How much is a set of batteries for an old Prius or Leaf or Zoe?
I can tell you to get a new battery fitted in one of our Mitsubishi PHEVS when it got damaged was around £13000 and it was off the road for 4 months.
What’s your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?
I'll stick to France and say that in terms of localised tornados there's no significant change over recent decades. In terms of cyclones there's been a trend of increasing intensity and frequency. The problem with putting numbers on it is that data pre-satelites was poor so there are only 40 years or so of reliable data. Years with a high frequency of storms are in the latter part of the period and so are the intense storms.
All this is really well documented and has been the subject of documentaries in France and Germany, the main channels I watch. If you speak French the Meteo France site has articles on just about every aspect of climate that could interest an insurer. And they aren't afraid of stating there's an increase when they find one.
Years with a high frequency of storms are in the latter part of the period and so are the intense storms.
You may well remember Lothar & Martin but there were also clusters of strong storms in 1990 and many strong individual storms in the 60s & 70s e.g. Capella. Decent scientific instrumentation has existed for while but the the advent of satellites and computers has helped improve this. We do have some good data for 60+ years.
In terms of cyclones there’s been a trend of increasing intensity and frequency.
I don't agree with this. What we've seen is not conclusive enough and the largest storm we've seen in recent years was probably in 1990.
I think that what is currently the accepted viewpoint in the scientific community is that the natural variability of the European extratropical cyclone systems is far greater than the perceived increase in storm activity/intensity solely due to climate change. The signal from CC is not a strong one.
However, it is undeniable that we will get more flooding (fluvial, pluvial and coastal) from CC and there is almost a consensus on that (which is rare in any scientific discussion )
Solar (in the UK) is a waste of time considering the alternatives. The UK is more windy than sunny. Solar panels generate very little output for a given surface area and cost. You need acres and acres to get a few MW, which can be achieved by one wind turbine. Fine if you have a south facing roof (or better still, panels which track the sun) but for energy generation on an industrial scale in the UK, wind is a much better option. You musn't forget solar farms have an opportunity cost of converting a field to solar, eg it can't be grazed by sheep as well. This opportunity cost is much lower for wind, although maybe transmission costs are higher as they are likely to be further away from areas of high demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom
Without wanting to state the blooming obvious but greenness and energy consumption is a lot more complex than just do you own a gas boiler, suv, or insulate your house to the nth degree.
- a 400bhp suv used one a week is going to use less energy than a sensible car being run for every journey; could you cycle or walk instead
- electric cars need charging this energy needs to be generated some how which might be burning fossil fuels.
- what do you eat, meat industry is pretty carbon intensive. Where does it come from, berries from Morocco or just seasonal veg.
- do you have a dog - meat consumption etc
- how often do you wash; every day or more is going to require more energy than every other day. Power shower or gravity fed etc
- how often do you wash your clothes
- do you watch Netflix; all that data is on a cloud somewhere that Is chugging out a cloud of smoke to power it
- do you drink tea or cold drinks. Someone on 10 cups a day is going to use a lot more energy than someone on waters
- do you own a filthy sex pond
- do you live in a big house, could you cope with a smaller one.
Etc etc.
The bottom line is everything man does is pretty bad for the environment. You might be badder in one area but better in others. Capitalist society is such that people are encouraged to be selfish. Adverts never show the sexy girl being snagged by the sweaty chap cycling to work but rather the one negotiating the speed bump in a cool SUV. The only way anything will change is if it is forced on companies/people and even then there will be compromise. E.g. the move away from plastic Is going to push up energy consumption as a glass bottle used once is much more energy intensives in both production and transport than a plastic one.
Now how would you get more flooding without bigger storms dumping more water, El Shalimo. 🙂
The signal from CC is not a strong one.
That's what the man in the vid said. Other signals he mentions include aerosols which he says are decreasing due to lower soot emissions. He said they are falling without much justification. Global coal consumption and oil consumption are stil rising:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-coal-consumption-1978-2019
with China producing lots so his conclusion that aerosols have a decreasing role in preventing large storms strikes me as odd. Intuitively the opposite of what the man said is true and aerosols are still masking the effects of CC.
We have enjoyed a remarkably calm period in volcanicity. The last explosion to put up enough dust to give red sunsets worldwide was 1883 and a big enough one to give significant cooling and crop failures was 1815. Mount st Helens went off more sideways than up.
If ever China and India do clean up their acts then the masking effect will go and we'll get the full impact of CC due to CO2. If the short term trend in that coal graph is confirmed that starts now.
Why wouldn't the Atlantic behave in the same way as the Pacific as water temperatures rise? Every graph I've seen shows a steady climb in Atlantic temperatures most everywhere. Warmer water means more energy, more evaporation, bigger storms.
If you're a gambling man which insurance companies are, don't bet against things getting worse.
The signal from CC is not a strong one.
I'm referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones
It's just not as simple as higher temps = bigger storms.
Also don't need bigger storms to get more flooding. Fluvial flooding is not often due to storms, antecedent conditions are more important than storms. Pluvial usually is and coastal flooding is normally due to sea surge from storms. Add to that rising areas levels, coastal erosion, isostatic rebound etc and you'll quickly see it's not a simple thing.
If you look at North Atlantic Oscillation, El Niño, La Niña variability you get water in different places etc
It’s just not as simple as higher temps = bigger storms.
However that's what a lot of studies show and gets repeated on local news every time there's an Episode Cévenol. Metéo France are prediciting that as the temperature of the Med rises so will the intensity of the episodes (storms).
Edit to add:
The news is for the general population and has to be dumbed down to a digestible format.
How many times have you watched the news discussing something that you actually know a lot about, or have worked in for years, and they simply get it wrong or use outdated thinking?
A great example is when they say flood defences failed when a 5m flood overtops a 4m flood defence. The defence did not fail, the flood exceeded the flood levels it was designed for. The Tohuko earthquake tsunami was up to 28m high in places so the 10m tsunami defences had no chance (exacerbated by 150km of coastline dropping 1.5m in the earthquake). The media says they failed... 🤦
Anglo-Saxon news may be dumbed down, I live somewhere they credit the population with a minimum of intelligence, enough to understand. And they generally call on the right people to comment rather than the first climate change sceptic that offers their services. 🙂
You're sounding very much like a sceptic and linking "don't knows". Go on check out that graph on the Méteo France link I added and try to denay a trend.
Incidentally if you're looking for oudated your man in the video up there has graphs that are well out of date missing between 5 and 15 years of recent data. Updating would significantly change his conclusions.
You're misreading this. I'm simply stating that it's not as simple as you suggest. If it was we'd have a consensus within the scientific community and be diligently working on mitigation rather than still trying to understand these extremely complicated and dynamic systems.
Go back and read my posts. I'm trying to demonstrate that it really isn't simple.
Insurance companies know all about the increasing risk. They are investing millions in trying to understand this. They tend to write business on an annual basis but they know that tomorrow is not going to be the same as today. In real terms the day to day claims are irrelevant - they're just cashflow, it's the large events that affect their solvency and capital requirements. This is why we have EIOPA, Solvency II, etc.
As you're in France just look at what companies AXA, CCR, SCOR are researching right now. Check out Groupama too
I'm not suggesting it's simple either. Your man in the vid waffles around but fails to say what he put into his models and what he left out. A few seconds of thought says that things he should consider:
Al the satelite data, measured sea surface temperature at different points, measured air temperatures, measured wind speeds, aerosol influence at a global level, volcanic activity, ice sheet extent, solar output, CO2 and other greenhouse gases... .
He was vague on his model because it's crap, modelling the weather/climate is the stuff of national weather centres using some of the most powerful computers on the planet. He's dabbling and out of his depth. I'll take Méteo France over him, they have the expertise, the monitoring capability, the satelite data and the computer power to crunch the numbers.
Do you think they’re the only ones with rather impressive computing resources?
Yes, in a word, the national weather organisations have the most computing capacity and way beyond your bod in Miami. And getting more impressive, even in lil' ol' UK:
What are your credentials? Could you do it better?
I was the first name on the first UK paper pubished on lake liming as a response to surface water acidification. I'd like to think I was one of those who contributed to getting scrubbers added to UK power stations. I set up the rain water quality monitoring network in Wales. All that is long time ago though. I long ago decided that fighting causes isn't for me.
In short I'm a scientist, geologist by initial training.
As for whether I could do better, I wouldn't even try, I'd leave it to people far more expert than me who are already working on it. I'm too old, too lazy and to slow thinking these days.
That doesn't stop me recognising when someone is out his depth which the guy in your video is.
I think climate modelling is better done by organisiations financed by taxes with the public interest at heart rather than universities funded by the private sector with vested interests.
I think that what is currently the accepted viewpoint in the scientific community is that the natural variability of the European extratropical cyclone systems is far greater than the perceived increase in storm activity/intensity solely due to climate change. The signal from CC is not a strong one.
I think that the science community is playing up things like the ice-free Arctic to help get their message across. I'm sure they are fully aware of natural variability.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/26/adam-sobel-testifies-extreme-weather/
Seems he's changed his tune. 🙂
"“Hurricane risk is increasing due to climate change,” he said."
@molgrips - awareness of it and being able to quantify it are sadly two very different things
Well now he's stopped saying "don't know" Sobel has testified before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and said:
Hurricane risk is increasing due to climate change
So now he has joined the concensus are you happy to agree with him (and me)?
You musn’t forget solar farms have an opportunity cost of converting a field to solar, eg it can’t be grazed by sheep as well.
Sheep are used for keeping the grass down under solar panels to cut maintainance costs:
In Spain the solar panels reduce water consumption and direct sun damge for some crops.
Solar panels are compatible with and can enhance agricultural production.
I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones
Didn't you read this?
The heating threads on this very forum demonstrate how reluctant people are to use alternative energy sources and less polluting solutions because they cost more and are posibly more difficult/complicated.
I have gas heating, but I was seriously looking at getting solar PV panels fitted when they were being offered with grants, etc, but due to the shape of my roof, it wasn’t possible to fit enough panels to generate enough to make it viable.
Maybe the Tesla roof tiles would be an option, but there’s no way I could fund them myself.
I did, I read this too:
What’s your view on the impact of climate change on European windstorms ?
I've replied to that much more general question with a series of links that support my stated view and suggestions for your further research. If you don't like it you don't have to agree with it but there's no need to get unpleasant and insistent about it, eh.
You're getting insistent about the wind component, I'm not fussed about one component, I'm happy with a more global appreciation which even Sobel is happy to testify - increased hurricane risk.
You're unlikely to find an answer to your question because a bigger more powerful storm won't necessarily have higher wind speeds if the extra energy in the storm is spread over a bigger area.
To answer a specific question about wind speed you need to identify the type of cyclones with the highest wind speeds and whether they are likley to be proportionately represented in the predicted increased frequency of cyclones in general.
Good luck researching.
it’s never sunny in the UK so solar panels are a waste of time.
My PV panels fund all my household energy expenditure throughout the year.
I've got a woodburner coming (true CO2 neutral heating) to reduce my central heating oil useage.
I do, however 20k miles a year; moving closer to work isn't an option... EVs wouldn't work for me at all right now. Hoping biofuels (again pretty CO2 neutral and requiring fewer new units to be built as cars can be adapted) become the answer.
Unfortunately, our government confuse whats right for London to be whats right for the rest of the UK.
Solar is good the further south you go, wind the further north. Generally speaking.
Everywhere has its challenges and strengths, its about recognising them and using the appropriate technologies rather than a stupid one size fits all solution.
Other people can read, Elshalimo, I'm answering the quesions you keep asking to the best of my knowledge. You word your questions to try and trip me up and fall flat on your face trying because the guy you linked to demostrate we don't know and that there's a lack of consensus has testified with consensus that CC will lead to higher hurricane risk. As for you last two posts:
Penultimate post
I’m referring to the wind only component of the extra tropical cyclones
last post
I never mentioned windspeed
I can't be the only one to wonder just what you are asking about.
If you've learned you don't like the answers I give you to direct questions to me, there's a simple solution, don't ask me questions you aren't going to like the answer to. In short stop trolling.
I’ve got a woodburner coming (true CO2 neutral heating) to reduce my central heating oil useage.
CO2 neutral my arse, you are still burning stuff! Grow trees for building materials etc for carbon capture, biomass is generally just greenwash.
Reduced usage should still be the primary objective, dial ya heating back a degree or two, wear a jumper etc etc
Dickyboy, oh please!
The trees absorb CO2. A similar amount is released back to atmosphere in burning.
Pretty Eco, I'd say. Particularly when oil or Calor gas are my options right now. I back on to a wood at the top of my garden and that will more than cater for my needs....
I'm also a big fan of a jumper and strict heating discipline; don't make assumptions about people you don't know!
I think you're confusing neutral and negative. I don't ever profess to being carbon negative, as much as I'd like to.
