OK Doomer

A couple of weeks ago I started writing a blog post trying to articulate some of my feelings about a pair of pieces published in the Tyee that ruined my whole damn day. (Honestly, maybe don't even read them, they might ruin your day too).

A good chunk of my feelings were actually covered by a rebuttal piece called OK Doomer, from which I will quote liberally.

On being realistic:

We need to switch from being “realistic,” implying the need to accept defeat, to being ambitious, bringing a determination to do whatever it takes. We need to stop spreading the fear that the energy descent needed to tackle the climate emergency will wreck people’s comfortable lives, or that it is something “for which our civilization doesn’t have an ethos or a vocabulary.”

This bit echos some of my own thoughts

Item six calls for retraining the workforce for constructive employment in “the new survival economy.” Retraining, absolutely. We need to provide income security to every fossil-fuel worker during the transition. But “the new survival economy”? That suggests training in how to light a fire in a cave, not how to build a Passive House.

When we frame our thoughts around the negative language of “energy descent” and “deliberate contraction,” we confirm people’s fear that solutions to the climate and ecological emergencies will wreck their comfortable lives. This is so harmful. It’s like a sports coach telling her athlete that winning a medal will ruin her family life, and besides, it’s impossible. Is this really the message we want to deliver to the millions of young climate strikers who are packing the streets demanding urgent climate action?

In my first post in my Climate Change category I said this:

Climate Change scares the shit out of me. It should scare the shit out of you too. But, sometimes I spot some good news stories that help me keep the hope up.

I want to expand on this a bit.

I am scared by climate change. More than anything, I'm terrified that I did a disservice to my daughter by bringing her into this world. I am scared that I have resigned her to a life that will be so much worse than my own. Beyond my own family, I'm also scared that it will be climate induced pressures that will bring great violence back to the world.

I'm scared that we'll all have to watch the world fall to pieces, in the name of "our economy". I'm scared that capitalism cannot be harnessed for good in the final throes of an ecological challenge, and that all we will be able to do is watch as our political and economic systems drive us over the cliff, paralyzed by those who will profit in the short term by our fall.

I'm scared that no amount of work I could do on this issue can change the course of the juggernaught that rolls towards us daily.

I'm horrified that because my family has a reasonably high income, living in a first world nation, fairly far north, far from coastal shores, there is a good chance that we will be able to dodge the worst outcomes. We live a climate privileged life.

Despite all this fear though: I wonder about the value of our media's obsession with doom. I don't want a propagandistic media that puts yellow smiley faces on the front page every day and says "All is Well". Yet, surely we needn't live in a world where all we read is "We are totally fucked!".

In my darkest moments, where I feel least sure we can fix the world, I feel a powerful urge to go forth and ruin it more. To really dive into international travel; do some doom-tourism. See the places in the world that will be lost as the seas rise. I'll bet I'm not alone in this. We need people to see the world as continuing past their own lives, past their children's lives, and getting better.

I really wish we could figure out how to tell a hopeful story, without falling down to the level of mere propaganda.

I Recently Learned About: The Air Force Academy Chapel

Occasionally I find myself trapped in a hole of knowledge; this may become a recurring section as I dump that knowledge on you! Today’s edition: The Air Force Academy Chapel.

Mostly, I just want to share with the world that it is a place that exists, and looks like this:

Built in 1962 to support three faiths, today the chapel has room for five major religions (Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism), as well as an All Faith worship area, and an Earth-centric worship circle.

The whole thing is beautiful science fiction insanity, but the Protestant Chapel takes the cake:

Photo by Brook Ward (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Photo by Brook Ward (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Dorks like me will note that this chapel inspired the chapel in Wreck-it-Ralph.

Seriously: Browse the Flickr photos.

Electric vs Diesel

So, The Guardian published this opinion piece: Are electric vehicles really so climate friendly? by Hans-Werner Sinn. In it he argues that with the German electricity mix, electric cars produce more emissions than diesel cars.

It's a curious piece to be honest. Most of his actual quantitative argument is contained in a linked paper that's written in German. FT Alphaville digs a little deeper into this to provide a rebuttal. There's also another rebuttal on The Guardian.

My first thought when I read the piece was: "I can run these numbers! And so, I present, a small piece of rebuttal from me. This is totally ballpark, and mostly an exercise in "How can we think about these things quantitatively". I'm using the emissions from this site -- It's definitely worth asking whether or not it's accurate or not.

1
@Emissions for various fuels:
2
3
Lignite (Lusatia): 0.41 kg CO2 / kWh
0.41 kg/h kW
4
Hard Coal: 0.34 kg / kWh
0.34 kg/h kW
5
Natural Gas: 0.20 kg / kWh
0.2 kg/h kW
6
Biomass: 0.38kg / kWh // I don't have numbers from that site, so let's pretend it's about equal to peat.
0.38 kg/h kW
7
8
@ Germany Electricity by Source 2017:
9
10
// ( × ): Emitting sources
11
Nuclear: 13.2%
13.2%
12
(×)Brown Coal: 24.5% // For the purposes of this analysis I'll use brown coal == lusatian lignite
24.5%
13
(×)Hard Coal: 14.9%
14.9%
14
(×)Natural Gas: 9.0%
9%
15
Wind: 18.9%
18.9%
16
Solar: 7.0%
7%
17
(×)Biomass: 8.7%
8.7%
18
Hydro: 3.7%
3.7%
19
20
// Nuclear, Wind, Solar and Hydro are zero-emissions electricity sources
21
// So let's compute the carbon emissions of a 'prototypical' kWh in Germany.
22
24.5% × 0.41 kg/h kW + 14.9% × 0.34 kg/h kW + 9% × 0.2 kg/h kW + 8.7% × 0.38 kg/h kW + 0 x (non GhG emitting sources)
0.20217 kg/h kW

According to the same site, emissions for gasoline are 0.25 kg / kWh Diesel is 0.27 kg / kWh, so the electric car is already the winner.

Now, I learned from the FT Alphaville rebuttal that Mr. Sinn's analysis is really dependent on the increased energy required to produce an electric car, so I really didn't rebut his argument directly, but I think it's worth showing how we can do the math ourselves.

There's another couple points I think are worth making: Remember that internal combustion engines are insanely inefficient. Furthermore, electric vehicles will all get cleaner as the grid gets cleaner: Germany has plans to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038.

A good post exploring direct air capture

This blog post, The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change, by Michael Nielsen is a good read, and contains some insight that puts some of my own feelings into words.

This quote in particular stands out to me (emphasis mine)

Still, it’s helpful to have a ballpark figure to aim for. If DAC is scalable at $100 per tonne, it starts to get very interesting. And at $10 per tonne, the costs start to resemble things we’ve done before for environmental concerns.

As we’ll see in a moment, the $100 cost estimate is at least plausible with near-future technology. $10 per tonne is more speculative, but worth thinking about.

What I like and find striking about this frame is that many people are extremely pessimistic about climate change. They can’t imagine any solution – often, they become mesmerized by what appears to be an insoluble collective action problem – and fall into fatalistic despair. This direct air capture frame provides a way of thinking that is at least plausibly feasible. In particular, the $10 per tonne price point is striking. The Clean Air Act was contentious and required a lot of political will. But the US did it, and many other countries have implemented similar legislation. It’s a specific, concrete goal worth thinking hard about.

One other thing I’d like to call out about this post that I really liked is the extent to which it’s a work of rough notes and speculation, but quantified. It’s about exploring a space and getting a feeling for the parameters for the discussion, which is in my opinion really valuable.

Running the Numbers on Car Efficiency

I recently came across this fascinating comparison from the US Department of Energy’s FuelEconomy.gov, comparing the amount of energy a car takes from its input, and actually gets to the wheels between a gas powered car (16-25%), a hybrid (24-38%), and an electric car (60-65% + 17% for regenerative braking).

Being a huge nerd, I thought it would be interesting to actually see how this computes out on the fuel economy published for a gas powered car, vs an electric car.

1
Energy Conversion factor: 3.6MJ per kWh
3.6 MJ/h kW
2
3
Toyota Corolla Fuel Efficiency: 7.5 L / 100km
0.075 L/km
4
Hyundai Ionic Fuel Efficiency: 25kWh per 100 mi
0.25 h kW/mi
5
6
Gasoline Energy Content: 47.5MJ/kg
47.5 MJ/kg
7
Gasoline Density: 0.755kg/L
0.76 kg/L
8
Gasoline Energy content by volume: 47.5 MJ/kg * 0.76 kg/L
35.8625 MJ/L
9
10
Toyota Energy consumption per KM (MJ): 0.075 L/km * 35.8625 MJ/L
2.69 MJ/km
11
Toyota Energy consumption per KM (kWh): 2.69 MJ/km / 3.6 MJ/h kW
0.75 h kW/km
12
13
Distance conversion factor: 100mi in km
160.9344 km
14
Hyundai Energy consumption per KM (kWh): 25kWh per 160.9344 km
0.16 h kW/km

(Thanks Soulver for helping make a cool table, though for some reason it prefers the ‘h kW’ syntax of saying kWh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

So if we compare the two vehicles, on a kWh per/km basis (lines 11 and 14), the electric vehicle is 4.6 times as efficient as the gas powered vehicle, which is right in the ballpark of the estimates provided by FuelEconomy.gov.

I wonder if that means that electrification of the transport sector could bring something drastic like a 2-3x reduction in emissions from that sector? That’s pretty cool.

This also helps me clarify some computations I’ve seen done that argue that an electric car is still cleaner than a gas powered car, even if the electric car is powered by coal: Gas cars are just really darn inefficient; and I suspect that even though coal plants create a lot of carbon, they’re likely more efficient at extracting energy than a gas vehicle.

Better than Bad News on Climate: Volume IV

On a slightly tangential note: I thought these two pieces about living in the world were important to see.

Carbon Taxation on Gas Bills

I did a dumb thing the other day, and wandered into the comment section on an article about Alberta's new TIER carbon levy on large emitters.

One comment stood out (not linking, because I don't want to single out a particular person; I see this kind of talk often), where the pointed out: The estimated cost of gas over the next while is 2$/GJ, according to the futures market, and a price of 50$/tonne works out to 2.80$/GJ, means that the carbon pricing more than doubles the cost of gas. This is pointed out to be particularly unfair because heating is not something people can just "go without", and on a per GJ basis electricity is way more expensive.

I think a lot of people see this stuff and go "Oh my god, they're going to more than double my gas bill!". I just want to walk through our gas bill to show how this isn't the case.

Here's our most recent gas bill, where we were charged for

ChargePrice / GJ Total
Natural Gas Charges$0.82 $4.83
Administration Charge $7.00
Transaction Fee $1.00 $5.92
Rider $0.09
Delivery Charges $32.91
Transmission Service Charge Rider $5.69
Interim Shortfall Rider (Fixed) $1.56
Interim Shortfall Rider (Variable/Demand) $0.28
Weather Adjustment Rider -$0.48
Property Tax $1.60
Franchise Fee Edmonton $13.99
Total $77.06

So of our $77 gas bill, only $4.83 was actually for you know, gas. The rest was administration, transmission fees and riders, none of which would be pushed up by a hypothetical carbon tax.

Let's add a carbon tax of 50$/tonne. That adds a row that looks like this:

ChargePrice / GJ Total
Hypothetical Carbon Tax, 50$/tonne 2.81 16.61

Ok, so now I'm paying an extra 17.44$ (after GST). That's nothing to sneeze about for sure! Its' a 23% increase on the my bill, but it's a far cry from a 100% increase to my bill, despite the fact that given the price I pay for gas on that bill, a 50$/tonne carbon tax would be a 415% increase in the price I pay for my gas.

Now. After all that, is Carbon Taxation on consumers a good idea? I'm honestly not sure. It's something I need to dig into more. Another post for another day.

Playing with Numbers around Energy and Carbon Pricing

eleI've been learning a bunch about energy lately. A lot of this is reminding me of things I learned in ages past, refreshing from middle school science class.

However, these days I find a lot of this easier to learn because I have context that I didn't have when I was a kid. This is sort of a continuation of me really getting electricity usage hammered home by a home energy meter. This post is mostly me playing with numbers to understand things better- feel free to skip.

Take my gas bill here in Edmonton. We're billed by the Gigajoule (an interesting contrast by the way to Ottawa, where were billed for gas usage in cubic meters).

What is a Gigajoule? Well, a little googling reminds me that a Joule is a watt second; so a Gigajoule is a billion watt seconds. A bit of math then gets you to the Watt hour (10^9 J / (60 * 60) = 277,777 J), and divided by 1000 gets you 277 kWh.

I don't know what to call it when different energy sources have different levels of usability (ie; I can use electricity in my house to power my blender, but I can't really burn gas to do the same thing), but discounting that, 1 GJ of gas is equivalent to 277 kWh of electricity.

Alright, cool! We did a cool conversion, and now we can compare things on a level(-ish) playing field.

So, Andrea and I pay $0.0789 per kWh for electricity, and we pay $0.816 per GJ for gas. Knowing what we know now about that conversion, that means we get a price of $0.00293 per kWh for gas: Which means that electricity is roughly 27x more expensive than gas.

Ok, so that's not great (climate wise). Let's rejigger things a bit. Andrea and I intentionally are 1) Locked into an energy price 2) Paying extra for 'green' energy. Let's instead compare against "low cost" renewable projects. These days, records are being broken for low bids everywhere, but in Alberta we have wind projects with bids at $0.037 per kWh.

If we use that price instead of what Andrea and I are paying, we see a difference of closer to 12.5x.

In Alberta, before the election of our new conservative government, we had a carbon levy of $1.517 per GJ. So if we factor that into our cost calculation, using the lower cost electricity, and gas with the carbon levy, we get to a price difference of 4.5x.

So, according to this random website on the internet, natural gas produces 56.1 kg of CO2 per GJ. This means roughly 17.8 GJ of natural gas produces one tonne of carbon dioxide (and, the Alberta Carbon Levy was priced at $27/ton.)

To get to price parity with 3.7c per kWh for electricity, we would need a carbon levy of more than 150$ per tonne. This is a fascinating number to come up with, because I've heard the number thrown around before.

Anyhow. This blog post is long and boring, but for me it was a fascinating attempt to work the numbers and understand things better.