Steve McIntyre has uncovered a blunder on the part of Pachauri and the IPCC that is causing waves of doubt and calls for retooling on both sides of the debate. In a nutshell, the IPCC made yet another inflated claim that:
…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…
Unfortunately, it has been revealed that this claim is similar to the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 fiasco, with nothing independent to back it up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCC per se, but rather that of Greenpeace. It gets worse.
Steve McIntyre discovered the issue and writes this conclusion:
It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.
Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.
Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here.
Elsewhere, the other side of the debate is getting ticked off about this breach of ethics and protocol too. Mark Lynas , author of a popular pro-AGW book, Six Degrees, has written some strong words also: (h/t to Bishop Hill)
New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace
Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.
…
The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.
And, Bishop Hill reports other rumblings in AGW land with a consensus that the IPCC is “dumb”.
What a mess. The IPCC and Pachauri may as well give it up. After a series of blunders, insults of “voodoo science” to people asking honest, germane, questions, Africagate, and now this, they have no place to go, they’ve hit rock bottom.
The credibility of the IPCC organization is shredded. Show these bozos the door.
Does this mean that we won’t be able to supply 80% of our energy needs from renewables by 2050? Bugger. What will we do now?
Seriously, though, what percentage of our energy needs will be supplied by renewables by then?
Unfortunately Obama and Lisa Jackson are believers in the IPCC. They want to drive the U.S. literally into the dark ages. There has been little doubt tat he IPCC is a corrupt organization, as bomb shell after bomb shell fall upon their “science”. That has still not even slowed skyrocket energy prices Obama and Lisa down. Where are the jobs, where is the energy? China.
Martin Brumby says:
June 16, 2011 at 4:16 am
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-06/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories-forgotten-future-stationary-bicycle
Their Human Powered Flywheel Motor looks especially promising. Apparently it “can deliver much more power than the human who operates it.”. They even provide figures:
It only takes between 1 and 2 minutes to store the maximum possible energy in the flywheel, at a “comfortable” pedalling rate.
It can provide up to 6hp (about 4.5Kw) output which is, they say, 20 times what an average person can achieve in small bursts – although they’ve only managed 2hp (1500w) so far.
Unfortunately, of course conservation of energy means it can only provide that power for 1/20th of the time.
Now, bear in mind that the average kettle is around 1500w and takes (rough guess) 3 minutes to boil. That means that (ignoring the inevitable losses) you’ll have to pedal like crazy for a full hour to get your morning cuppa.
They haven’t really thought this “alternative human powered energy” through, have they?
This story is not at all surprising. Greenpeace and other advocacy groups are in bed with the IPCC and Pachauri.
March 14, 2011, No Frakking Consensus posted the following.
Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace
Here initial criticism of the May press release can be found here
15 June, 2011
IPCC: These People Haven’t Learned a Thing
November 24, 2010
Greenpeace’s 12th Century Technology [wind]
Pachauri, who set up a risidual oil extraction company called Glorioil, continues to be its scientific advisor.
Appears there’s a consensus here. What’s the action plan?
“…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…”
This scandal is nothing but a distraction from the really big news: We’re there with solar (and other renewables, but solar in particular).
I think this is an excellent idea to aim for 80 percent renewables by 2050, and we should go all out to achieve it. There is almost no downside in us doing so. PV will be the cheapest per watt energy source within the next 6 – 7 years, and will be far more efficient within 1 – 2 decades . The Japanese PM said yesterday that the true cost of nuclear is about 10 times the stated costs (and that doesn’t include compensation payments). Even if you think climate change is not happening, this is beginning to make very strong economic sense. We just need to find better ways to store it and work out baseloads better.
Don S
Re action plan… exactly.
So? The Job is to, it seems, equate IPCC and the clown show of Green Peace.
IPCC=Green Peace
Green Peace = ZERO Credibility
IPCC = blunder ridden cadre of pseudo science activists.
Mock IPCC into making itself anew to the satisfaction of Watts, McIntyre, Monckton. Horner et al.
That may involve the shutting down of the IPCC but exorcizing the liars may be just as effective.
This is the platform for the restructuring.
So who is off and who is on the new IPCC?
Scottish Sceptic says: June 16, 2011 at 6:03 am
“I’m beginning to wonder SERIOUSLY!!! whether we are really up against criminals who rely on the sceptics being a bit namby pamby and treating corruption as “human error” rather than deliberate intentional malice to defraud the public.”
They also rely on genuine, honest but gullible folk who believe hook, line and sinker, what they are told by the politicians, mass media and pressure groups in the name of “the good and worthy to combat the dangers of AGW”.
It’s only a blunder if it was an accident.
Steve and Anthony!!
If you could design your own panel to advise the IPCC who would you ask to sit on it?
Consider also that this blog is defacto advising the UN already, and that may be enough, but let us say that an official role is available to real scientists. Who may they be?
What? I’m sure our energy supply could be met by renewables in mid-century. Actually I think it’ll happen much sooner. Biofuel production from genetically organisms is already here today. In another 10 years at most it’ll be ready for prime time. I’d say no later than 2030 and we won’t need to pump, mine, or frack for fuel anymore. We might still need it for chemical feedstocks for non-fuel products and it might still be more convenient for those nations who have plenty of fossil fuels but a barrel of oil won’t be saleable for over $15 because biofuel will be cheaper. Any oil producer who doesn’t know this and planning for it now has a fool for for a CEO.
Darn – typing too fast and not proof reading. Meant to say “genetically engineered organisms”.
duckster: I was hoping that your post was sarcasm, but, no.
We just need to find better ways to store it and work out baseloads better.
That’s all? Except, there is no way to store it now, nor none on the technological horizon. Baseloads can be handled now, with nuclear, coal and natural gas. But not with renewables.
Solar is not there now. In Ontario, it costs over 10 times the wholesale price of conventional power, for solar. It also does not work very well in northern winters.
The cost for converting to renewables? According to Sci Am, about 100 trillion dollars.
Not going to happen as long there is cheap fossil fuels.
Green Bots.
Green Cult.
Green Gone Wild.
New Green is Dirty Green.
@Duckster says:
June 16, 2011 at 7:48 am
“…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…”
——
REPLY Thanks, Duckster! I agree, and I don’t understand the vitriol about this comment.
Renewables is a mix of many technologies, some of which work very well (industrial wastewater biomethanation), and others which are evolving.
One of my industrial clients meets most of their boiler natural gas needs from a wastewater biomethanation plant I designed for them 10 years ago. The system treats over 2 million gallons/day of potato processing effluent and produces treated water used for land irrigation.
It wouldn’t be EASY, but 2050 is a pretty long ways off yet. We could reach such a goal with concerted efforts. The algae guys are making some fantastic inroads in scale-up, and the airlines are already planning on using biofuels in their aircraft.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201106101549dowjonesdjonline000511&title=us-aviation-biofuel-production-could-be-poised-to-take-flight
We should let the market decide. Wind power is turning out to be a big flop for a number of reasons, but next-generation biofuels are looking promising.
@Duckster
Photovoltaics are a distraction. Our transporation infrastructure isn’t set up for electricity and it won’t be anytime soon. Solar panels could be free and 100% efficient and that still wouldn’t solve most of the problems with replacing hydrocarbon fuels. Storage and distribution remain the major stumbling blocks for electricity. A lesser stumbling block is power density in any known kind of battery. Ever wonder why there are no passenger or freight electric aircraft? Except for toys and experimental solar powered gliders it’s just not practical to power an aircraft with motors. The power density of batteries and electric motors can’t come anywhere near that of combustion motors and hydrocarbon fuels.
.
Get rid of the IPCC already. Does anyone still pay ANY attention to ANY of their crap anymore? .. I mean really!
@Duckster says: June 16, 2011 at 7:48 am
“We’re there with solar (and other renewables, but solar in particular).”
Well, we’re there with hydro-electricity and have been for years.
Solar? You are having a laugh. Maybe in daylight hours in the middle of the Sahara (if you need electricity in the middle of the Sahara). Unless you mean “that’s our racket and we’re there it for all we’re worth”.
How come the enormous subsidies and feed-in-tariffs, otherwise?
The rest of the renewables?
Come back on here and tell us when there is one that works. At a cost less than burning dollar bills.
Les Johnson
SciAm is probably right with “$100 trillion” if they’re talking about replacing hydrocarbon fuels with electricity. Tally up the cost of converting or replacing everything that runs on natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and kerosene to electricity. Add to that the cost of the renewable gimcracks that generate electricity and the cost of distributing it to point of consumption. Then add in the cost of every fuel storage tank, pipeline, oil tanker ships, tanker trucks, and whatnot because they all suddenly have no more use.
The cost of changing over infrastructure from hydrocarbon fuels to electricity is so high it just won’t ever happen. The only practical solution is renewable sources of hydrocarbine fuels. Fortunately that’s looking better every day and won’t take much longer. Biofuel is already far cheaper than $100/bbl oil and it requires no substantial infrastructure changes.
Re: Pamela Gray says:
June 16, 2011 at 7:13 am
“The BP Gulf oil disaster spilled crude that was cleaned up by BP. When is IPCC going to clean up the stink spilled by the IPCC? Clearly, that gunk has been way more toxic than the oil spill”
Actually nature cleaned up most of the spill, BP just provided a dog and pony show, but that does suggest a good approach, we could just drop the IPCC and the UN into the Gulf of Mexico and let nature take its course.
It’s not just Greenpeace that’s the problem but lead authors whose jobs are “very much attached to renewable energy.”
They are listed and cross referenced on this page.
Aparently there is no mention of peer review or non-peer reviewed according to Hilary.
If anybody finds it can they let her know.
@Martin Brumby says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:36 am
The UN classifies wood and dung as renewables. One could imagine public policy approaches that result in 80% of our energy coming from dung and wood by 2050. Think of it as a sort of “return to the dark ages” initiative.
@Martin Brumby says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:36 am
@Duckster says: June 16, 2011 at 7:48 am
Come back on here and tell us when there is one that works. At a cost less than burning dollar bills.
REPLY I’ll give you a few:
1. Wastewater biomethanation (already mentioned) – the Brits & Germans & Dutch are ‘way out front on this one, but anaerobic treatment is pretty commonplace in the food processing industries worldwide. Since wastewater needs to be treated prior to discharge to protect surface waters, biomethanation provides for a very high level of stabilization with concomitant biofuel production. It’s a tricky process to work with, but well-proven over the past 30 years.
2. Geothermal – Of course, Al Gore taught us that the interior of the planet is “millions of degrees,” but practical geothermal systems like heat pumps are taking off like gangbusters in geographic areas where they make sense.
3. Wastewater ethanol production – One of my clients produces ethanol from waste cheese whey permeate as a wastewater treatment option. Very slick, works great and doesn’t use food as a source (unlike corn) since whey permeate is a mixture of lactose and salts once the lactoalbumin is removed.
4. Passive solar – a no-brainer, just build your house correctly. I have a friend who builds houses in Oklahoma using thick foam sheets for roofing sections (same as we use in food industrial cooling buildings), orients the houses according to annual sunlight, and incorporates heat pumps & other tricks. He tells me that, during a typical Oklahoma winter, the heat generated from incandescent lighting, clothes dryer and compressor from refrigerator usually supply all the heat for house.
Lots more, but these are some well-proven and obvious ones.
Corrupt people running a corrupt panel for a corrupt organization promoting corrupted science.
It is enough to make an optimist feel downright pessimistic. The human condition… I guess? GK
Quinn the Eskimo @ur momisugly 4:42 and others writing about
“ . . . redistribution of wealth”
I remember sitting in church in the 1950s when a missionary would be invited to speak and ask for funds for some village in Africa, the Philippines, or some other exotic place. Our parents and other parishioners would dutifully add to the baskets and the money (we all assumed) went to help people less well off than us. Over the 60 years since I did not noticed much improvement in these places – and we are still being asked to redistribute our wealth.
I do see improvements where the type of government and society change to allow people to build their own wealth. I’m a fan of the idea that if you are willing to pay for something you soon see an increase in that something, be it good or bad. The Spaniard’s trick of lighting up solar panels at night with diesel generators comes to mind.
At any one time there is only so much wealth. Redistribute some of it and the folks that can produce more – will. It seems implausible that this process can be carried to the point where everyone is wealthy.