49 Inches Of Rain Recently Fell In One Day Over Hawaii - Is That A Record?

49 Inches Of Rain Recently Fell In One Day Over Hawaii - Is That A Record?



49 Inches Of Rain Recently Fell In One Day Over Hawaii - Is That A Record?

• 
  

Marshall Shepherd



,






Contributor








Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

I am a scientist that has spent much of my career studying precipitating systems. I was also the Deputy Project Scientist for NASA's Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission for many years.
Big rainfall events get my attention. From the period April 14th to
19th, extremely heavy rainfall disrupted the Hawaiian Islands. In fact, a Flash Flood Watch was in effect for the entire state of Hawaii on April 19th. Preliminary
reports suggest that in one case, nearly 50 inches of rainfall fell in
Kauai within one day. If this is verified, it would be a new United
States record for a 24-hour period. I
want to also emphasize that this is another weather-related human
tragedy unfolding for people affected by the flooding, loss of supplies,
and so forth.

NASA/JAXA and Hal Pierce

Rainfall as
measured by Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission IMERG
rainfall product. NASA's IMERG, a satellite based produced, reveals the
pattern of rainfall accumulation from April 10 to 16, 2018.

My colleague Professor Tom Gill of University of Texas-El Paso made me aware of this statement by the National Weather Service-Honolulu on April 25th,

Preliminary data downloaded from a remote rain gage in North Kauai
indicate that rainfall during the flash flood event on April 14-15, 2018
broke the U.S. 24-hour rainfall record. The rain gauge, located in
Waipa about one mile west of Hanalei, recorded 49.69 inches of rainfall
during the 24-hour period ending at 12:45 pm HST April 15. This total,
if certified, will break the current U.S. 24-hour record of 43 inches at
Alvin, TX on July 25-26, 1979, and the state of Hawaii record of 38
inches at Kilauea (Kauai) on January 24-25, 1956

The statement goes on to note that the National Climatic Extremes
Committee will convene to review the case and start the certification
process.


This particular region is no stranger to wet conditions. Mount
Waialeale, the second highest peak on the island of Kauai (5,148 feet
above sea level) is considered by some sources as the wettest place on Earth. However, many sources place the wettest location on the planet in India at either Cherrapunji or Mawsynram. According to a Weather.com article, there is "467.35 inches per year for Mawsynram vs. 463.66 inches for Cherrapunji." The same article also notes,

Though it's no longer the world's rainiest place — despite local
tourism officials' boasts — not far behind Cherrapunji is Hawaii's Mount
Waialeale, which sees an average of more than 450 inches of rainfall
every year. In 1982, a record 683 inches of rain fell here, which works
out to nearly 57 feet.

Even it is not the "wettest" place it is certainly one of them one of them. In some of our scholarly research, we published  a new extreme rainfall metric called a Wet Millimeter Day in Geophysical Research Letters about a decade ago. Our metric was intended to provide a way to quickly quantify extreme rainfall in the spirit of how Heating or Cooling Degree Day
is used by energy companies. Mt. Waialeale's average daily rainfall
total was used in the initial version as the reference value for our
metric though it has recently been updated in a study published in Urban Climate by me and two colleagues at the Southeast Regional Climate Center at the University of North Carolina. By
the way, Jurassic Park was filmed in the lush vegetation and
mountainous surroundings of Mt. Waialeale. Other very wet places on
Earth include:

• Tutendo, Colombia, South America
• Big Bog, Maui, Hawaii
• Debundscha, Cameroon, Africa
• San Antonio de Ureca, Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea
• Cropp River, New Zealand.

So what caused this particular flooding event? According to NASA, it
appears that a trough (an elongated area of low pressure) disrupted
typical northeast trade winds flow producing heavy rainfall as the
trough strengthened and slowly drifted over Kauai.

NASA/JAXA and Hal Pierce

Intense showers
detected by the GPM satellite radar on he GPM core observatory satellite
flew over Kauai on April 14, 2018 at 10:01 a.m. HST (4:01 p.m. EDT/2001
UTC)

To give this 49 inch rainfall total some perspective, the highest
total amount from the devastating rains associated with Hurricane and
Tropical Storm Harvey (2017). According to NOAA's Climate.gov website,

The highest rainfall amount totaled 48.20 inches at a rain
gauge on Clear Creek and I-45 near Houston Texas. It was the highest
rainfall amount in a single storm for any place in the continental
United States. At Houston’s Hobby airport, the three-day rainfall from
August 26-28 was larger than the previous record for wettest 65-day
period......As the storm slowly moved east, it brought its
record-setting rains with it. Beaumont, TX, broke its record for wettest
day on record on August 29 when over 26 inches of rain fell—more than
double the previous record. August rains reached a total of 54.73
inches, more than three times the previous wettest August and almost 32
inches more than the previous all-time wettest month (November 1902).

The Failure of Solar Tower Thermal Energy Storage

The Failure of Solar Tower Thermal Energy Storage

Published on May 3, 2018

Written by Albert Parker







Concentrated solar power is not delivering on green energy promises.
Behind the hype these futuristic molten-salt power towers are
generating only 13 percent of predicted capacity. But their most
worrying issues concern problems with thermal energy storage.


If we consider the latest (2017)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Annual Technology Baseline data,
[1] and [2], they say current representative technology for
concentrating solar power is molten-salt power towers with 10 hours
two-tank thermal energy storage. They admit the first (and only) large
molten-salt power tower plant with 10 hours of storage is Crescent
Dunes, 110 MW, commissioned in 2015.


Their concentrated solar power workbook is based on purely
hypothetical solar towers with direct two-tank 10 hours thermal energy
storage supposed to deliver annual capacity factors (ratio of actual
electricity delivered in a year vs. the product of the installed
capacity by the number of hours in a year) largely exceeding the 50%
mark, more precisely 56% in an insulation class 3 location (Las Vegas,
NV) or 59% in an insulation class 5 (Dagget, CA).


These capacity factors of 56% and 59% correspond to an annual
electricity production per unit capacity (power) of 4,906 and 5,168
kWh/kW that are nowhere to be seen even close in plants on Earth.


If we look at the operational Concentrated Solar Power stations of
capacity above even only 50 MW in the entire world, this list includes
34 stations, 31 of them are parabolic trough, a much more consolidated
and reliable concentrated solar power technology, 1 is Fresnel
reflector, and only 2 of them are solar tower.


The 2 power stations are both in the United States, the 377 MW
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System and the 110 MW Crescent Dunes
Solar Energy Project. As actual electricity production of these plants
is available from the United States Energy Information Administration
[3], we may certainly check if the numbers by NREL are right.





As a comparison, we also consider the data of a more reliable
concentrated solar power parabolic trough plant similarly recently
built, the 250 MW Genesis, that has no thermal energy storage.


For the 377 MW Ivanpah, the planned electricity production was
1,079,232 MWh per year, corresponding to a capacity factor of 32.68%,
with minimal support by burning natural gas.


For the 110 MW Crescent Dunes, the planned electricity production was
500,000 MWh per year, corresponding to a capacity factor of 51.89%.


For Genesis, the planned electricity production was only 580,000 MWh per year, corresponding to a capacity factor of 26.48%.


Figure 1 (below) presents the monthly capacity factors of Ivanpah,
Crescent Dunes and Genesis. Worth mentioning, the monthly capacity
factors vary according to the season.


To deliver an annual capacity factor of 56% or 59% solar only, the
summer capacity factors should be much larger than that to compensate
the lower spring/fall and more than that winter capacity factors.


Ivanpah has no thermal energy storage, but boost by combustion of
natural gas. So far, it has been able to reach a 21.29% annual capacity
factor only not accounting for the significant natural gas combustion.
As the natural gas can be burned better in a combined cycle gas turbine
plant, the actual annual capacity factor is reduced to 14.42% when
corrected for the consumption of natural gas in a combined cycle gas
turbine plant.


Crescent Dunes is the current representative technology for concentrating solar power by NREL.


The project has delivered so far much less than the projected
electricity production, a 13.21% annual capacity factor in the best
year.


The plant had a major issue in the thermal energy storage that
prevented electricity production for a long time, and is not recovering
yet.


The more reliable Genesis has been able to produce electricity
reaching an annual capacity factor of almost 30% without any boost by
natural gas combustion, a value even better than the expected.


It does not seem appropriate to propose as “current technology” a technology that does not seem mature yet, while downplaying what is already working much better.


The thermal energy storage is not such a well proven and mature
technology. Similarly, but marginally better, the solar tower technology
is much more troublesome than the parabolic trough technology.


While NREL does not update the numbers to match reality, the South
Australian government and the Federal Government of Australia have
recently decided to build (about) same of Crescent Dunes power plant by
same developer in Port Augusta, South Australia [4], [5].





Fig. 1 – Monthly capacity factors for the Ivanpah, Crescent Dunes and
Genesis concentrated solar power plants. Design annual capacity factors
are 32.68% for Ivanpah (but with minimal support from the burning of
natural gas), 51.89% for Crescent Dunes, and 26.48% for Genesis. Ivanpah
has been able to reach a 21.29% annual capacity factor in 2016 only not
accounting for the significant natural gas combustion. Crescent Dunes
has delivered a 13.21% annual capacity factor in 2016. Genesis has been
able to produce electricity reaching an annual capacity factor of almost
30% in 2006.


Read more at qualityassuranceofclimatestudies.wordpress.com


References


[1] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2017 Annual
Technology Baseline. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.gov/analysis/data_tech_baseline.html


[2] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Concentrating Solar
Power. atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2017/index.html?t=sc&s=ov


[3] Energy Information Administration (EIA). Electricity data browser – Plant Level Data.


Available online: www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/


[4] ABC News (2017), Solar thermal power plant announced for Port Augusta ‘biggest of its kind in the world’.


www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-plant-announcement-for-port-augusta/8804628


[5] Renewable Economy (2017). Aurora: What you should know about Port Augusta’s solar power-tower.


reneweconomy.com.au/aurora-what-you-should-know-about-port-augustas-solar-power-tower-86715

Time for a carbon tax? 

Time for a carbon tax?

There's an economic concept known as "the free rider problem." It's a market
failure that occurs when people are benefiting from resources, goods or
services that they don't pay for.

Companies that mine fossil fuels fall into this category. As former Colorado Gov.
Bill Ritter wrote in a recent Denver Post op-ed, "The prices consumers
pay at the pump or on their electric bills are nowhere near the full
costs that these fuels impose on the economy, environment or society."

Scientists have linked carbon emissions to extreme global weather. When a drought
decimates crops or a hurricane flattens and floods coastal communities,
who pays for the damages? Not the companies releasing carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. If they had to account for hidden costs, cleaner
sources of energy would be more affordable and attractive by comparison.

That's why Ritter and a host of current and former politicians on both sides
of the aisle are making the case for a carbon tax to level the playing
field for all fuels that compete in energy markets.

The idea isn't new, but it's gaining traction because it applies
free-market principles to correct a market failure. Republicans
especially find this more palatable than "command-and-control"
regulation. Two national organizations whose aim is to build political
action for climate solutions are pushing a concept known as carbon fee
and dividend.

The idea has gained support after President Donald Trump announced that he would exit
the Paris climate accord. Even major oil companies like ExxonMobil, BP
and Royal Dutch Shell back the carbon fee and dividend idea, though
critics contend it's part of a strategy to shield themselves from
climate-change lawsuits.

Nevertheless, both Citizens Climate Lobby and the Climate Leadership Council are
touting carbon fee and dividend as a pro-environment, pro-growth
bipartisan response to climate challenges.

Members of the newly formed Grand Junction chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby
explained recently to the Sentinel's editorial board how the plan would
work.

Companies would be taxedon the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by mining,
drilling and other activities conducted in the U.S. The fee would be
assessed at the moment the material is removed from the ground and start
around $15 per ton and go up $10 a year from there until total U.S.
CO2-equivalent emissions have been reduced to 10 percent of U.S.
CO2-equivalent emissions in 1990.

The tax proceeds would then be paid out to Americans — regardless of income
level — in monthly installments. This is the "dividend."

Products imported into the U.S. would also be taxed based on their carbon
content. Proceeds from this border tariff adjustment would be paid
directly to Americans. Companies would get a rebate when they export
products abroad in order to ensure a level global playing field.

CCL members say their plan will reduce greenhouse gas emission enough to
stabilize the climate, boost the economy and encourage other nations to
adopt equivalent carbon pricing.

According to a study by RegionalEconomic models, Inc., CCL's plan would cut greenhouse gas emissions 52 percent over 20 years and add 2.8 million jobs to the American economy.

Carbon pricing seems inevitable. Whether CCL's plan is the answer, we owe it
to ourselves to start understanding the core dynamics of carbon taxes.
Under carbon fee and dividend, costs will be passed on to consumers, but
we'll get a dividend check to offset the financial pain.