Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

The one place around here like that uses a river as a source, and it's not all that big either.

If its not big, its also not much power.

James50

PBrower - you got some work to do right at home with these ignorant Michiganders. Don't they know that there is nothing more important than powering the world with wind and solar?

Controversial windpower project cancelled.

Duke Energy pulls plans to build 112 turbines in Northern Michigan

BENZIE COUNTY -- After months of debate, Duke Energy has decided it will no longer move forward with it's wind project plans in Benzie and Manistee Counties.The company spent more than a year signing contracts with dozens of landowners, setting up job fairs, and hosting public input meetings.

Community members were divided over the Gail Windpower Project that would have created 112 turbines in their backyards. The issue even led to the recall of three Joyfield Township board members in 2011.

Duke Energy says the decision was made because they couldn't secure a long term agreement with a power purchaser.

The company notified landowners earlier this week about their decision.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

PBrower - you got some work to do right at home with these ignorant Michiganders. Don't they know that there is nothing more important than powering the world with wind and solar?

Controversial windpower project cancelled.

Duke Energy pulls plans to build 112 turbines in Northern Michigan

Energy projects are always opposed by NIMBYism -- doesn't matter what kind of energy it is. Most people want cheaper, more abundant and/or cleaner energy produced -- but only if it's built somewhere else.

Sounds a lot like the argument over taxes and entitlements, actually -- many folks sees the need for shared sacrifices as long as the "sharing" is endured by everyone but them.

Originally Posted by James50

I am sure people like Eric think the German solar subsidy is a wondrous thing. Never mind the facts. God save us from the idealogues.

Solar Subsidy Sinkhole


James50

Yah, thats the problem with "green" energy. They have the same problem in Denmark where they have windmills installed that apparently don't generate enough electricity (on an average day) and they have to pay through the nose for imported power since they shut down most of their fossil generation.

Its poetic justice that Denmark has this problem since they gave us that famous one-world-government champion Connie Hedergaard (Caaaahneee). The two people that most frighten me when it comes to bad government action are Connie and her sidekick, that long hair Peruvian freak scientist who works for the UN and claims to be a "top climate scientist". The two of them were strutting around the Copenhagen summit in 2009 like they owned the place (and whose real mission is to own the world)

The bottom line is that solar and wind are nowhere as energy-dense as fossil or nuclear and are therefore non-starters in their current form. We need to fund much more research into alternative energy as we are not there yet.

Another story is about the City of L.A. that demanded that its municipal utility, LADWP, get a certain wildly unrealistic percentage of its total
power from renewables by a unrealistic date. The LADWP people came up with an estimate of the cost, combining purchased power and native solar and wind assets (to be built). The cost was so astronomical that the electric rates on the people of L.A. would have to more than double.

When the city council heard this, they accused LADWP of not coming up with an accurate estimate. The council then hired an outside firm to make an estimate and they came up with roughly the same number as the LADWP people.

I don't know where it stands now, but I assure you, when people start recognizing the costs of "green energy" as it stands TODAY, it will be a non-starter politically.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So, we stop buying the oil period. What's wrong with that!

Fossil fuels need to go the way of the dodo bird, and fast!

Thats fine, Eric, as soon as we come up with an alternative energy source that is as energy-dense
as fossil fuels so as not to OBLITERATE the economy, then they can go bye-bye. Until that time, I'd rather we
tap domestic sources than have to buy from Hugo Chavez and Wahabi Islam

Originally Posted by takascar2

Thats fine, Eric, as soon as we come up with an alternative energy source that is as energy-dense
as fossil fuels so as not to OBLITERATE the economy, then they can go bye-bye. Until that time, I'd rather we
tap domestic sources than have to buy from Hugo Chavez and Wahabi Islam

We need to do both.

I think "drill baby drill" without investment in developing an alternative infrastructure is a mistake. And I think not developing additional conventional energy today (because we insist ONLY on "green alternatives or nothing) is also a mistake.

We should view fossil fuel production as a bridge to the time when we have enough of an alternative infrastructure to first become independent on Middle East oil, then on all fossil fuels further down the road. But we need to stop kicking the can on alternatives. We need to build out the 21st century energy infrastructure **and** increase domestic production so we don't need the Middle East any more. Too many policy makers consider these two ideas mutually exclusive as if policy has to be "either/or" instead of "and", and I don't think they should be.

Over time there should be less emphasis on fossil fuels and more on cleaner alternatives, but this can be a gradual process over decades.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

We need to do both.

I think "drill baby drill" without investment in developing an alternative infrastructure is a mistake. And I think not developing additional conventional energy today (because we insist ONLY on "green alternatives or nothing) is also a mistake.

We should view fossil fuel production as a bridge to the time when we have enough of an alternative infrastructure to first become independent on Middle East oil, then on all fossil fuels further down the road. But we need to stop kicking the can on alternatives. We need to build out the 21st century energy infrastructure **and** increase domestic production so we don't need the Middle East any more. Too many policy makers consider these two ideas mutually exclusive as if policy has to be "either/or" instead of "and", and I don't think they should be.

Over time there should be less emphasis on fossil fuels and more on cleaner alternatives, but this can be a gradual process over decades.

It should go as fast as the technology and economy can handle, no faster. In fact, it is impossible to do otherwise without wrecking the economy.

In the meantime, T Boone Pickens has the right idea - use natural gas as the bridge fuel.

I would agree that we should be pursuing multiple (energy) options. We should also be considering options regarding other resources.

Originally Posted by takascar2

It should go as fast as the technology and economy can handle, no faster. In fact, it is impossible to do otherwise without wrecking the economy.

In the meantime, T Boone Pickens has the right idea - use natural gas as the bridge fuel.

Fair enough -- my only point on the alternatives issue is that if we wait for the "free market" to do *all* the heavy lifting with respect to alternative sources, it might not respond until we have a major supply crisis in conventional fossil fuels -- and it would take years to build out an alternative infrastructure no matter how much money you threw at it. So we need to at least get started now. The sooner we start (together with developing more domestic conventional sources), the less urgency in rapid and expensive buildouts. We can and should transition -- not go cold turkey, not fire all our fossil fuel bullets before developing other sources. I think we should set goals, such as "get an additional 2% of our energy needs from clean renewable sources each year." I pulled the 2% number out of my butt, to be honest, but that's the sort of thing I'm referring to. We don't need an immediate, costly, economy-killing buildout in a short period of time -- but we can't keep waiting, either.

Also agreed on natural gas. It's cleaner than oil and coal, and the US has enough proven reserves for many decades, even accounting for economic and population growth. It's not a permanent solution, but it is a proven resource that's mostly clean and one that scales well -- and one we know can do the job for at least the rest of my lifetime and probably then some given the proven reserves we have domestically.

The primary barrier to ditching fuel oil for natural gas is the cost of developing the infrastructure (well, that and Big Oil, though Big Oil often does have significant investments in natural gas production). And if clean renewables are seen as the ultimate longer-term energy infrastructure goal (as it probably should be), it makes private investment in natural gas development a little dicier.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

I'm surprised we haven't seen more of them (pump-back lakes) in this country, particularly as the power grid continues to be strained.

To work right, they have to be built on a fast-fall river. There are plenty of them in Appalachia, so they aren't all that rare. Unfortunately, they're harder to find where they would do the most good.

Originally Posted by James50

See my post above. Its not practical to have enough lakes to make a difference and besides the impact of all these lakes would be unbearable. Keep in mind that pump back storage really requires two lakes. One to act as a source and the other as a re-regulation lake. Its really takes up too much ecological space to be sustainable.

James50

Virtually all of these lakes are in high demand as places to live and/or as recreation destinations. I agree that they take time to site, and you can't put them everywhere, but they aren't that difficult to develope either. A lot depends on the area. It's easy to flood farm land, especially land that is marginal. Luckily, much of the land that's marginal is excessively hilly, and perfect for this application.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that they take time to site, and you can't put them everywhere, but they aren't that difficult to develope either.

You obviously have not tried to site a new reservoir recently. I am on the periphery of water supply problems in Georgia. I can tell you that siting reservoirs takes years of EIS, lawsuits, and negotiations with the Corp of Engineers. Then it takes a least a decade to build once you have the permit. The idea that we could ever build enough of these lakes to provide significant storage is ludicrous. Many areas of the country are too flat and where it is not too flat it is too environmentally sensitive.

James50

Originally Posted by takascar2

Thats fine, Eric, as soon as we come up with an alternative energy source that is as energy-dense
as fossil fuels so as not to OBLITERATE the economy, then they can go bye-bye. Until that time, I'd rather we
tap domestic sources than have to buy from Hugo Chavez and Wahabi Islam

We have plenty of natural gas to use as a somewhat better transition. But if the energy companies spent more on green energy than they do on lobbying, we'd already have had this conversion long ago. They don't spend anything on it, so the government has to subsidize new projects.

"Obliterating the economy" is really a false scare tactic, though I don't expect it to subside as long as Republicans are around. New energy plants will create many jobs.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

We need to do both.

I think "drill baby drill" without investment in developing an alternative infrastructure is a mistake. And I think not developing additional conventional energy today (because we insist ONLY on "green alternatives or nothing") is also a mistake.

We should view fossil fuel production as a bridge to the time when we have enough of an alternative infrastructure to first become independent on Middle East oil, then on all fossil fuels further down the road. But we need to stop kicking the can on alternatives. We need to build out the 21st century energy infrastructure **and** increase domestic production so we don't need the Middle East any more. Too many policy makers consider these two ideas mutually exclusive as if policy has to be "either/or" instead of "and", and I don't think they should be.

Over time there should be less emphasis on fossil fuels and more on cleaner alternatives, but this can be a gradual process over decades.

We already have plenty of domestic production. We need to phase it out and phase in the alternatives. That seems pretty simple to me. We don't need drill baby drill; we already have done enough drilling, pretty much. We don't need the drastic increase in domestic fossil fuel drilling and mining that you insist on above. We can keep using what we pump now until we don't need it; the sooner the better. We have already phased out most of the imported Middle East oil to the USA. If another cutoff comes, that would only spur us on to convert faster. I agree natural gas is a viable transition fuel.

Reluctance to act politically is the only problem we have on this. We only have one decade, not decades, before unthinkable consequences hit us. We need to base policy more on science, and less on what is convenient for big company CEOs and Wall St. investors.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Fair enough -- my only point on the alternatives issue is that if we wait for the "free market" to do *all* the heavy lifting with respect to alternative sources, it might not respond until we have a major supply crisis in conventional fossil fuels -- and it would take years to build out an alternative infrastructure no matter how much money you threw at it. So we need to at least get started now. The sooner we start (together with developing more domestic conventional sources), the less urgency in rapid and expensive buildouts. We can and should transition -- not go cold turkey, not fire all our fossil fuel bullets before developing other sources. I think we should set goals, such as "get an additional 2% of our energy needs from clean renewable sources each year." I pulled the 2% number out of my butt, to be honest, but that's the sort of thing I'm referring to. We don't need an immediate, costly, economy-killing buildout in a short period of time -- but we can't keep waiting, either.

Also agreed on natural gas. It's cleaner than oil and coal, and the US has enough proven reserves for many decades, even accounting for economic and population growth. It's not a permanent solution, but it is a proven resource that's mostly clean and one that scales well -- and one we know can do the job for at least the rest of my lifetime and probably then some given the proven reserves we have domestically.

It sounds like you are taking into account only our desire for lots of energy, and not the needs of the planet. Ever hear of climate change? We can't have a healthy economy without a healthy ecology.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yah, thats the problem with "green" energy. They have the same problem in Denmark where they have windmills installed that apparently don't generate enough electricity (on an average day) and they have to pay through the nose for imported power since they shut down most of their fossil generation.

Its poetic justice that Denmark has this problem since they gave us that famous one-world-government champion Connie Hedergaard (Caaaahneee). The two people that most frighten me when it comes to bad government action are Connie and her sidekick, that long hair Peruvian freak scientist who works for the UN and claims to be a "top climate scientist". The two of them were strutting around the Copenhagen summit in 2009 like they owned the place (and whose real mission is to own the world)

The bottom line is that solar and wind are nowhere as energy-dense as fossil or nuclear and are therefore non-starters in their current form. We need to fund much more research into alternative energy as we are not there yet.

Another story is about the City of L.A. that demanded that its municipal utility, LADWP, get a certain wildly unrealistic percentage of its total
power from renewables by a unrealistic date. The LADWP people came up with an estimate of the cost, combining purchased power and native solar and wind assets (to be built). The cost was so astronomical that the electric rates on the people of L.A. would have to more than double.

When the city council heard this, they accused LADWP of not coming up with an accurate estimate. The council then hired an outside firm to make an estimate and they came up with roughly the same number as the LADWP people.

I don't know where it stands now, but I assure you, when people start recognizing the costs of "green energy" as it stands TODAY, it will be a non-starter politically.

We'd better "start," and "start" getting the "political" will to start; "non-starting" is not an option.

http://www.labeyondcoal.org/uploads/...11_-_final.pdf

I don't know how the above article stands in relation to the events you report above, but this analysis differs from those.

excerpt, page 13:

5. Conclusions
The analysis above demonstrates that under even the most conservative scenarios (a direct onefor-
one replacement of coal with gas), LADWP ratepayers will not be penalized for shedding coal
by 2020 instead of 2027. If LADWP targets efficiency as a serious, preferred resource rather than
a short-term requirement, the city can not only transition off of coal easily, but LADWP customers
will see a significant benefit in bills, relative to the plan put forward by the utility. An even more
aggressive move towards efficiency and renewable resources can position LADWP as a leading
utility in renewable energy and as a low-carbon leader, at even greater savings for the utility’s
customers.

Also see:

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
2010 Power Integrated Resources Plan Executive Summary

Originally Posted by James50

You obviously have not tried to site a new reservoir recently. I am on the periphery of water supply problems in Georgia. I can tell you that siting reservoirs takes years of EIS, lawsuits, and negotiations with the Corp of Engineers. Then it takes a least a decade to build once you have the permit. The idea that we could ever build enough of these lakes to provide significant storage is ludicrous. Many areas of the country are too flat and where it is not too flat it is too environmentally sensitive.

James50

I should hope that it takes a while to get these up and running, since once done there's no going back. Nonetheless, let's not abandon the effort just because it's hard. The envornmental studies save pain later. I'mm all for them. I also undertand the limitations. I live on one these things, and know that others who also do have serious issues. I don't. In fact, the upper lake is an economic driver in the area (the lower lake, not so much). So they have multiple benefits, and their place in the power grid is all good.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"Obliterating the economy" is really a false scare tactic

And your end of the planet apocalypse is what?

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I should hope that it takes a while to get these up and running, since once done there's no going back. Nonetheless, let's not abandon the effort just because it's hard. The envornmental studies save pain later. I'mm all for them. I also undertand the limitations. I live on one these things, and know that others who also do have serious issues. I don't. In fact, the upper lake is an economic driver in the area (the lower lake, not so much). So they have multiple benefits, and their place in the power grid is all good.

Sorry, M&L, its not just hard, it is a complete non-starter at the scale of storage we need.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Sorry, M&L, its not just hard, it is a complete non-starter at the scale of storage we need.

James50

Why do you insist on setting the bar at this level? Does every new idea have to have the potential to supply 100% of our energy to qualify?

Here’s the problem that I see that our country has – we’ve become polarized around the energy strategy issue, just as we seem to polarize every other important issue.

Instead of looking at the issue of limited natural resources and saying, “Gee, doesn’t it make sense to push ahead with some diversification, while we still have time, so that we don’t have to generate a new ‘Manhattan Project,’” we instead continue to allow companies to exploit the low-hanging fruit, extract both resources and profits while leaving the mess for the public/government to clean up.

I think you’d have a hard time making the case that companies don’t leave messes behind whenever they are allowed to? That was the point of my “list” that you so easily dismissed as having nothing to do with our societal plans to meet our energy needs in the future.

Why is it that the only solutions put forth by the oil company apologists are drill-baby-drill, and it’s always got some environmental risk attached, and we are always told, “Oh, it’ll be different this time. This time, we’ll be careful.” Listening to the oil company apologists, you’d think that the only oil left in the world for us to use is located in environmentally sensitive areas.

Furthermore, why is it that “jobs” only emerge from hydrocarbon-based energy extraction?

Parenthetically, as a life-long Rocky Mountain westerner, I can predict what western North Dakota and eastern Montana will look like after the pipeline is finished. I’ve lived it all my life and seen it again, and again, and again. And it’s not pretty. A gush of money will wash over the local communities like a tsunami, and they will have to respond to trailer parks full of temporary kids to educate, and will have to build infrastructure to service all kinds of temporary residents, and when it’s over, the companies that benefited most will simply walk away. Nothing will be done to make the permanent residents whole. There will be junk, chemicals, waste products, and all manner of detritus left behind. Oh, another example for my “list” – the radioactive tailings left behind from the 1950’s uranium mining activity in the mountain west that leach into the water. To say nothing of the social problems that come with a boom-bust event that comes to a place like this.

Why is diversification NOT a good principle? I remember when Denver fell on its ass in 1984, back when it was more of a pure “Oil Town” that even Dallas. Denver picked itself up and is now highly diversified economically, and is doing pretty well even now, except for real estate.
Why is the pipeline from Canada to Texas and off-shore drilling in heretofore sensitive areas the ONLY solution?

Why in god’s name can we not have a diversified energy strategy that encompasses as many different possibilities as we can think of?

Well, unfortunately, I think I know the answer. The big companies that are going to benefit, just don’t give a shit. It matters to them not at all. Their only focus is on next quarter’s earnings and on next January’s bonus. F#$k Montana. F#$k North Dakota and South Dakota. F#$k Nebraska and its OglalaNational Grasslands. F#$k the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations. Hell, F#$k Canada as well. And all the people there and the horses they rode in on – not enough votes to count anyway out here in flyover country. And their confidence is supreme because they know they’ve got enough bought politicians in their pocket to pull it off for many more years.

Originally Posted by James50

And your end of the planet apocalypse is what?

James50

At least we have a planet; not the case after YOUR apocalypse, toward which we are rapidly heading.

The end of the green transition is a society that works for everybody, including other species.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

At least we have a planet; not the case after YOUR apocalypse, toward which we are rapidly heading.

The end of the green transition is a society that works for everybody, including other species.

I am not predicting any apocalypses. You and the right wingers want to do that. I think we will continue to muddle along with a basically fossil fueled economy for the foreseeable future. We will gradually use less and less coal and replace it with nat gas and nukes. Solar and wind will never get above 20% until we have gigawatt day kinds of storage or we figure out a way to operate with much less energy than we do today. I see both those possibilities as remote. The move away from coal will not be finished in your or my lifetime. The world is not coming to an end.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am not predicting any apocalypses. You and the right wingers want to do that. I think we will continue to muddle along with a basically fossil fueled economy for the foreseeable future. We will gradually use less and less coal and replace it with nat gas and nukes. Solar and wind will never get above 20% until we have gigawatt day kinds of storage or we figure out a way to operate with much less energy than we do today. I see both those possibilities as remote. The move away from coal will not be finished in your or my lifetime. The world is not coming to an end.

James50

You will be proven wrong. My predictions tend to be correct. We will be entering a green 3rd industrial revolution in this decade. This is not only a political prediction but an astrological one.

If we don't, then climate change will cause a lot of havoc that could send many nations into decline, including ours. It will anyway, now. Millions having to migrate into the remaining habitable territories will certainly be "inconvenient," and standards of living will certainly be a lot more difficult. All except a few will live in what today we call 3rd world conditions. Populations will crash everywhere, and it will be generations before a recovery starts; another chance to do the right thing. I say, why hang on to bad politics? Do the right thing now James.

It is not a "remote possibility" that we have a smart grid that can direct energy where it is needed when the sun isn't out and the wind isn't blowing. We can do that now.

The only thing I can't quite figure yet, is when the next financial crash will be, or just what it will take to bring down the big money bosses who are the rulers of this country, and are keeping us all hooked on oil just to line their own pockets-- and for no other reason. It could not be clearer. The obstacles to conversion are not technical; they are 100% political. And as Al Gore said, political will is a renewable resource. You may be able to question the technical abilities of human beings to update current solar and wind technologies; you can't really debate the entire scientific community about global warming. It is real and man-made. To do nothing about it, just to protect the position of a few greedy CEOs, is the worst stupidity.

(Reuters) - A weaker sun over the next 90 years is not likely to significantly delay a rise in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases, a report said Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80M1HG20120123

The study, by Britain's Meteorological Office and the university of Reading, found that the Sun's output would decrease up until 2100 but this would only lead to a fall in global temperatures of 0.08 degrees Celsius.

Scientists have warned that more extreme weather is likely across the globe this century as the Earth's climate warms.

The world is expected to heat up by over 2 degrees Celsius this century due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Current global pledges to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are not seen as sufficient to stop the planet heating up beyond 2 degrees, a threshold scientists say risks an unstable climate in which weather extremes are common.

"This research shows that the most likely change in the sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases," said Gareth Jones, climate change detection scientist at the Met Office.

"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system," he added.

During the 20th century, solar activity increased to a maximum level and recent studies have suggested this level of activity has reached, or is nearing, an end.

The scientists used this maximum level as a starting point to project possible changes in the sun's activity over this century.

The study also showed that if the sun's output went below a threshold reached between 1645 and 1715 - called the Maunder Minimum when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - global temperature would fall by 0.13 degrees Celsius.

"The most likely scenario is that we'll see an overall reduction of the sun's activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820)," said Mike Lockwood, solar studies expert at the university of Reading.

"The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum - or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century - is about 8 percent."

(Reporting by Nina Chestney, editing by William Hardy)

PS: Thanks James for pointing me to Reuters. You didn't realize what you started!

Remember, the left is fact-based.

(Reuters) - Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80H06J20120118

The warnings are carried in the government's "Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change," which sums up advancing scientific knowledge about the consequences and costs of global warming for China -- the world's second biggest economy and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution.

Global warming fed by greenhouse gases from industry, transport and shifting land-use poses a long-term threat to China's prosperity, health and food output, says the report. With China's economy likely to rival the United States' in size in coming decades, that will trigger wider consequences.

"China faces extremely grim ecological and environmental conditions under the impact of continued global warming and changes to China's regional environment," says the 710-page report, officially published late last year but released for public sale only recently.

Even so, China's rising emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, will begin to fall off only after about 2030, with big falls only after mid-century, says the report.

Assuming no measures to counter global warming, grain output in the world's most populous nation could fall from 5 to 20 percent by 2050, depending on whether a "fertilization effect" from more carbon dioxide in the air offsets losses, says the report.

But that possible fall can be held in check by improved crop choice and farming practices, as well as increased irrigation and fertilizer use.

China is the world's biggest consumer of cereals and has increasingly turned to foreign suppliers of corn and soy beans.

The report was written by teams of scientists supervised by government officials, and follows up on a first assessment released in 2007. It does not set policy, but offers a basis of evidence and forecasts that will shape policy.

RISING COSTS OF GROWING FOOD

"Generally, the observed impacts of climate change on agriculture have been both positive and negative, but mainly negative," Lin Erda, one of the chief authors of the report, told Reuters.

"But steadily, as the temperatures continue to rise, the negative consequences will be increasingly serious," said Lin, an expert on climate change and farming at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

"For a certain length of time, people will be able to adapt, but costs of adaptation will rise, including for agriculture."

Under different scenarios of greenhouse gas levels and their effects, by the end of this century China's average atmospheric temperature will have risen by between 2.5 degrees and 4.6 degrees Celsius above the average for 1961-1990.

Water, either too much or too little, lies at the heart of how that warming could trip up China's budding prosperity.

"Climate change will lead to severe imbalances in China's water resources within each year and across the years. In most areas, precipitation will be increasingly concentrated in the summer and autumn rainy seasons, and floods and droughts will become increasingly frequent," says the report.

"Without effective measures in response, by the latter part of the 21st century, climate change could still constitute a threat to our country's food security," it says.

Under one scenario of how global warming will affect water availability, by 2050 eight of mainland China's 31 provinces and provincial-status cities could face severe water shortages -- meaning less than 500 cubic meters per resident -- and another 10 could face less dire chronic shortages.

"Since the 1950s, over 82 percent of glaciers have been in a state of retreat, and the pace has accelerated since the 1990s," the report says of China's glaciers in Tibet and nearby areas that feed major rivers.

RISING SEA LEVELS

In low-lying coastal regions, rising seas will press up against big cities and export zones that have stood at the forefront of China's industrialization.

In the 30 years up to 2009, the sea level off Shanghai rose 11.5 centimeters (4.5 inches); in the next 30 years, it will probably rise another 10 to 15 centimeters.

China's efforts to protect vulnerable coastal areas with embankments are inadequate, says the report, noting their vulnerability to typhoons and flood tides that global warming could intensify.

There are sure to be shifts in Chinese crop patterns as well, says the report. More rice and other crops will probably grow in the northeast, thanks to warmer weather and possibly more rain. In the northwest cotton-growing region of Xinjiang, shrinking water availability could lead to a "marked decline in agricultural crop productivity".

In northern and southwest areas, winter wheat harvests could shrink due to shifting seasons and less rain when it is needed. Corn-growing regions will need more irrigation and fertilizer.

"Future climate warming will therefore increase the costs of agriculture," says the report.

China, with 1.34 billion people, already emits a quarter of the world's CO2, with the United States the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter.

The report forecasts China's CO2 emissions could reach between 9 and 9.5 billion tons in 2020, given the government's goal of cutting the carbon pollution emitted for each unit of growth by 40-45 percent compared to 2005 levels.

China's emissions totaled 8.3 billion tons in 2010, according to BP Statistics, representing annual growth of 10.4 percent.

The report says China's emissions reduction efforts up to 2020 will cost 10 trillion yuan ($1.6 trillion), including 5 trillion yuan for energy-saving technology and new and renewable energy.

"Many cost-effective and mature technologies for energy saving and new and renewable energy have already been widely applied," it says. "In the future, controlling greenhouse gas emissions will require more costly and less mature technologies."

(Reporting by Chris Buckley; Editing by David Fogarty)