Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
9. How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?
Sun Dec 8, 2013, 06:37 PM
Dec 2013
How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?

Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural gas—every day.

A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions".

That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively, given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present levels and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations.

Still, we are rapidly approaching a point of no return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-emitting devices will be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The ONLY answer is more nuclear power. Wilms Dec 2013 #1
The opening statement is correct, the sarcasm afterwards may be addressed by noting... NNadir Dec 2013 #3
How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today? FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #9
I see two major errors with that study NickB79 Dec 2013 #13
Still trying to greenwash the behavior of the megaCorps, eh? kristopher Dec 2013 #2
Thank you for quoting the fool investment websites. I'm, um, unimpressed. NNadir Dec 2013 #6
Your concern is *exclusively* with the nuclear industry. kristopher Dec 2013 #8
27% Reduction in World Crop Yeilds due to Global Warming by 2050 FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #10
Meaning: the high speed and low cost of renewables is crucial to a transition from carbon. kristopher Dec 2013 #11
Thank you for offering another opinion on a subject you know nothing about. NNadir Dec 2013 #12
Energy storage will be the determining marsis Dec 2013 #4
Not really. Current research and experience have altered our understanding kristopher Dec 2013 #7
Thanks marsis Dec 2013 #17
It would be an economic decision, here are some references. kristopher Dec 2013 #30
This is a trend that is world wide. The old technologies cannot tsuki Dec 2013 #5
Kick... hunter Dec 2013 #14
What do you think of Canada Free Press? kristopher Dec 2013 #15
If one lives by googling and cut and paste sound bites... NNadir Dec 2013 #16
"Germany has the second highest electricity prices in Europe, after Denmark" kristopher Dec 2013 #18
Actually your evocation of "experts around the world," reminds me of Amory Lovin's 1976 "paper"... NNadir Dec 2013 #19
There you go again. kristopher Dec 2013 #20
There isn't a single anti-nuke "solar will save us" maven who ever uses any word BUT "could..." NNadir Dec 2013 #21
So your claim is that nuclear WILL save us? kristopher Dec 2013 #22
Um...um...I really don't think that you are any more qualified to give grammar lessons than you... NNadir Dec 2013 #33
Did you even bother to look at the publication date? Iterate Dec 2013 #23
“dispossessed”? There is no involuntary homelessness in Germany. Iterate Dec 2013 #24
If German electricity was priced by the usual market methods, Iterate Dec 2013 #25
Graphing German household energy costs kristopher Dec 2013 #29
We could parse the article word-by-word, number-by-number, Iterate Dec 2013 #32
yikes gopiscrap Dec 2013 #26
Lastly, when you fling insults like that Iterate Dec 2013 #27
My, my, my, this is an elaborate series of proofs that all of the poor people in... NNadir Dec 2013 #28
"Have a nice evening" kristopher Dec 2013 #31
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Der Spiegel: How German ...»Reply #9