March 2018

Daily roundup

Troll level 100

Read more »

If you agree with me that’s nice but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo. Look between the lines, do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.

Whaleoil backchat

Good evening, welcome to Whaleoil Backchat.

You don’t have to stay “on topic” in these posts like you do in all others. Feel free to share your own stories, discuss other news or catch up with friends. If you haven’t tried it before, signing up for a Disqus account is free, quick, and it is easy.

New commenters should familiarise themselves with our Commenting and Moderation rules. Thank you.

>> Trouble commenting on Whaleoil? Read this first. You can receive free help. Do not email via the Contact Page.

General layabout. Also proof reader, sets up backchat & general debate.

Where the heck am I?

Hooker Phil is a dyed in the wool 2 eyed Cantabrian, one red – one black.  Loves his sports and especially stirring up those who support the Hurricanes but willing to take as good as he gives.
Has travelled all over New Zealand and to over 40 countries but still wonders where the heck he is sometimes.

Whaleoil world news quiz

Contribution via Whaleoil staff and interns

Let’s talk

Let’s Talk

Couch or Recliner?

Online shopping or shopping in a shop?

Email or Letter?

Passenger or Driver?

Tablet or Computer?

Contribution via Whaleoil staff and interns

Nirvana arrives in just 400 years

China is Making Solar Farms That Will Look Like Adorable Cartoon Pandas

This just in from James Temple, Senior Editor: Energy, in the sustainable energy section of the MIT Technology Review

At this rate, it’s going to take nearly 400 years to transform the energy system.  Here are the real reasons we’re not building clean energy anywhere near fast enough.

Fifteen years ago, Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution, calculated that the world would need to add about a nuclear power plant’s worth of clean-energy capacity every day between 2000 and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. Recently, he did a quick calculation to see how we’re doing.

Not well. Instead of the roughly 1,100 megawatts of carbon-free energy per day likely needed to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 ˚C, as the 2003 Science paper by Caldeira and his colleagues found, we are adding around 151 megawatts. That’s only enough to power roughly 125,000 homes.

At that rate, substantially transforming the energy system would take, not the next three decades, but nearly the next four centuries. In the meantime, temperatures would soar, melting ice caps, sinking cities, and unleashing devastating heat waves around the globe.

Oh noes, the sky is falling, the sky is falling …

Caldeira stresses that other factors are likely to significantly shorten that time frame (in particular, electrifying heat production, which accounts for a more than half of global energy consumption, will significantly alter demand).

What a wonderful, idea: “Solar heating is the most efficient home heating system on all three criteria, and electric is the least efficient and least affordable.”

But he says it’s clear we’re overhauling the energy system about an order of magnitude too slowly, underscoring a point that few truly appreciate: It’s not that we aren’t building clean energy fast enough to address the challenge of climate change. It’s that—even after decades of warnings, policy debates, and clean-energy campaigns—the world has barely even begun to confront the problem.

Perhaps because there isn’t actually a problem?

The UN’s climate change body asserts that the world needs to cut as much as 70 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions by midcentury to have any chance of avoiding 2 ˚C of warming. But carbon pollution has continued to rise, ticking up 2 percent last year.

So what’s the holdup?

In a word: Money.

Beyond the vexing combination of economic, political, and technical challenges is the basic problem of overwhelming scale. There is a massive amount that needs to be built, which will suck up an immense quantity of manpower, money, and materials.

For starters, global energy consumption is likely to soar by around 30 percent in the next few decades as developing economies expand. (China alone needs to add the equivalent of the entire US power sector by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency.) To cut emissions fast enough and keep up with growth, the world will need to develop 10 to 30 terawatts of clean-energy capacity by 2050. On the high end that would mean constructing the equivalent of around 30,000 nuclear power plants—or producing and installing 120 billion 250-watt solar panels.

Energy overhaul
What we should be doing* What we’re actually doing
Megawatts per day 1,100 151
Megawatts per year 401,500 55,115
Megawatts in fifty years 20,075,000 2,755,750
Years to add 20 Terrawatts 50 363
Sources: Carnegie Institution, Science, BP *If we had started at this rate in 2000 Actual average rate of carbon-free added per day from 2006-2015

There’s simply little financial incentive for the energy industry to build at that scale and speed while it has tens of trillions of dollars of sunk costs in the existing system.

“If you pay a billion dollars for a gigawatt of coal, you’re not going to be happy if you have to retire it in 10 years,” says Steven Davis, an associate professor in the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California, Irvine.

It’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to see how any of that will change until there are strong enough government policies or big enough technology breakthroughs to override the economics.[…]

And there you have it: “strong enough government policies”. Tax and control.

[…]Arguably the most crucial step to accelerate energy development is enacting strong government policies. Many economists believe the most powerful tool would be a price on carbon, imposed through either a direct tax or a cap-and-trade program. As the price of producing energy from fossil fuels grows, this would create bigger incentives to replace those plants with clean energy.

“If we’re going to make any progress on greenhouse gases, we’ll have to either pay the implicit or explicit costs of carbon,” says Severin Borenstein, an energy economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Carbon credits, ETS, carbon pricing, tax on exhaling and so on.

So should we just give up?

That would certainly get my vote.

There is no magic bullet or obvious path here. All we can do is pull hard on the levers that seem to work best.

Don’t forget to pull hard on the handle of your wheeled suitcase as you jet off to the next climate conference.

Environmental and clean-energy interest groups need to make climate change a higher priority, tying it to practical issues that citizens and politicians do care about, like clean air, security, and jobs.

And the link between those is what exactly?  Apart from the fact that expensive energy threatens security and jobs.

Investors or philanthropists need to be willing to make longer-term bets on early-stage energy technologies.[…]

And then lose their money like:

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:  (*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.)

  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  27. Vestas ($50 million)
  28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  30. Navistar ($39 million)
  31. Satcon ($3 million)*
  32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

If mankind has not invented more efficient processes in the next 400 years then we are simply going to have to power the wind farms from the wing beats of the flying unicorns.


Dr Seuss may have been describing WH when he wrote, “He was shortish. And oldish. And brownish. And mossy. And he spoke with a voice that was sharpish and bossy.”  WH, however, is tallish and only just fits in his MG.

New Zealand’s number one blogger versus a feral bull

This photo of Total Safari New Zealand is courtesy of TripAdvisor

Fresh from his last goat and fallow deer hunt Cam is now away again on another hunt. This time he is much further afield and this time his target is capable of fighting back. This is one animal that will attack rather than retreat and it is armed with an impressive and very wide set of horns.

As Cam left yesterday morning I jokingly told him to say goodbye to both our children just in case he gets gored by the bull and doesn’t make it home again. I inspected his firepower and asked if it was heavy hitting enough to kill the bull rather than just annoy him. I quizzed him about his tree climbing ability.

Read more »

If you agree with me that’s nice but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo. Look between the lines, do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.

Mental health break

Patrick Moore on climate change

Patrick Moore, Canadian activist, founding member and former president of Greenpeace has publicly criticised the environmental movement for abandoning science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.

During a visit to Paris in December 2017 he was interviewed by an independent journalist, Grégoire Canlorbe, for the French “Association des climato-réalistes”.

Although what Patrick said is good it falls well into the tl;dr category so I have broken it up into a series of seven posts with, broadly, one topic per post and minimal additional comment as Patrick has covered the issues quite eloquently on his own.

Image:OMICS International

Do you believe the Kremlin, along with the Trump administration, has become a front-runner in the fight against climate change totalitarianism?

Yes, it’s been very obvious for some time that the Russians, particularly Russian scientists, do not believe that man-made climate change has been a catastrophe of some kind.

Read more »

Dr Seuss may have been describing WH when he wrote, “He was shortish. And oldish. And brownish. And mossy. And he spoke with a voice that was sharpish and bossy.”  WH, however, is tallish and only just fits in his MG.

Map of the day

Photo credit:

If you agree with me that’s nice but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo. Look between the lines, do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.