Twitter | Search | |
Kevin Anderson
Professor of energy and climate change - interested in translating the science of climate change into carbon budgets, policy goals and mitigation options.
7,580
Tweets
769
Following
20,526
Followers
Tweets
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Nicola Siddons Jan 17
Interested in taking Climate Change Action in Manchester? Join Green Drinks next Tuesday to discuss how we could get Manchester Council to become one of the drivings forces: PlS RT!
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 18
Here I’m thinking about nations with relatively mature energy systems that are growing in demand at much lower rates than the energy systems of poorer & emerging economies.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 18
Yes, plus direct combustion in some industries. I don’t have detailed breakdowns for different nations, but national datasets show the breakdown for many/most nations.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 18
Replying to @valmasdel
Also about one each month (~50% on the ‘science’ & ~50% on ‘solutions’) - and I don’t recall one being from a woman in 20 years.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Henry Adams Jan 17
Solutions in addition to storage include DSR flexibility: Demand can partly be re-scheduled in a smart-way as r doing - but UKgridsystem & its market rules need to be changed to facilitate this. So well done to Tempus for halting the fossil-subsidizing CapactyMarket
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 18
Replying to @e_Sundell @JH_Ambrose
Agree. Sweden may be ahead of the UK in some respects on climate change - but it’s still got a long way to go to be in line with even a weak interpretation of Paris.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @sydnets
This choice is implicitly made in society today. A poor person is deemed not worthy to heat their house whilst a wealthy professor can afford the energy/flight for another weekend break in Italy. Making these choices explicit & within constraints is progress in my view.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @wingod @Robotbeat
I'm still missing the point you're making. Rising concentrations by 1ppm each year is still a rise. The airborne fraction has remained virtually unchanged since 1958 - and well before then.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @Robotbeat @SteB777
Where did you get that figure? As I recall, if you consider the Chancel & Piketty 50% of emissions from 10% of the global population, & that around 1/3 of that 10% are in non-OECD nations, then over 60% of the OECD's population are not in the top global decile of emitters.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @wingod @Robotbeat
That means the airborne fraction changes rapidly and significantly? I thought the empirical evidence suggested it had changed very little over many decades & with very different emissions & concentration?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Philip Sargent Jan 17
But unlikely to be a really big problem as the peak in PV generation nearly coincides with the AC load. Would need only a couple of hours battery storage (or equiv. flexibility) to shift the peaks to match. We already have 12.6 effective GW of PV
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @ElmarMoelzer
Current global 'final energy demand' is just north of 100,000TWh. For a zero CO2 future that needs to be mostly met directly & indirectly ('electro-fuels' &/or H2) by electricity. So your suggested 4000 nukes, are ~12000 nukes short of the job (at 80% LF). What fills the gap?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @ElmarMoelzer
Global 6.1TW is not a production unit. It's fine for capacity, but production needs to have a time component (e.g. TWh).
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
... this is a serious issue that even the UK national grid are considering (& the UK currently has very little domestic AC).
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @wingod @Robotbeat
I don't follow your argument. Carry on at 1960's emissions levels & the CO2 concentration will continue to rise, all be it at a much slower rate?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @ElmarMoelzer
You're the one suggesting we build lots more nuclear powerstations? Why? If we're not concerned about climate change, why not continue with fossil fuels? If we are, then having a sense of the numbers behind your conclusions is important.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @wingod @Robotbeat
Its all about rates of change. 2°C is a proxy for a change occurring by around 2050-2100. If it occurred between 1850 & say 4000, it would be much less of an issue. The inability of ecosystems (& some social systems) to adapt to such rapid change is from where the concern arises.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Stephen Barlow Jan 17
Other threats from biodiversity loss, habitat loss, soil loss, are as big a threat as climate change, and are essentially driven by our profligate use of energy. A big change in lifestyle is needed regardless of our carbon emissions being zero.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Jan 17
Replying to @ElmarMoelzer
The total quantity of CO2 emitted/not emitted links to the temperature rise. If we're not concerned about this rise due to increasing CO2 concentrations, then just keep burning fossil fuels. So, please provide the headline numbers underpinning your nuclear analysis & conclusion.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Vihren Mitev Jan 17
Replying to @KevinClimate
This is what the Ecological Manifesto () is stating for two years - rethinking the present and change of values + behaviour.
Reply Retweet Like