The ‘nuclear renaissance’ envisioned a decade ago has stalled to the point of near fantasy. While there are Chinese programs that keep open the promise of ‘traditional’ large nuclear power plant projects, constructing such plants does not seem viable in current economic and energy market conditions.
With (relatively) rapid changes in electricity markets (efficiency driving flattening of demand in developed nations even amid economic growth; extremely low natural gas prices; rapid growth in renewables with ever lowering prices), investing $15B or so for adding 1-2GW of capacity a decade or more into the future is an extremely uncertain proposition. A proposition worsened by seemingly ever-increasing price stickers for such power plants.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have been ‘on the horizon’ for a long time with the promise of addressing this uncertain proposition by offering a path for incremental additions into the power system, providing a path for incremental and potentially low-cost meeting of community power requirements.
Recent news suggests that the SMR promise might actually be on the path to becoming.
The system is targeted for meeting a Utah Power contracted requirement for 12 units (a 720MW facility) for operations to begin in 2026.
The target levelized cost of electricity (LCOE): $65/mWh.
That price — if it can be met — is significantly lower than that of any large-nuclear power plant being developed in the developed world (such as Vogtle and Hinckley).
At $65/mWh, if achieve, the Nuscale SMR would provide a credible alternative and/or partner with renewable energy systems. While pure mWh prices for renewable energy systems are plunging and now often well below $65 mWh, when storage and other investments required to provide assured power are included, the NuScale price will be quite competitive in many markets.
Now, the NuScale SMR
Still is in design;
Is only projected to be $65 mWh and that price might not survive the system’s encounter with reality; and,
Will, in the best scenario, only start deploying in the second half of the next decade and likely can’t have a major impact in the power sector until well into the 2030s.
With all that in mind, the NuScale announcements about their SMR suggest the value of focusing on moving toward a “clean power” (electricity) system rather than being locked into a renewables only future. The priority is to have reliable, affordable (if not low price), extremely low carbon electricity. If nuclear power can safely meet a portion of that requirement, it should be embraced.
December 6th, 2018 · Comments Off on Do you believe in gravity? In ….
At least some more reporters and at least some polling organizations are looking out their windows, paying attention to wildfires in California and heat waves in Australia and floods in …, and starting to address climate change.
These (so-to-speak) newcomers to the beat of the most critical issue facing mankind are approaching the topic almost as one might discuss the Easter Bunny and (more ominously) the Zombie Acopalyse.
Too often we see reports of (Republican) politicians and the public being asked:
“Do you believe in climate change?”
It's almost 2019. Can we stop reporting on climate change like it's Santa? https://t.co/J6FPCXlF7b
Simply, purely, this is not a situation of belief but a willingness to accept scientific conclusions and understanding.
A decade ago, climate scientist Dr. Vicky Pope explained it thusly:
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming …”
And, sadly, reporters and pollsters persist in “belief”-type questions and discussions.
The term "belief" is inappropriate. We don't "believe" re "gravity". This is about understanding/accepting science.
Will any journalist or pollster be embarrassed that the best they could do, with their limited shot at asking question, was to ask whether the President or his supporters believe in Vampires?
Rather than being embarrassed, when facing a politician the question could be: what discrete and specific actions will you vote for and execute to address the mounting climate crisis which is laid out in scientific analysis and reporting?
For the public, perhaps it is better to ask
Are you aware that over 97 percent of the relevant scientific experts have concluded that humanity is responsible for over 50 percent of recent global warming (and potentially all of it)?
Would you support government policy, such as moving toward clean electricity systems, to address climate change?
…
Recognizing the reality of climate change is not about religious belief and framing in in this way undermines the ability to have rational and meaningful p.ublic dialogue about what policies to pursue to deal with reality
Comments Off on Do you believe in gravity? In ….Tags:Energy
December 5th, 2018 · Comments Off on Speaking to constituents on climate change (VA44 edition)
While the pace is picking up, it is a simple truth that too few U.S. politicians speak to their constituents about climate change in meaningful ways. Thus, to start with, a mark of appreciation for politicians who do make the effort to speak to their constituents to educate them and seek to mobilize them to #ActOnClimate.
This post is sparked by a weekly column from Delegate Paul Krizek (VA-44), Virginia House of Delegates, entitled: The time to act on climate change is now. So, to paraphrase from others, Paul had me at the opening line. Yes: we must act on climate NOW!
Krizek wrote the OPED (again, one of his weekly local columns to communicate with his constituents) after the release of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) discuss the “dire threat posed to our very existence by climate change”, communicate actions he as taking as an elected official (recognizing that Republicans hold the majority in the Virginia HOD), and provide thoughts as to what his constituents could do about climate change.
First Krizek makes clear this is a problem of today,
We just saw the danger of areas facing droughts with the deadly fires in California. The warmer climate creates drier landscapes and thus a longer fire season. In fact, the fire season in western states is 84 days longer than it was in the 1970, according to the Economist. These droughts will ravage the farming community. If our warming continues at the same pace, the production of some crops could fall by 75 percent by the end of the century. Warming on our current trajectory could cost our economy approximately $500 billion a year by the end of the century in crop damage, lost labor and extreme weather damage. This rivals the damage of the last economic recession!
He then discusses policy level actions, like emphasizing renewable energy (including legislation he has introduced to ease the path to securing solar power in the Commonwealth). And, he then turns to personal actions such as recycling, reducing plastic use, and insulating the home.
He concludes the OPED
research indicates that if we commit now to make strong adjustments within the next ten years we have an opportunity to minimize the long term damage and possibly even work to reverse some of the effects. However, if we remain complacent and don’t act, our children and grandchildren will suffer tremendous consequences.
Now, again, thanks to elected officials that do make the effort to communicate with their constituents about climate change and work to introduce/pass legislation to #ActOnClimate. Every voice is required, every ally valued.
However, reading this OPED was somewhat like drinking a zero-calorie Coke: my brain recognized the flavor but my hunger wasn’t satiated. Recognizing that an OPED has word limitations and not everything can be in it, here are examples of my reaction:
The tone and proposals don’t rise to the level of the challenge of climate change to Virginia nor the opportunity that aggressive actions can create
Telling people to ‘insulate homes’ is a message resonating from decades ago — it absolutely isn’t wrong but, well, shouldn’t the appeal be greater.
Virginia is a laggard related to climate action
with mediocre energy efficiency status/programs/etc, too much power to climate-denying industry (especially Dominion), mediocre government leadership (think about greening schools, net-zero government buildings, etc … Virginia is NOT a leader), etc …
Virginia could, if the political elites chose to act, could be a leader. (For an idea of what I think merited/possible, here is my commentary during the d
It is not possible to speak seriously, about climate and Virginia without mentioning Dominion Energy.
Those pipelines, along, will essentially double Virginia’s power system climate impacts. As Sierra Club’s Glen Besa has powerfully laid out, these two pipelines will add roughly seven times as much carbon impact as would be reduced through Virginia entering a carbon trading program.
E.g., allowing the pipelines to move forward doesn’t simply negate every positive action on climate change but will worsen the situation even with aggressive action elsewhere.
And, therefore, Virginia politicians who make any claim to being climate conscious must address these two (massive) elephants in the room … and should stand up to be counted to stop these projects which will be economic disasters for Virginia and Virginians along with being climate monstrosities.
Some words about ‘climate adaptation’ (and not just mitigation) are also necessary.
Dealing with climate change isn’t just about recycling, insulation, and reducing emissions but also, for example, developing an infrastructure that can handle the climate disruption that is baked into the system no matter how aggressively we work to mitigate climate-related pollution.
And, of course, this is exactly a government role: building code, standards, etc …
The ending sentence is troubling in terms of climate communication: “our children and grandchildren will suffer tremendous consequences.” This puts the impacts, problems into the future — as much as people say they care about their kids and grandkids, the reality is that this framing decreases proclivity to act, creates a mental mind map that we can wait to do action.
As Krizek makes clear earlier in the OPED, we are already feeling serious climate catastrophic impacts.
While, yes, “our children and grandchildren will suffer tremendous consequences” the truth is that so are ‘we’ already and those consequences ‘we’ will suffer if we don’t act seriously. Saying “our children and grandchildren” feeds right into (too many/most) people’s proclivity to say mañana when faced with a difficult and/or distasteful task.
As Krizek’s title screams, we should say/think mañana when it comes to climate action but hoy (today) is the time to move out on climate change.
Comments Off on Speaking to constituents on climate change (VA44 edition)Tags:climate change · virginia
the right would appear to be saying that a 4 cent/gallon increase in gasoline taxes (which is all that was proposed in France) would similarly trigger bloody rights were they proposed in the U.S. This sounds more like an empty threat than a cool-eyed forecast.
The Gilet Jaune riots are serious and, as per the decision to delay the implementation of the gasoline tax, this is not principally about French government choices to act on climate change, it is not (as falsely asserted by Trump) a repudiation of the Paris Agreement.
There is discord in France, with many seeing Macron’s policies as unduly favoring the already powerful, the already rich and undermining basic French egalitarianism and promoting the sorts of policies that have led to ever worsening economic inequality and concentration of wealth and power amid an ever-smaller elite. And, frustration that Macron is seemingly oblivious to the reality of challenges in rural France and stressed non-elite urban areas that mirror those elsewhere in the world due to globalization.
Good morning. The protests in France are more about a solid plurality of French people not having enough money to live on despite full-time work than they are about resisting climate action.
Now, there are threads of truth in the WSJ even though, with that truth, the subtext is deception.
voters don’t believe that climate change justifies policies that would raise their cost of living and hurt the economy.
What the WSJ editorial board is doing here is continuing to promote the fundamental falsehood that it is environment versus the economy and, essentially, falsely asserting that one can’t #ActOnClimate while boosting economic performance.
First, sensible moves to both mitigate and adapt to climate change will boost economic performance, even without considering the highest order value of reducing future climate costs and risks. If one wishes to be quite generous to the WSJ editorial page (which, based on the history of climate science denialism isn’t really justified), perhaps the argument is that governments around the world need to address climate change with policy structures that will address both climate risks and economic inequalities. E.g., is the WSJ providing a backhanded endorsement of the Green New Deal?
Second, there is the long-term challenge that traditional ‘economic’ measures (e.g., GDP) are mistaken measures. Spending massive resources to clean up an oil spill boosts the GDP due to the spending. Building seawalls to deal with rising seas boosts the GDP since it is economic activity. Insurance companies paying off for those killed and property destroyed in Paradise, California, in climate-change related fire catastrophe boosts the GDP numbers. Seriously, why does anyone think that this is ‘good’? As Michael Liebreich appropriately summarized as the attacks on the National Climate Assessment seeking to analyze GDP impacts from unchecked climate chaos:
I dont give a damn whether climate change causes more impact on GDP than climate action. A world where we are spending trillions to move cities inland, where coral reefs are destroyed and nature disrupted might well have a healthy GDP. But so what! Forget GDP, think about wealth.
December 4th, 2018 · Comments Off on In Norfolk, Fish is Roadkill
You don’t have to be that old to remember when fishing in Virginia meant searching for a body of water rod and reel in hand. This is changing as, with sea level rise, streets are increasingly flooded with ‘moon tides’ or in storm events where it didn’t occur (or less frequently) in the past.
Hampton Roads has already been experiencing some of the worst conditions on the East Coast attributed to climate change, as rising sea levels contribute to worsening flooding and struggling infrastructure.
Residents experience frequent “nuisance flooding” that covers roads, including in some cases the only way in and out of military bases.
In Norfolk it’s no longer unusual to see fish as roadkill, according to Skip Stiles, the executive director of an environmental nonprofit called Wetlands Watch.
In describing Donald Trump’s climate-science denialist reject of the NCA4, ABC’s focus on the Hampton Roads area highlights:
Local officials have to deal with reality, not ideological dogma that leads to rejecting it;
Virginia’s coastal areas face serious risks and challenges related to sea-level rise (within the overall set of issues related to climate change); and that,
Serious climate impacts (‘nuisance flooding’ and ‘fish roadkill’) are happening today … this is about us, today, not (solely) about some indefinite future impacts on our “children and grandchildren”.
Also within the article is a good lay down of how climate-related problems aren’t ‘solely’ due to climate change.
Residents already experience more days of flooding every year due to outdated stormwater systems, gradually sinking land, and consequences of climate change like rising sea levels and more intense rain events
While not necessarily directly “climate mitigation,” investing in infrastructure (updating while repairing stormwater systems) and tackling other problems (such as replenishment of underground aquifers where overuse has accelerated land subsidence) is part of the package of required investments that will help reduce climate impacts while creating jobs and boosting economic activity at the same time.
The time to #ActOnClimate was yesterday. The time to act is today. And, it will be time to act tomorrow. Every moment of delay raises the costs of required action and means that impacts will be greater.
“In Norfolk [VA] it's no longer unusual to see fish as roadkill.”
November 23rd, 2018 · Comments Off on Thanksgiving: Trump tweets climate denial; Black Friday: Scientists issue dire climate report
On Thanksgiving eve, Trump (yet again) tweeted out idiocy related to climate change, demonstrating (yet again) his arrogant ignorance on the most critical issue facing humanity.
Sigh … Pulling hair out … when things written in the past can be dusted off and used again verbatim.
The classic climate science denial line: it’s cold outside, we really could use some of that global warming …
Much of the US is incredibly cold — while the rest of the world isn’t … but let’s say Global Warming doesn’t exist …
To be clear, one moment’s weather situation doesn’t prove climate change … just like a cold weather snap in part of the world doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist. Winter still happens, cold weather records still occur … but winters, globally, are shorter and not as cold. And, when it comes to weather records, they should be roughly balanced between hot and cold weather records — with human-driven climate change, high temperature records (including high lowest temperature) are blowing past cold records to the order of 10-1 globally decade to decade.
The above was Trump’s standard idiocy, feed to 10s of millions in #CultOfTrump who nod their head in blind agreement as their fearless leader fearlessly boards a flight to go to (climate-drive sea-level rise threatened) Mar-A-Lago. An idiocy fed to his flock on Thanksgiving eve followed up by another about cold weather on Thanksgiving.
Black Friday was reserved for aberrant shopping behavior and release of yet another increasingly dire climate science report.
In a seemingly failed effort to reduce attention to it, Team Trump released the Congressionally-mandatedFourth National Climate Assessment amid the Black Thursday shopping mania. In this Trump Administration report, government scientists (operating under some degree of Trump-ista suppresssion …) have documented what is happening already in the United States due to human-driven climate change and have dire forecasts as to what will happen with serious action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The report is pretty straightforward to summarize:
Human activity, like burning fossil fuels, is the primary cause for the warming temperatures we are undoubtedly experiencing.
By the end of this century, fighting climate change will save hundreds of billions of dollars just in public health costs, and save thousands of lives a year.
Americans are already paying for climate change as it makes storms more damaging, heat waves more deadly, wildfires more common, allergies worse and some diseases more widespread.
The U.S. military, as well as many farmers, businesses, and local communities are already planning for and adapting to climate change.
Climate change is a clear and present danger to the health and wealth of the American people.
Topline findings of the report include:
Human activity, primarily burning fossil fuels, is causing climate change. There is no credible alternative to global warming emissions to explain the warming.
Global average temperatures have risen 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1901, predominantly because of human activity, especially the emission of heat-trapping gases.
Globally, 16 of the last 17 years are the warmest years on record.
Depending on the region, Americans could experience an additional month to two month’s worth of days with maximum temperatures above 100°F (38°C) by 2050, with that severe heat becoming commonplace in the southeast by 2100.
Economic losses from climate change are significant for some sectors of the U.S. economy.
In some sectors, losses driven by the impacts of climate change could exceed $100 billion annually by the end of the century.
If emissions continue unabated, extreme temperatures could end up costing billions upon billions in lost wages annually by the end of the century, and negatively impact the health of construction, agricultural and other outdoor workers.
Many aspects of climate change – including extreme heat, droughts, and floods – will pose risks to the U.S. agricultural sector. In many places, crop yields, as well as crop and grazing land quality, are expected to decline as a result.
We may be underestimating our level of risk by failing to account for multiple impacts occurring at once, or not planning for impacts that will span across government borders and sector boundaries.
Our aging infrastructure, especially our electric grid, will continue to be stressed by extreme weather events, which is why helping communities on the frontlines of climate impacts to adapt is so crucial.
Americans are already responding to the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels.
Increased global warming emissions have contributed to the observed increases in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1970.
Climate change doubled the area burned by wildfires across the West between 1984 and 2015, relative to what would have burned without warming. Climate change was a greater factor in area burned between 1916 and 2003 than was fire suppression, fire management or non-climate factors.
By 2100, annual acreage burned by wildfires could increase by as much as 6 times in some places. The U.S. spends an average of about $1 billion annually to fight wildfires, but spent over $2 billion in 2015 due to extreme drought. Costs exceeded $2 billion in the first 8 months of 2017.
The U.S. military is already working to understand the increased risks of security issues resulting from climate change-induced resource shocks (droughts causing crop failure, for example, which can contribute to civil unrest) as well as extreme weather events and direct impacts on military infrastructure, like sea level rise or extreme heat at military bases.
Storm surge and tidal flooding frequency, depth and extent are worsened by sea level rise, presenting a significant risk to America’s trillion-dollar coastal property market.
Global sea level has risen about 8-9 inches since 1880, 3 inches of which have come since just 1993. We can expect at least several inches more in the next 15 years, with 1-4 feet very likely by 2100, and as much as 8 feet physically possible by 2100.
Sea level rise has already increased the frequency of high tide flooding by a factor of 5 to 10 since the 1960s for some U.S. coastal communities.
Climate change is already hurting coastal ecosystems, posing a threat to the fisheries and tourism industries as well as public safety and human health. Continuing coastal impacts will worsen pre-existing social inequities as vulnerable communities reckon with how to adapt.
Every American’s health is at risk from climate change, with the elderly, young, working class and communities of color being particularly vulnerable.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, by the end of the century, potentially save thousands of lives annually, and generate hundreds of billions of dollars of health-related economic benefits compared to a high emissions scenario.
Allergies like hay fever and asthma are likely already becoming more frequent and severe.
Warmer temperatures are expected to alter the range of mosquitoes and ticks that carry vector-borne diseases like Zika, West Nile virus, dengue, chikungunya and yellow fever.
Drier conditions in Arizona and California have led to greater growth of the fungus that leads to Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis) while Cryptococcal infections were strictly tropical before 1999, but have moved northward, with Oregon experiencing 76 cases in 2015.
West Nile is projected to double by 2050, with a $1 billion annual price tag.
Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will reduce the risks of climate impacts.
A certain amount of warming is likely “locked in” so adaptation is still required.
The faster we reduce global warming emissions, the less risk we face and the cheaper it will be to adapt.
Why issue a government report on the Friday after Thanksgiving?
The Trump administration tried to bury a new report about the devastating consequences of climate change.
Why? Because Trump's actions are actively making it worse.
Our task is clear. We must immediately and dramatically reduce carbon pollution emissions. https://t.co/4dhk4qUdzn
November 13th, 2018 · Comments Off on .@Ocasio2018 joins @SunriseMvmt in pounding on Pelosi’s door for #GreenNewDeal to #ActOnClimate
Youth climate activists didn’t put their passion away last Tuesday evening at the end of balloting. The likely next Speaker of the House, who has indicated that (a) there will be recreation of a Climate-focused committee but (b) climate won’t be top of the agenda, has a few hundred passionate, knowledgable Sunrise Movement activists pounding on her door.
Update: @NancyPelosi’s office is packed to the brim but the young people are still coming. We’re lining the halls for a #GreenNewDeal.
This morning, hundreds of young people are taking action in DC to deliver our climate demands to the newly elected Congress. The newest science tells us we have just 12 years to transform society and our economy to stop climate change. But recent comments have surfaced showing that Dem leaders have no intention of fighting for a real climate plan anytime soon.
We’re on Capitol Hill taking action this morning because the only thing standing in the way of a just future is the failure of political leadership. Our demand is simple:
Champion a Green Jobs for All platform
to guarantee a job to anyone who wants one transforming our society over the next decade to stop climate change and protect the lives of all working people – black, brown, and white – from the ravages of disaster and pollution.
Young people just helped flip the House with a record turnout. We can no longer tolerate empty promises and words without action. We’re not expecting miracles; we understand that the GOP is corrupted by dirty oil money and will stall us at every turn. Sweeping change might not be possible until Trump is gone – but we need to start laying the groundwork now. Thanks for your help – we’ll be back in touch with more to share soon.
“Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership must get serious about the climate and our economy. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership must get serious about the climate and our economy,
“Anything less is tantamount to denying the reality of climate change. The hopeful part is that we’re ushering in a new generation of leaders into the Democratic Party who understand the urgency and will help build a movement to create the political will for bold action.”
Waleed Shahid
Justice Democrats Communications Director
A Green New Deal — to create new economic opportunities, address economic inequalities, and deal with environmental injustice through aggressive climate action — is central to Representative Elect Ocasio2018’s vision for a better nation and her role in the House Democratic caucus.
That the Climate Hawk youngest woman ever elected to Congress would join youth climate activists in pressuring the most powerful members in the Democratic Party to act more forcefully shouldn’t surprise us but should be welcomed and appreciated.
Let’s be clear, even if (when) Pelosi agrees that climate should be on top of the Agenda, the Senate GOP won’t go along nor will climate-science denier Trump. This is about setting the agenda … setting the agenda for strong policy action when sanity and decency and competence return to the Oval Office. It is also about setting the agenda, for decades to come, in terms of American politics.
Since compromise and cooperation are off the table for the time being, the only way forward, they say, is for Democrats to go for broke. That means: fully champion decarbonization, make it a winning political issue, cobble together coalitions at the state and city level, and eventually force Republicans who want to compete for young or POC voters (should they ever again want to do so) to come to the table. Make them scared not to. That might work; persuasion hasn’t, and won’t.
….
elections also put Dems in a better position to pursue the go-for-broke strategy, to abandon the project of persuading Republicans, take full ownership of the issue, and simply grind out victories on climate and clean-energy policy wherever power aligns makes them possible.
Climate change will define politics for generations to come … the Democratic Party is, writ large, on the right side of the issue. It is well past time to make this truly central — it is the right thing to do, it is the right political thing to do.
This (long) twitter thread provides a very useful window on the Sunrise Movement and AOC’s joining of it outside Pelosi. This was activism to push Pelosi/Democratic Party to rise to urgency of situation, not “protest” attacking Pelosi.x
Key point, the framing that this was “protest” came from a GOP staffer and, well, too many fell into it:x
Comments Off on .@Ocasio2018 joins @SunriseMvmt in pounding on Pelosi’s door for #GreenNewDeal to #ActOnClimateTags:clean energy jobs · climate change
Human-driven climate change creates many challenges for humanity from driving mounting extinction rates (and thus reducing biodiversity and undermining ecosystems) to disrupted weather patterns to fostering more extreme weather events to … Well, that list is distressing long. Many of these risks and threats are difficult to project with exactitude: yes, climate change will lead to more extreme precipitation events but no one could have predicted Houston getting inundated by Hurricane Harvey’s 50 inches of rain a year or even a month ahead of time.
Some threats are, however, measurable with some exactitude. Sea level rise (SLR) is one of those.
Based on extensive scientific research and monitoring,
We know, with certainty, that the seas are rising at a faster rate.
We know, with certainty, that there are multiple factors at play
Global factors
heat expanding the oceans
land-ice melting adding to volume,
local factors that are both
natural elements like land shifts (subsidence) and ocean flows (eastern coasts, due to earth’s rotation, have additional sea level impacts compared to west coasts) and
direct human action like excessive groundwater withdrawals.
With that reality in mind, there have been serious efforts over the past decade to gain a better understanding of the risks to the region and develop viable adaptation pathways for whatever level of sea level rise does occur in the coming decades and century (centuries). A core portion of this has been the Old Dominion University Resilience Collaborative, which has played a role in pulling together key actors (like the Department of Defense, local governments, major employers) for discussion and planning work. Under the Obama Administration, this work was one of the leading examples of Federal-Local collaboration for developing resilience approaches as government officials (at all levels) sought paths forward for both climate mitigation (reducing future impacts via, for example, reducing pollution loads) and adaptation (developing paths to deal with inevitable climate impacts, such as the sea level rise due to lagging impacts of already occurred carbon pollution). With the climate-science denial of the Republican Party and Donald Trump, such efforts are not currently seriously on the national (Federal government) agenda.
Today, Governor Ralph Northam is moving to fill in this gap. Gov. Northam issued Executive Order 24 to create an increased Commonwealth focus to improve Virginia’s resilience to climate change impacts — from buildings better prepared to deal with weather extremes to developing paths for adapting to sea-level rise.
“As extreme weather events become more frequent and more intense, the safety and economic well-being of every Virginian is put at greater risk,” said Governor Northam. “The actions the Commonwealth will undertake as a result of this Executive Order will ensure we address this growing challenge head on, setting Virginia on a path towards resilience to near and long-term natural catastrophes and enhancing our public health and economic vitality with a whole of government approach.”
With EO24, Governor Northam has created a position of Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) for the Commonwealth that will (at least for now) a dual-hat responsibility for the Secretary of Natural Resources Matthew Strickland. EO24 outlines a wide range of tasks and responsibilities, from assessing risks/resiliency of government buildings and facilities to developing a Virginia Coastal Resiliency Plan.
“With this Executive Order, the Commonwealth of Virginia seizes the opportunity to lead in creating new and innovative adaptive concepts and to work across a collaborative group of
federal, state, regional and community stakeholders to ensure the vitality and adaptive growth of our coastal communities for our future,” said Special Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Adaptation and Protection Rear Admiral Ann C. Phillips, U.S. Navy (ret’d). “As recent weather and ongoing coastal flooding events in this year alone have shown us, we have no time to waste.”
This EO looks to be serious as a meaningful step forward to incorporating climate change impacts and risks into Virginia governmental planning. As an example, it states that all new-build government projects starting as of 1 January 2020 will have to incorporate sea-level rise and resiliency into their design and planning.
As to ‘serious’, discussing Virginia government and climate change requires mentioning the elephant in the room: construction of fracked-fossil gas pipelines that will be the equivalent, in climate impact, of building 45 new coal-fired power plants. In other words, Virginia’s climate math is clear: the Mountain Valley Pipeline’s and Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s climate impacts overwhelm all the other good incremental measures that Governor Northam is putting into place. E024 is a good step forward while enabling and allowing the construction of this massive additional fossil-foolish infrastructure is the equivalent of two giant leaps backward in terms of worsening the problems that EO24 is meant to address.
Even so, EO24 is a meaningful move toward better Commonwealth governance in the face of climate-change risks. The measures outlined within should increase government resilience to climate change impacts while fostering improved private-sector resiliency. And, with EO24, Governor Northam is putting Virginia in a better position to work, in the future, with a more rational Federal executive structure.
Looking back a decade, solar photovoltaiic (PV) prices were over 20 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh), uncertainty existed as to polysilicon pricing (one of the reasons why Solyndra, potentially, seemed to make sense if silicon prices wouldn’t drop), and the future seemed extremely bright for concentrated solar power (CSP) leveraging solar power for heat to drive turbines for electricity generation. With CSP electricity pricing in roughly 15 cents per kwh and prospects for driving pricing down, many energy analysts looking to a clean-energy future saw bright prospects for CSP. In the late 2000s (2009/2010), market analysts project global deployment of at least 40 gigawatts of CSP capacity by 2020.
In the interim, solar pv prices have plunged with some bids around the world falling below 2 cents/kwh while CSP prices fell less rapidly and less dramatically. Rather than being booming with 10s of gigawatts installed already, CSP global deployment is about five gigawatts of capacity and no one is projecting 40 gigawatts installed by (the end of 2020).
This rather dramatic change does not mean that CSP is ‘down and out’ but that its role in a clean energy future has — along with many other other players in moving to a prosperous, climate-friendly future — has changed.
CSP has several significant discriminators, to its advantage, compared to pv deployments. Heat storage is (relatively) cheap and thus CSP plants can operate through periods of shade in a day and can store heat for generating electricity when the sun is down. And, a CSP system can be associated with a traditional (whether gas turbine, biomass, or otherwise) thermal generation plant as an adjunct to ‘clean up’ the total electrons from the plant with a mix of traditional and solar heat driving the turbines.
Having looked somewhat intensively at CSP (both CSTP (concentrated thermal power) and CPV (concentrated pv)) roughly a decade ago and paid little attention since, I have thoughts (as per above) as to CSP’s status but really wonder the reality of the situation. For a variety of reasons, I’ll be able to test my thinking as an opportunity appeared to revisit the arena, learn the reality of CSP industry today, and gain perspective on its future from the industry’s leaders as I’ll be attending CSP Madrid in a few weeks (13-14 November specifically).
With leading figures from across the industry and across the globe, CSP Madrid offers a chance for ‘ground truth’ about this industry for considerations as to how it might fit in accelerating efforts to address climate change by cleaning up the electricity grid even as we see to ‘electrify everything’.
The agenda looks quite worthwhile (thus a detour to Madrid for the conference) with the following underlining this year’s conference:
“China and the Middle East will drive CSP into a new ear of cost reduction.”
If you’re interested in attending the conference, the organizers have offered a €200 discount if you register with discount code: Siegel-
Friend-200. Hope this interests you and to see you there.
Erev Yom Kippur’s Virginia Climate Crisis Forum (full event video) featured Senate candidates Senator Tim Kaine (D) and his climate-science-denying opponent, Corey Stewart (R). The several hundred (perhaps 400) attendees heard Kaine give a reasoned set of comments about climate science and policy issues. They also, unfortunately, suffered through deceitful commentary from fossil-foolish Stewart, who basked in the glory of his willingness to show up to speak to a hostile audience, called for civility while gleefully spouting standard climate-science denialist talking points and foosil-foolish policy propositions.
Stewart’s time on stage was filled with deception and deceit. Time is too short (for all of us) to dissect it all, thus looking at one specific item demonstrates clearly how Corey uses very standard science denial tactics – take a fact and twist it to create an #AlternativeFacts distortion of reality – to arrive at a false conclusion and to deceive.
“A new NASA-led study shows Hampton Roads has one of the highest rates of relative sea level rise—the combined effects of sinking land and rising seas—along the U.S. East Coast, about an inch (23 millimeters) every five years”
Over thousands of years, there are land shifts going on due to melting of glaciers from the last ice age. (This is “GIA“.)
Reasons for increased sea-water flooding in Hampton Roads area (page 5)
In short, there is a double whammy of rising seas and subsiding land that is at play in the Hampton Roads area. And with a complex interplay of “man” and “nature”, an interplay of human-driven climate change and other causes/elements. Not simple, not single issue, but understandable, explainable, and even addressable.
Spewing falsehoods from the podium …
With that quick summary of the reality in the situation in mind, how did Stewart deceive? Here’s what he spewed out last night:
“…with regard to sea-level rise, the reality is is that between 1950 and 1970, Virginia began a rapid increase, due to improvements in pump technologies, a rapid reduction, a rapid withdrawal in the amount of groundwater that was being taken out of the Virginia coastal aquifer. And as a result of that as the water went down and the ground began to compress, yes it is sinking compared to the level of the sea but it’s not so much the level of the sea increase as much as it is a matter of the actual ground subsiding. and so this this this is a scientific fact.”
No, Corey, it is NOT “a scientific fact” that the challenges with sea-level rise are solely or even mainly due to ground water withdrawals.
Stewart — as science deniers are wont to do — twisted facts (that groundwater withdrawals contribute to land subsidence) into a seemingly plausible alternative explanation that is simply not truthful (this is not the primary driver nor is it “a scientific fact”).
Without question, Stewart was not truthful and stated outright falsehoods in this discussion of sea-level rise. This is just a taste of the deceitful and dishonest commentary he gave last night.
Stewart’s deceptive comments on SLR are a great example. I am familiar with SLR and the region, having sat through more than a few briefings and knowing some top experts. While not an expert, I am far from ignorant on the issue. Thus, I knew (KNEW) that what Stewart said was false but had to do some (relatively quick) research (web searching) to get to the details provided above. Chasing lies with truth is hard …
Many in the audience started to voice their disgust for Stewart’s deceit (lies) at his false assertion “this is a scientific fact.” Stewart chimed in, as the boos and calls to ‘tell the truth’ began, with “I accepted your invitation and showed up; the least you can do is show me some respect for showing up.” The moderator stepped in with a call for civility call and then allowed Stewart’s deceitful and (often flagrantly) false comments to go unchallenged and uncorrected. Even though this was a science-aligned audience, allowing deceit to go unchallenged is dangerous and wrong.
And, as to “civility” owed to those who engage in deceit and lies about climate change, the question I wanted to (but wasn’t called on to) ask last night was:
When it comes to the Norfolk area, the science is clear: sea level is rising due to warming oceans and melting glaciers. And, the Gulf Stream is changing due to human-driven climate change. And, less significantly, there is land subsidence. There is land subsidence going on for 1000s of years since the last ice age. And, land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals. The drawing of water from aquifers is not the sole nor close to the leading driver of increased flooding in Norfolk’s streets. These are scientific facts.
I ask you, what civility is owed to someone who looks us in the eye and lies about issues of life and death?”
In any event,
Climate change should be part of every political campaign, in fact should be top-tier in our political discussion.Kudos to FACS for setting this up and thanks to the 400 people who took time out of their busy schedules to attend.
While science deniers and purveyors of falsehoods should not be given a seat at the table, if they ARE given that seat, they should be held to a standard of behavior. Organizers and moderators owe honest engagement a serious effort to expose deceit and lies. They should hold speakers accountable for deceitful engagement. Simply assuming your audience is bright enough not to be swayed or influenced by deceit is not sufficient.
As I sat there, with my teenage daughter getting far angrier than I and getting ready to scream outrage, a simple question came to mind: where were the real activists? For example, why weren’t there 50 people standing, silently, with their backs turned to climate-denier Stewart as he spouted falsehoods to make clear (with ‘civility’) their disgust for his climate science denial?
