SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Climate Central reports
The ravages of climate change could severely hurt the ability of utilities in the 11 Western states to generate power unless they "climate proof" their power grid using renewables and energy efficiency, something they are not prepared for, according to a new study[1] [by researchers at Arizona State University, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change].
[...]Higher temperatures and low stream flow reduce coal-fired power plants' ability to use water for cooling, preventing them from operating at full capacity. The most vulnerable power plants could see a reduction in power generation capacity by up to 8.8 percent, the study says.
Renewables take a hit too, but are much less vulnerable to climate change.
[...]The Arizona State study recommends Western states invest in wind, solar, and other "resilient" renewable energy sources while upgrading the power grid and encouraging conservation as ways to overcome some of the challenges climate change poses to the region's power supply.
[1] Link in TFA redirects to the URL that I included.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:39PM
The laws of physics go on working whether or not you believe in them, but I'm sure deniers of anthropogenic climate change will be able to convince themselves the lights are actually on when they flip the switch and nothing happens.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 22 2015, @04:53AM
The laws of physics go on working whether or not you believe in them
Yes. But that's also your problem as well. I find it remarkable how terrible arguments are for AGW. For example, there's your faux scientific argument that because there are laws of physics, then you are right. Reality doesn't work that way.
Then there was the post quoting a ludicrous IMF study which claims that fossil fuels are somehow getting a five trillion dollar a year subsidy (with most of the argument based on fantasy numbers for AGW harm and the idea that not paying a heavily punitive fine on the order of trillions a year is a subsidy). Or the argument that because the effect of the story slightly favors certain renewables, then we should massively invest in renewables.
What I find remarkable is how little of the supposed argument demonstrating an AGW effect relies on actual evidence or science. There are genuine observable effects of global warming such as a disproportionate rise in night time temperatures (compared to daytime temperatures) globally, enhanced heating of areas that are covered with snowfall only part of the year (the feedback of high albedo snow melting is the most notable positive feedback mechanism out there currently), the well documented rise in CO2 levels during the industrial era, and satellite measured lower/upper atmosphere temperatures, which indicate some degree of lower atmosphere heating over the past few decades.
But most of the AGW arguments out there are hysterical and irresponsible. I think this culminates with the unfounded assertion that global warming will be a huge net harm, often alleged to be universal (which I suppose will be news to the Canadians and the Russians). If that's true, then you ought to be able to come up with some sort of evidence to support that.