Tag: "electric grid"

11/30/18

  07:50:00 pm, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 947 words  
Categories: Climate Change

Climate Assessment Report: Dire Threat Largely Ignored

On Black Friday, the Trump Administration released the 4th National Climate Assessment report, presumably in the hope that most Americans would still be too stupefied  from their food coma and shopping binges to notice.  So here we are a week later, and hopefully woke.  Because the message of the report is a dire warning of what is already happening and what is to come. We ignore it at our peril.

From ClimateNexus:

This U.S. federal government report shows that:

  • 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.

 

 Permalink

12/17/14

  04:39:00 pm, by Laurel Hamilton   , 564 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Electric Cars that Run on Sun, Climate Change, Ranting

Misinterpreted Study Leads to Negative News for Electric Vehicles

Run on Sun gets a new Volt!There’s a good chance if you’re reading this blog you either have hopes of someday owning an electric vehicle (EV) or you are one of the proud individuals already enjoying cruising silently by gas stations…such as Run on Sun’s Jim Jenal in our new Volt pictured on the right! In either case your ears likely perk up at any breaking news regarding EVs.

Over the last few days I’ve noticed alarming headlines coming from multiple sources. While the key word in headlines such as “Study Finds Electric Cars May Not Be Very Green at All” is “may“, many of the articles state definitively that electric cars are not as green as gasoline cars. I decided to investigate.

On December 15th a new study by the University of Minnesota was released to the press. The study calculated the air quality impacts of manufacturing and refueling vehicles with various forms of power. Below is the study’s abstract verbatim:

We evaluate the air quality-related human health impacts of 10…options, including the use of liquid biofuels, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines; the use of electricity from a range of conventional and renewable sources to power electric vehicles (EVs); and the use of hybrid EV technology.

…We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by low-emitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more. Consideration of potential climate change impacts alongside the human health outcomes described here further reinforces the environmental preferability of EVs powered by low-emitting electricity relative to gasoline vehicles.

Did you catch that last part? Electric vehicles, charged by low-emitting electricity (anything but coal) are preferable environmentally alongside human health impacts…to gasoline vehicles. A far cry from the grossly misinterpreted ‘electric cars aren’t green’. Which is simply not what the study says.

The straightforward lessons from the study include three main points:

  1. Electric cars powered directly from the grid have the awesome bonus that they get cleaner as the grid does. Whereas gasoline vehicles have the same or worse carbon footprint for the lifetime of the car.
  2. If your car is charged on the coal-heaviest grids, it causes almost twice as many deaths from air pollution compared to gasoline vehicles. However, I’d like to note that electric car adoption is negligible in the states with the dirtiest grids. In addition, with EPA regulations on existing power plants, much of the coal generation (currently less than 40% of US electricity generation) will be retired in favor of cleaner energy in the next 20 years.
  3. But if you recharge on a natural gas-based grid the EV produces only half the pollution-related health problems as the gas guzzler. Recharge on renewable energy – whether from a grid or derived from home solar panels – and EVs produce just one quarter of the health problems!

In summary, don’t get an electric vehicle if you’re planning on charging it off of a coal-powered grid. Do get an electric vehicle if your grid is sufficiently green… or better yet, use a solar power system designed specifically with charging your EV in mind – see Run on Sun’s website for info! And remember that facts are frequently misinterpreted by the press. When in doubt, read the actual study, not just the headlines.

02/28/13

  07:46:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 415 words  
Categories: Solar News, Ranting

Confronting "Chicken Little" with Facts

At Run on Sun we are big fans of data, and more specifically, taking data in an appropriate way and using it to gain real insights.  We have followed that path to analyze everything from a solar eclipse with a solar array, to finding Outliers and Oddities in the CSI data.  So we were thrilled to see someone take real live data and use it to rebut an annoyingly panicked article that ran yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ piece, titled California Girds for Electricity Woes,  reads like an uncritical regurgitation of a PG&E press release - and we all know where PG&E stands on solar!  In it we are told that California’s power grid is facing a “looming electricity crisis that could be brought on by its growing reliance on wind and solar power."  Really?  Who knew that California was so reliant, given that all renewables make up a small portion of the overall grid supply.  But PG&E is clearly waging its war on many fronts, and this is just the latest assault.

Not so Fast…

Riding to the rescue of reason is Arno Harris who published a wonderful piece titled, Chicken Little and the “Crisis” of Grid Reliability.  Using actual data from grid operations in California, Mr. Harris demonstrates quite convincingly that while the peak load on February 27, 2013 was 29.5 GW, the grid operator had between 32 and 38 GW of generating resources available throughout the day - not exactly a crisis.  Moreover, the data also shows that “intermittent” energy sources - such as solar and wind - accounted for a peak of 2.3 GW or less than 8% of the peak load and just over 10% of the minimum demand that the grid operator had to satisfy during the day.

To be sure, as the percentage of renewables grows over time, grid operation will become more complex, and Mr. Harris readily acknowledges that.  But he points to the example of Germany - which has balanced as much as 50% of its peak demand coming from solar - as an example that with the proper planning, massive penetration by solar and other renewables can, and must, be managed.  Or as he puts it:

It’s not magic -  it’s actually pretty logical and straightforward. And the benefit Germany gets is tremendous: a high proportion of 100% clean electricity with solid reliability.

The article is well worth reading - he has enough really cool graphs to warm the hearts of data geeks everywhere - and it serves as an excellent counter-point to the Journal’s alarmist blather.  Give it a read.

Jim Jenal is the Founder & CEO of Run on Sun, Pasadena's premier installer and integrator of top-of-the-line solar power installations.
Run on Sun also offers solar consulting services, working with consumers, utilities, and municipalities to help them make solar power affordable and reliable.

Ready to Save?

Let’s Get Started!

Give Us a Call!

626.793.6025 or
310.584.7755

Click to Learn More About Commercial Solar Power!

We're Social!



Follow Run on Sun on Twitter Like Run on Sun on Facebook

Search

Run on Sun helps fight Climate Change
Website engine