate for the so-called equilibrium climate sensitivity used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had been that surface temperatures would rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees for each doubling of CO2 or equivalent greenhouse gases.

The new study by UK scientists, published today in Nature journal, used year-on-year global mean temperature fluctuations rather than trends to discount the extreme ends of that range.

“Our study all but rules out very low or very high climate sensitivities, so we now know much better what we need to [do],” said Peter Cox, a professor of climate system dynamics from the University of Exeter, and the lead author of the paper.

“Climate sensitivity is high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous global climate change”.

The researchers calculated the range to be between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees with each CO2 doubling, including a central estimate of 2.8 degrees. The IPCC’s mid-range estimate was similar at 3 degrees.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 410 parts per million, or about 50 per cent higher than pre-industrial times. Global temperatures have risen slightly more than a degree over the period.

Major US agencies such as NASA are set to declare 2017 as among the three warmest years on record - with 2016 and 2015 the other two.

Last year was the hottest without an El Nino, a Pacific event that tends to give a boost to global temperatures by slowing or reversing the uptake of heat by the ocean.

Steven Sherwood, an atmospheric scientist at the University of NSW’s Climate Change Research Centre, said the paper was “another piece of evidence refuting the idea that maybe we’ll be really lucky, or that we’ve got it wrong and it’s a low sensitivity”.

Professor Sherwood said the researchers had taken an approach using many climate models, which many scientists had previously considered but deemed difficult to pull off.

Challenges in assessing sensitivity include accounting for time lags, natural fluctuations and measurement issues.

“Does it really fundamentally work, or does it just look like it works?” he said. “That’s something we still need to work out.”

According to the paper, the implied risk of a greater than 4-degree warming with C02 doubling was less than a one-in-40 chance. That finding “renew[s] hope that we may yet be able to avoid global warming exceeding two degrees” as agreed in the Paris climate accord, it said.

Professor Sherwood said the findings were “not reassuring”, but “it’s the outcome that says we can avoid disaster but we have to get active” in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

1 Like

Ahahahahahaha… breath hahahaha.

Yeah, efficiency is ridiculous.

2 Likes

Well, Loy Yang B shat itself in heat AGAIN today, dropped 500MW of generation capacity in an instant leading to the spot price of power spiking by no less than fifteen THOUSAND percent until despatchable capacity was able to kick in.

Cascading blackout avoided by not all that much, given the demand on the grid from all the air con. Coal power endangering the stability of the energy grid yet again…

3 Likes

Because Labor are deliberately withholding maintenance, apparently.

Wot? Isn’t it privatised? Didn’t Boofhead Kennet sell it off?

1 Like

I think we are about 3 billion people too late & whatever we do isn’t going to be enough the climate it changing but it always does did we give it a boost along yes indeed we did

if governments here on both sides were concerned about the climate then all new houses/buildings would have to be energy efficient …solar power, wind power & water recycling …not like the technology doesn’t exist & for coastal areas tidal power generation the country would run efficiently on all those things …trouble is how would they be able to charge people for power??? maybe they don’t need to!!!

1 Like

Currently 41c, wind power for Victoria 32Mw.
Current demand 8,940Mw.
0.365% of demand met by wind power.
Wind has exceeded 50mw on only 12 occasions in January.
Wind has produced 0Mw on 11 occasions.
Hospitals are turning their lights off as an emergency measure.

What does it take to get it through your thick heads that renewables don’t work.

2 Likes

Oh damn those pesky solar panels right?

This is a screenshot from my personal power plant.

Please enjoy my contribution to the grid.

3 Likes

How did solar go today?

Actually i’d like to add this too.

Source is above but you need to download the excel file to get the information.

VIC actually has a pretty low amount of wind turbines, not to mention they are small now compared to the new ones like the 8MW and 12MW options (compared to ours which are between 2 and 3).

Funny too that NEM watch says wind is now generating 382MW.

Yes very pretty, mine produced 15.6Kw for day plus what was used in the house but it hardly covers the other 8,949,000Kw per hour required to run the system.
Incidentally for all those out there ■■■■■■■■ about the cost of power that 15.6Kw earned me $12.73 in payback tarrifs, i gleefully accept your money.
Spot price on the market was over $14.00 Kw, guess whose bill that will be going on.

Really, b i t c h i n g is a no no?.

1 Like

Hadn’t spotted that but good for keeping a permanent readout.

Could use Dashboard for rough estimates

Or hour by hour for individual windfarms, states, or Australia.

http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2018/january/20

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think when we talk about renewables do you assume we are talking about just wind?

And clearly your renewable works ya pelican.

1 Like

By crikey I get a good laugh out of Clowns.

Can someone explain to me in terms that even sorfed can understand this concept of spot pricing for electricity?

What does it actually reflect, and is it what is paid ?

Really? @sorfed how did it go last night? Our cooling was on all night.

Good question - hopefully this is simple enough without being patronising.

Let’s say there are five generators in a market (obviously there are normally many more than that). These generators bid in for the energy they can dispatch at the cost it takes them to produce it.

The cheapest sources are dispatched first, and the most expensive sources aren’t dispatched at all. The spot price is set by the most expensive source that is needed.

So take a look at this graph:

https://discourse.bomberblitz.com/uploads/default/original/1X/83811ee8e3576e0b79a959c9323594fa8499c120.jpg

In this case, the total demand is (500+900+600+500=)2500MW. The old gas isn’t needed, so the highest cost generator is $30/MWh. This becomes the spot price.

Now let’s say it’s a 42°C day and everyone’s turning their air cons on. Demand goes up to 3000MW, so the old gas station is needed. The spot price goes up with it to $50/MWh.

What does this spot price mean?

In theory, the spot price is paid by wholesale buyers of electricity, like retailers or large industrial users. However, most have ‘hedging’ contracts with generators, which smooths out the price over a longer period. (Or in the case of AGL/Energy Australia etc., they own lots of the generation themselves.)

If the price goes up to $10,000/MWh every day for a week, they probably won’t have to pay that directly, but it will affect the price they pay for electricity in their next contract. Similarly, you effectively have a hedging contract with your retailer, because you’ll pay a set amount for the electricity you use. This means you don’t have to monitor the market every five minutes to see whether you should switch off your TV to save money.

If you want to go a bit further into it, here’s a home-made chart of the electricity prices and demand on Thursday.

The mini-spike at 3pm seems to just be a case of high demand on a hot day, and prices needing to rise to cover the costs of more expensive reserve generation.

But just before 4pm, Loy Yang B tripped, and obviously that took a huge amount of electricity out. AEMO needed to find replacements very quickly, and because it of the high demand, most generators would already have been running if they could (wind might not have been able to, for instance). The only generation left would have been really expensive, like old gas generators or diesel, or even paying industrial users to stop.

Most of these expensive sources of electricity rely on periods of high spot prices to make a profit. If you don’t have any of these periods they exit the market and you don’t have much of a reserve, so it’s not necessarily a bad thing when prices go near the peak for a bit. (The maximum allowable price is $14,200/MWh - there’s a cap at that point.)

1 Like