Lethal Heating: 09/04/17

04/09/2017

Australia-Led Tidal Energy Project Sets New Production Records

RenewEconomy - Giles Parkinson

Atlantis tidal energy turbine being prepared for deployment. Photo supplied by company.

The Australian-founded and managed tidal energy company Atlantis Resources has claimed a world record production output for a tidal stream power station from its facility in Scotland’s Pentland Firth.
Atlantis late last week said it had produced 700MWh of electricity in August, taking its total production to 2GWh. It’s not a huge amount of power – the month of August was about enough to power up to 2,000 homes – but it’s a big deal in the tidal energy industry.
“The production performance from the installed turbines on the MeyGen project has been very good,” said David Taaffe, the director of project delivery at Meyden, the company’s main tidal energy project.
“With yet another successful installation campaign expertly completed this week by the Atlantis operations team, we expect to continue to break records throughout the rest of the year generating both predictable power and revenue.”
Atlantis was founded in Australia a decade ago, and then shifted to Singapore to attract investment funds, and then to Edinburgh to be close to its major projects, which are all in the UK.
Its senior management, including CEO Tim Cornelius, newly appointed CFO Andrew Dagley and its head of turbine and engineering services Drew Blaxland are all Australian – and so are half the board of directors.
The Meygen project is the largest tidal stream energy project in the world and – like Carnegie Clean Energy’s wave energy project off Western Australia – it is the first with multiple machines.
The technology is described by Atlantis as like wind turbines under water. Indeed, they are piggy-backing on some of the big developments in offshore wind energy design, and technology pioneered by subsea oil and gas industry, where the likes of Cornelius worked previously.
The company says tidal power projects are typically located close to the shore, so most of the expensive power conditioning equipment is located safely in the onshore substation. Tidal turbines rotate very slowly, so pose no threat to marine life whilst in operation, and are programmed to turn and face into the tide.
Atlantis says the potential is there to produce 20 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs. In Australia, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency in July said it had part-funded e $5.85 million project to assess and map the tidal energy resources in Australia.
So far, four 1.5MW turbines have been installed as part of MeyGen’s “deploy and monitor strategy”, and will act as a precursor to the development of an 86MW project that has received consent so far, although the ultimate project size could be nearly 400MW.
The project is designed to show that the development of tidal array projects is both commercially viable and technically feasible. It is looking at up to 10,000MW of projects in Canada, China, India and Indonesia, as well as those in the UK.
The company is listed on the London AIM Stock Exchange but its principal financial backer has been global investment bank Morgan Stanley.
Cornelius said earlier this month that it the world’s largest tidal power array was continuing to set milestones. “It’s extremely rewarding for all those involved to see the fruits of our collective passion and labour continuing to deliver.”

Links

Can Corals Survive Climate Change?

ScienceDaily

Coral reef experts deliver urgent recommendations for future research

There is substantial variability in temperature tolerance among and within coral species. Typically, boulder-like corals survive higher temperatures, while branching corals perish under moderate heat stress. Scientists are striving to understand and harness the molecular mechanisms that underpin this variability. Central GBR, March 2017. Credit: G. Torda

A group of international scientists, including scientists from Australia, have issued advice that more research is urgently required to determine whether corals can acclimatise* and adapt to the rapid pace of climate change.

The team of coral experts, led by Dr. Gergely Torda from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (Coral CoE) at James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), have delivered recommendations for future research.
As the Great Barrier Reef faces unprecedented coral mortality from back-to-back mass bleaching in 2016 & 2017, rising carbon dioxide and other natural and human-induced pressures, scientists advise more research is urgently needed into the poorly-understood mechanisms that corals might use to survive in a rapidly warming world.
"There is still a lot to understand about corals," says Dr. Torda. "While our only real chance for their survival is to reverse climate change, a nugget of hope exists -- that the corals may be able to adapt to their changing environment," he says.
"However, there are major knowledge gaps around how fast corals can adapt or acclimatise to changes in their environment, and by what mechanisms they might use to achieve this," adds co-author Professor Philip Munday of Coral CoE.
"For example," explains Dr Jenni Donelson, co-author at Coral CoE,"recent studies show that fish can acclimatise to higher water temperatures when several generations are exposed to the same increased temperature, but whether corals can do the same, and how they might achieve this, is largely unknown."
Eight research recommendations are published today in the journal Nature Climate Change and arise from a workshop with a team of experts composed of 22 biologists from 11 institutions in five different countries.
The team agrees that further research identifying how corals respond to climate change is critical, as the Earth undergoes an unprecedented rate of environmental change.
AIMS Climate Change Scientist, Dr. Line Bay says, "There is sufficient inertia in the climate system that we will not be able to prevent further climate-related disturbances affecting the reef in the immediate future."
"Solutions are required to help corals adapt and acclimate to near-term future climate pressures while we figure out how to reduce emissions and halt and reverse longer-term climate change."
Co-authors Prof. Timothy Ravasi and Dr. Manuel Aranda from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) warn that the clock is ticking. "The Great Barrier Reef has suffered substantial losses of coral over the past two years. Understanding the mechanisms that could enable corals to cope with ocean warming is becoming increasingly important if we want to help these ecosystems," they say.
The paper is focused on stony, reef-building corals, which are the 'ecosystem engineers' of tropical coral reefs. These corals build the frameworks that provide shelter, food and habitat for an entire ecosystem. When corals are lost, the diversity and abundance of other reef organisms declines, until ultimately the ecosystem collapses.
"Predicting the fate of coral reefs under climate change is subject to our understanding of the ability of corals to mount adaptive responses to environmental change," says Dr. Torda. "Our paper sets out key research objectives and approaches to address this goal."
"The time to act is now, as the window of opportunity to save coral reefs is rapidly closing," he concludes.

Links

The Truth About Harvey And Climate Change Is In The Middle

Washington Post - Jason Samenow*

Floodwaters from Tropical Storm Harvey overflow from the bayous around Houston this week. (David J. Phillip/AP)

Did climate change make Hurricane Harvey’s impact significantly worse? There are a lot of opinions on this out there, and it’s okay if you’re confused. The reality is that some scientists say yes; and some, no.
In answering this question, the safest place is the middle ground: Climate change probably made Harvey a little worse. But you’re on shaky ground to say any less or much more.
Before we delve a little deeper into this question, let’s dispense with the idea that climate change or global warming caused Harvey to form. It did not. Climate change does not cause hurricanes. In the tropics, hurricanes require rising air (from converging winds), heat and moisture to form. These ingredients led to Harvey’s formation just as they have led to the genesis of tropical storms as far back as anyone knows.
The real question is whether climate change made Harvey worse than it would have been otherwise and, if so, how much worse.
There are basically four ways climate change could have intensified the hurricane’s effects. I list them here, from high confidence to low confidence:

By raising sea levels, climate change increased the rise in ocean water or storm surge when the storm came ashore and the coastal flooding that resulted.
By warming temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, climate change intensified the storm’s rainfall.
By warming temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, climate change intensified the storm’s peak winds.
By slowing down the jet stream, climate change increased the likelihood the storm would stall and unload rainfall over the same areas.

No one disagrees the ocean levels are rising, so it is true that climate change-induced sea level very likely added impact to the area inundated by Harvey’s surge. According to NOAA, sea levels in Rockport, Tex., near where Harvey made landfall, are rising at a rate of about 20 inches per century. So areas that were flooded by storm surge probably have climate change to thank for about a foot and half of extra water.

(NOAA)

But of all of Harvey’s hazards, the surge was probably the least damaging because it affected a relatively sparsely populated area of the coastline. In Hurricane Sandy, for example, the surge was a much bigger problem. Disastrous rain, of course, caused the most issues.
Let’s be perfectly clear: With or without climate change, the rainfall from Harvey would have been catastrophic. But, yes, climate change probably added rainfall for this event.
Our best science indicates there is a 3 percent increase in atmospheric moisture content for every degree (F) of warming in the storm’s environment. As Harvey moved across the Gulf of Mexico, the sea surface temperatures were about 2 degrees warmer than normal, which means rainfall may have been enhanced by 6 percent or so, or a few inches.
The question of whether climate change meaningfully worsened Harvey’s winds is much more ambiguous. According to the latest modeling, more than doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to a 2 percent to 11 percent increase (on average) in hurricane peak winds by the end of this century. So any impact on Harvey’s wind speeds from climate change at this point would theoretically be small. Climate assessments conducted to date have not yet found a “detectable” change in hurricane intensity from rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, there is the question of whether climate change-induced influence on atmospheric steering currents slowed the storm down and enabled it to unload torrential rainfall over the same areas for days. Scientists are uncertain about this.
“There are some ideas in the scientific literature that suggest that global warming may make this situation more probable,” wrote climate scientists Suzana Camargo and Adam Sobel of Columbia University. “However, these ideas are still speculative and not widely agreed upon by scientists.”
Harvey is not the first storm to make landfall in Texas and then stall and dump astronomical amounts of rain. The historical hurricane record is full of examples of storms slowing down and meandering after hitting land masses.
Adding up all of these possible climate change effects on Harvey, how significant were they in reality? That’s where expert opinion diverges.

Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, posted on Facebook that climate change “exacerbate[d] several characteristics of the storm in a way that greatly increased the risk of damage and loss of life.”

But Cliff Mass, a professor of meteorology at the University of Washington, who called global warming a serious issue, concluded that its effects on Harvey were “immaterial.” He also accused some scientists and media of “using hand-waving arguments to push an agenda.”
Where do I come out on this? I take the middle ground between Mann and Mass. Climate change probably made Harvey worse, but I wouldn’t say profoundly worse. This is a storm that, irrespective of climate change, was going to be terrible.
Also, and this is an important point, no one should be under the impression that if we slash greenhouse gas emissions radically, these storms are going to stop or become significantly less severe. Devastating storms ravaged our coasts long before human-made climate change was a thing.
While reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a critical strategy for avoiding the worst consequences of climate change, it will take many decades or longer for those reductions to have a detectable impact on hurricane intensity. This is why it is so important to think about how to make our cities more resilient to these storms.
Because climate change most likely is and will continue to make these storms more severe, we can’t ignore the role it plays. But we shouldn’t pretend it’s a bigger deal than it is or that it’s nothing to worry about at all. Instead, we should consider it among all of the factors, including infrastructure and urban planning, that play a critical role in the impact storms have on our society and have constructive conversations about how to deal with them and implement sensible policy.

*Jason Samenow is the Washington Post’s weather editor and Capital Weather Gang's chief meteorologist. He earned a master's degree in atmospheric science, and spent 10 years as a climate change science analyst for the U.S. government. He holds the Digital Seal of Approval from the National Weather Association.

Links

We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?

New York Times - Nicholas Kristof

Spring, Tex., on Tuesday. Credit Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady — without addressing the risks of future terrorism.
That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change.
That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change skepticism more than 100 times, even suggesting that climate change is a Chinese hoax, and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s “misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change.
Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is making hurricanes worse.
First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the long-term average. The result is more intense storms.
“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T., tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30 years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger.
Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred since 1990.
“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey to be so destructive.
Frankly, it’s staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change.
Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global average surface temperature, according to NASA. The 10 years of greatest loss of sea ice are all in the last decade. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year floods” in the last three years.
Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones. We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world families lose something far more precious: their babies. Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared while reporting in Madagascar about children starving apparently as a consequence of climate change.
An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.
We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do. We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.
We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional National Flood Insurance Program. This offers underpriced insurance, encouraging people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home flooded 34 times in 32 years, resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times what the home was worth.
The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune published a devastating article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared.
In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?
Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is difficult. Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung cancer, it may be impossible to prove that smoking was the cause that time. But it’d be absurd for America to discuss the challenge of lung cancer only through the prism of suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering tobacco policy.
A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour, because they believed scientific predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?

Links