- 最后登录
- 2013-11-14
- 在线时间
- 1124 小时
- 寄托币
- 5013
- 声望
- 401
- 注册时间
- 2008-9-29
- 阅读权限
- 40
- 帖子
- 298
- 精华
- 3
- 积分
- 3377
- UID
- 2552043
  
- 声望
- 401
- 寄托币
- 5013
- 注册时间
- 2008-9-29
- 精华
- 3
- 帖子
- 298
|
本帖最后由 lghscu 于 2010-9-10 08:47 编辑
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure
September 9, 2010 | 5 comments
How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?
All the world's power plants, vehicles and factories that presently exist may not emit enough carbon dioxide to cause catastrophic climate change
By David Biello
Humanity has yet(: up to now : so far <hasn't done much yet> ― often used to imply the negative of a following infinitive <have yet to win a game>) to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural gas—every day.
A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit(: a group of persons or things ― usually used in the phrase the whole kit and caboodle) is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions".
That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively, given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm(parts per million) higher than present levels and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations.
Still, we are rapidly approaching a point of no return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-emitting devices will be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.
And since 2000 the world has added 416 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, 449 gigawatts ofnatural gas–fired power plants and even 47.5 gigawatts of oil-fired power plants, according to the study's figures. China alone is already responsible for more than a third of the global "committed emissions," including adding 2,000 cars a week to the streets of Beijing as well as 322 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants built since 2000.
The U.S.—the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, among major countries—has continued a transition to less CO2-intensive energy use that started in the early 20th century. Natural gas—which emits 40 percent less CO2 than coal when burned—now dominates new power plants (nearly 188 gigawatts added since 2000) along with wind (roughly 28 gigawatts added), a trend broadly similar to other developed nations such as Japan or Germany.
But the U.S. still generates half of its electricity via coal burning—and what replaces those power plants over the next several decades will play a huge role in determining the ultimate degree of global climate change. Coal-burning poses other threats as well, including the toxic coal ash that can spill from the impoundments where it is kept; other polluting emissions that cause acid rain and smog; and the soot that causes an estimated 13,200 extra deaths and nearly 218,000 asthma attacks per year, according to a report from the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. "Unfortunately, persistently elevated levels of fine particle pollution are common across wide swaths of the country," reveals the 2010 report, released September 9. "Most of these pollutants originate from combustion sources such as power plants, diesel trucks, buses and cars."
Of course, those are the same culprits contributing the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet "programs to scale up 'carbon neutral' energy are moving slowly at best," notes physicist Martin Hoffert of New York University in a perspective on the research also published in Science on September 10. "The difficulties posed by generating even [one terawatt] of carbon-neutral power led the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley and colleagues to call it the 'terawatt challenge'."
That is because all carbon-free sources of energy combined provide a little more than two of the 15 terawatts that power modern society—the bulk of that from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. At least 10 terawatts each from nuclear; coal with carbon capture and storage; and renewables, such as solar and wind, would be required by mid-century to eliminate CO2 emissions from energy use. As Caldeira and his colleagues wrote: "Satisfying growing demand for energy without producing CO2 emissions will require truly extraordinary development and deployment of carbon-free sources of energy, perhaps 30 [terawatts] by 2050."
------------------
NOTE:
(
POINT OF NO RETURN
<MW>
1941
1 : the point in the flight of an aircraft beyond which the remaining fuel will be insufficient for a return to the starting point with the result that the craft must proceed
2 : a critical point at which turning back or reversal is not possible
<Wiki>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_no_return
The point of no return is the point beyond which someone, or some group of people, must continue on their current course of action, either because turning back is physically impossible, or because to do so would be prohibitively expensive or dangerous.
<princeton>
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Rubicon: a line that when crossed permits of no return and typically results in irrevocable commitment
--------------------
The term PNR—"point of no return," more often referred to by pilots as the "Radius of Action formula"—originated, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as a technical term in air navigation to refer to the point on a flight at which, due to fuel consumption, a plane is no longer capable of returning to its airfield of original takeoff. After passing the point of no return, the plane has no option but to continue to some other destination. In this sense, the phrase implies an irrevocable commitment.[1]
For nonstop flights between two definite locations, the PNR is actually beyond the halfway (more exactly, the "equitime") point, since aircraft usually carry more fuel than is necessary to reach the destination. For example, on a 2000-mile flight, should the tanks have enough fuel for a 3000-mile flight, the halfway point would be at 1000 miles, but the PNR would be at more than 1500 miles.
Neither does the PNR correspond to the halfway point of fuel usage. With loss of mass due to fuel consumption, it takes less fuel for an aircraft to cover a given mileage. An aircraft might expend, say, 60% of its total fuel load before reaching the PNR. The PNR can be further extended in this manner by dropping unnecessary fuel tanks or ordnance.
Another aviation use is the point during the takeoff roll when there is no longer enough runway ahead of the airplane to stop safely; at this point, the aircraft is committed to taking off. (See also V1 speed.) In mountain aviation, the phrase is sometimes used in a completely different way to refer to the point at which the grade of the terrain "outclimbs" the aircraft—that is, the point at which a crash is inevitable, being a parallel in common usage. The phrase can also be used in this sense to denote inevitable disaster.
The first major metaphorical use of the term in popular culture was John P. Marquand's novel "Point of No Return" (partially serialized in 1947, published in book form in 1949). It inspired a 1951 Broadway play of the same name by Paul Osborn. The novel and play concerned a pivotal moment in the life of an American banker, but they also explicitly referenced how the original expression was used in World War II aviation.
Since then, "point of no return" has become an everyday expression, with its aviation origins probably unknown to most speakers. It has served as a title for numerous literary and entertainment works
FINE PARTICLES
Particulates, alternatively referred to as particulate matter (PM) or fine particles and also called soot, are tiny subdivisions of solid or liquid matter suspended in a gas or liquid. In contrast, aerosol refers to particles and the gas together. Sources of particulate matter can be man made or natural. Air pollution and water pollution can take the form of solid particulate matter, or be dissolved.[1] Salt is an example of a dissolved contaminant in water, while sand is generally a solid particulate.
) |
|