<p>The real problem, of course, is that it's not going to be limited to a small rise in temperature.  </p>

<p>However, WRT energy generation in particular, most forms of generation become less efficient as temperature increases.  For thermoelectric generation - fossil fuel, nuclear, &amp; geothermal - that's obvious thermodynamics.</p>

<p>Photovoltaic cell efficiency also decreases with increasing temperature (e.g. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213000829" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213000829</a> ).  The drop in energy production during winter is a product of factors like the shorter day and lower sun angle, not the temperature.</p>

<p>Unless I've missed something, that leaves just hydroelectric &amp; wind generation.  AFAIK, they aren't directly affected by temperature.  Changes in weather patterns might produce more or less precipitation and stronger or weaker winds in any particular location, but I don't think the effects are predictable, or necessarily a net increase.</p>

<p>Finally, increased temperature affects the efficiency of power transmission.  Electrical resistance increases with temperature, so an increase in temperature leads to increased transmission losses, and a decrease in the effective capacity of the lines: <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114008" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114008</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T19:36:57.953Z
I have been reading about Global Warming ( or whatever the new name is ) , for 45 years and this week in Houston we are having record lows.  I guess you need to be a BELIEVER to understand.
blacksmith37
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T20:12:10.867Z
@blacksmith37 hopefully your 45 years of reading has enabled you to understand the difference between climate and weather, and hence that it being cold this week in Houston is irrelevant to the question of whether global warming is happening.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-25T04:06:16.637Z
@blacksmith37 when cold air is moved from one place to another it will be replaced by potentially warmer air so your understanding of climate change is a little limited.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-25T05:26:50.810Z
@blacksmith37: Whether you are a "believer" or not is absolutely irrelevant to the question of how increased temperatures would affect power generation.  If you dislike thinking about global warming, consider the well-known difference between summer and winter.  Or maybe you don't believe in that, either :-)
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-26T14:57:55.030Z
I have heard the climate has nothing to do with the actual temperatures for decades , a new excuse is needed .I am a simple engineer ; if I can't measure it or count it or weigh it or see it , I can't understand it.
blacksmith37
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-27T17:06:19.630Z
@blacksmith37: Don't believe everything your hear :-)  But you (well, not you personally, but lots of people working together) CAN measure temperatures at thousands of locations around the globe, and discover that they're increasing.  As for not seeing it, can you understand that if you jump off the Empire State Building, you might have a problem?  Even if things seem perfectly fine as you're passing the 40th floor :-)
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-29T14:08:43.757Z
NASA reported satellite global temperatures about 20 years ago, but when the temperatures showed no warming Hansen (?) ( crony of Al Gore) removed the info. Legally NASA must report the data so now they publish code gibberish.
blacksmith37
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-30T03:51:39.787Z
@blacksmith37: This is false.  You can download the data here: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-observation-data/near-real-time/download-nrt-data  And what exactly is your beef with Al Gore?  Isn't the man allowed to have friends?
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-31T16:07:19.297Z
My internet says that " page does not exist".
blacksmith37
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-31T18:21:38.643Z
@blacksmith37: Must be a problem with your internet.  The link works fine for me. (And it's hardly the only one with data, just the first that turned up in a quick search.)  And incidentally, if you understand what you can't see, weigh, or measure, why do you seem to take all these AGW-denialist claims as gospel?  I would wager you've done no weighing or measuring on them :-)
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T18:32:35.793Z
2019-07-24T18:38:11.373Z
2019-07-24T18:38:11.373Z
jamesqf
<p>A <a href="https://phys.org/news/2019-07-global-energy.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recent study</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>in temperate zones, a warming climate will increase the energy used for cooling during summer but reduce the energy used for heating during winter.<br>
  "In the tropics, we see a positive effect—energy increase—but as you move away from the tropics, we see a positive and a negative effect," he says. "When you add up the two positives and the negative, you could in principle get a negative.. .but what we actually see is a substantial positive"—a significant net increase in energy usage.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-30T05:21:38.490Z
2019-07-30T05:21:38.490Z
Keith McClary
<blockquote>
  <p>Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That may be true if you live at a high latitude, but it isn't universally true.
Fortunately, solar is not our only source of low-carbon electricity, and in many climates, wind farms and wave generators become <em>more</em> effective in winter.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during
  those months</p>
</blockquote>

<p>[citation needed]</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>so we fall back on nuclear.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Do we?
There may be some country where this is the case, but it's not common anywhere that I'm familiar with.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global
  temperature? I mean, a higher temperature means you don't have to warm
  your home during winter (as much). During summer, you can use the
  extra energy generated by the photovoltaic cells to power
  airconditioners</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A higher temperature means less heating needed and more cooling needed. I don't know how it will balance out globally, or on a per-country (or per-electrical-grid) basis. I think you're hoping that the extra cooling isn't a problem because of getting more power from photovoltaics, but I think you're assuming that higher temperatures mean more sunlight. This isn't necessarily the case.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>will the rise in temperature have a positive effect on our energy
  production and the ability to satisfy energy demand?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The rise in global average temperature, in itself: I don't know, and I don't know if anybody knows. Different energy sources will be affected differently, and much will depend on regional weather responses to changes in climate. </p>

<p>The socio-economic effects of global warming, IMHO, will almost certainly have a net negative effect on our ability to satisfy demand - unless we have a full-on collapse of civilization in some areas and demand crashes.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T20:10:48.297Z
2019-07-24T20:10:48.297Z
Semidiurnal Simon
<p>We are going to get climate change whether we like it or not. Climate change has been happening throughout the last 4 billion years, and it is highly improbable that mankind is suddenly going to stop dead it in its tracks in the 21st century. It can't be denied that human activity is very gradually increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but up to a point this process is self regulating. The higher the concentration of CO2, the more vigorously plants will grow and extract it again, but this self regulation could be overwhelmed if the amount of CO2 increases too rapidly. The present warming phase began 12,000 years ago, long before human activities contributed to CO2 levels, so there must have been some other cause. It isn't known for sure whether the sun's radiation is constant and never varies. We are now in an interglacial, which if we go by the geological record is due to end in about 5,000 years time, then it's back to the ice ages again. There was a 450 year Little Ice Age between about AD 1350 and AD 1810.</p>

<p>Higher temperatures don't necessarily mean more sunlight for your solar cells, but the prospect of serious climate warming provides an incentive to develop non-polluting sources of energy, of which fusion power is the most promising (yes, I know fusion produces small amounts of radioactive pollutants, but nothing by comparison with fission). I'm a bit puzzled by your snowball effect of higher temperatures. I would have thought a snowball effect would be more likely with lower temperatures.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T13:25:07.820Z
The sun's radiation does vary and has been measured varying - therefore it is easy to take it out of the observed temperature changes over the last couple of centuries. It does not explain the warming we've seen over the last century.
winwaed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T13:57:44.940Z
I'm not talking about the 11-year sunspot cycle, I'm talking about a much longer and possibly erratic dimming which might, for example account for the Little Ice Age.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T14:03:11.520Z
I am talking about variations over the last century or so.
winwaed
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T14:08:38.200Z
What I mean with the snowball effect is that once temperatures rise to a certain point, there's no need for humans anymore in order for rapid climate change to continue. Simplified: higher temperature means less ice, less ice means less reflective surfaces for light to travel back into space, which causes a higher temperature. Or is that incorrect? The term "snowball effect" might not be right.
TVASO
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T14:14:24.353Z
I see what you mean, but your choice of words could have been better. Yes, snow and Ice do reflect energy back into space.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T10:24:38.123Z
@TVASO Sounds like you're looking for the phrase "ice albedo feedback" and whether sea ice and ice sheets are tipping elements in the climate system.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T10:28:04.340Z
The first para of this answer is a strawman argument - the question is about relationships between climate and energy production/demand in the near future (e.g., 21st century).
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T18:36:02.797Z
Plants in nature do not, in general, grow more vigorously given increased CO2, whatever some may do in an experimental greenhouse.  Their growth is most often limited by the sunlight they recieve, or by other factors such as water & soil nutrients.  Thus the use of irrigation and artifical fertilizers in agriculture.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T12:22:46.893Z
2019-07-23T12:22:46.893Z
Michael Walsby
<p>Nowadays, everyone talks about it: climate change, and more importantly, how to stop it from happening. Although there's a lot of debate around the topic, the conscensus is that by inventing a way of generating clean energy, we can slow down (and maybe even reverse) the effects global warming has on the planet. Using energy that was created without burning millions of years worth of stored carbon, we can not only power our everyday lives, but also capture the carbon we've been blowing into our atmosphere using the energy-intensive process of carbon capture.</p>

<p>But there are still some problems. Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter when it comes to fueling the homes of millions (at least where I live). We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during those months, so we fall back on nuclear.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global temperature? I mean, a higher temperature means you don't have to warm your home during winter (as much). During summer, you can use the extra energy generated by the photovoltaic cells to power airconditioners in order to cool buildings and (maybe) use some excess energy to stop the snowball effect that those higher temperatures would have on the climate and keep it at a constant level. Even though cooling requires more energy than heating, might it break even?</p>

<p>I don't have the knowledge nor the means to calculate if this is the case.</p>

<p>I know that climate change is a thing and that it's really, really bad. I'm not a guy that doesn't believe the effects it has on our surroundings. I just don't have the means to investigate this idea, that's why I ask you: will the rise in temperature have a positive effect on our energy production and the ability to satisfy energy demand?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T11:30:19.377Z
Don't forget air conditioning - that works the other way around...
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-23T13:35:12.417Z
This question may fit better on [Sustainability.SE].  Technically, there is no need for any home to need any active heating or cooling, except in extreme climates.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T01:52:26.640Z
Re *Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter when it comes to fueling the homes of millions (at least where I live).* That will remain the case regardless of how warm the planet gets in the next hundred years. Photovoltaics are pretty much useless during winter where you live because the Sun is at too low of an angle in winter (at least where you live).
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T01:56:00.870Z
Re *We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during those months, so we fall back on nuclear.* Wait, what? What's wrong with nuclear? The problem is electricity generated from fossil fuels. The number of people killed by nuclear power is much smaller than the number already killed by fossil fuels, by a very, very wide margin.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T07:39:40.007Z
@DavidHammen But if it gets warmer, will we still need to warm our building during winter? If not, other sources of clean energy may be enough to cover the other energy demand. Except for the nuclear waste and the tiny chance of meltdown, there's indeed nothing wrong with nuclear fission. But for some reason, our politicians are deciding to close these power plants and want to go 100% renewable. And that might be more feasible if temperatures rise a bit. Again: It's just speculation, I can't run the numbers.
TVASO
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T19:43:41.713Z
One problem , more agricultural production will force crop prices down . More land will become available ( Russia, Canada, etc.) than may be lost. Not counting the proven affect that higher CO2 reduces some plant water requirements.
blacksmith37
<climate-change>
Isn't a warmer climate better for energy generation?
TVASO
# Isn't a warmer climate better for energy generation?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-23)

Nowadays, everyone talks about it: climate change, and more importantly, how to stop it from happening. Although there's a lot of debate around the topic, the conscensus is that by inventing a way of generating clean energy, we can slow down (and maybe even reverse) the effects global warming has on the planet. Using energy that was created without burning millions of years worth of stored carbon, we can not only power our everyday lives, but also capture the carbon we've been blowing into our atmosphere using the energy-intensive process of carbon capture.

But there are still some problems. Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter when it comes to fueling the homes of millions (at least where I live). We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during those months, so we fall back on nuclear.

Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global temperature? I mean, a higher temperature means you don't have to warm your home during winter (as much). During summer, you can use the extra energy generated by the photovoltaic cells to power airconditioners in order to cool buildings and (maybe) use some excess energy to stop the snowball effect that those higher temperatures would have on the climate and keep it at a constant level. Even though cooling requires more energy than heating, might it break even?

I don't have the knowledge nor the means to calculate if this is the case.

I know that climate change is a thing and that it's really, really bad. I'm not a guy that doesn't believe the effects it has on our surroundings. I just don't have the means to investigate this idea, that's why I ask you: will the rise in temperature have a positive effect on our energy production and the ability to satisfy energy demand?

**Tags:** climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Don't forget air conditioning - that works the other way around...  
> **username_2**: This question may fit better on [Sustainability.SE].  Technically, there is no need for any home to need any active heating or cooling, except in extreme climates.  
> **username_3**: Re *Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter when it comes to fueling the homes of millions (at least where I live).* That will remain the case regardless of how warm the planet gets in the next hundred years. Photovoltaics are pretty much useless during winter where you live because the Sun is at too low of an angle in winter (at least where you live).  
> **username_3**: Re *We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during those months, so we fall back on nuclear.* Wait, what? What's wrong with nuclear? The problem is electricity generated from fossil fuels. The number of people killed by nuclear power is much smaller than the number already killed by fossil fuels, by a very, very wide margin.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 But if it gets warmer, will we still need to warm our building during winter? If not, other sources of clean energy may be enough to cover the other energy demand. Except for the nuclear waste and the tiny chance of meltdown, there's indeed nothing wrong with nuclear fission. But for some reason, our politicians are deciding to close these power plants and want to go 100% renewable. And that might be more feasible if temperatures rise a bit. Again: It's just speculation, I can't run the numbers.  
> **username_4**: One problem , more agricultural production will force crop prices down . More land will become available ( Russia, Canada, etc.) than may be lost. Not counting the proven affect that higher CO2 reduces some plant water requirements.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-07-24. Score: 2

The real problem, of course, is that it's not going to be limited to a small rise in temperature.

However, WRT energy generation in particular, most forms of generation become less efficient as temperature increases. For thermoelectric generation - fossil fuel, nuclear, & geothermal - that's obvious thermodynamics.

Photovoltaic cell efficiency also decreases with increasing temperature (e.g. <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213000829> ). The drop in energy production during winter is a product of factors like the shorter day and lower sun angle, not the temperature.

Unless I've missed something, that leaves just hydroelectric & wind generation. AFAIK, they aren't directly affected by temperature. Changes in weather patterns might produce more or less precipitation and stronger or weaker winds in any particular location, but I don't think the effects are predictable, or necessarily a net increase.

Finally, increased temperature affects the efficiency of power transmission. Electrical resistance increases with temperature, so an increase in temperature leads to increased transmission losses, and a decrease in the effective capacity of the lines: <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114008>

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I have been reading about Global Warming ( or whatever the new name is ) , for 45 years and this week in Houston we are having record lows.  I guess you need to be a BELIEVER to understand.  
> **username_6**: @username_4 hopefully your 45 years of reading has enabled you to understand the difference between climate and weather, and hence that it being cold this week in Houston is irrelevant to the question of whether global warming is happening.  
> **username_7**: @username_4 when cold air is moved from one place to another it will be replaced by potentially warmer air so your understanding of climate change is a little limited.  
> **username_5**: @username_4: Whether you are a "believer" or not is absolutely irrelevant to the question of how increased temperatures would affect power generation.  If you dislike thinking about global warming, consider the well-known difference between summer and winter.  Or maybe you don't believe in that, either :-)  
> **username_4**: I have heard the climate has nothing to do with the actual temperatures for decades , a new excuse is needed .I am a simple engineer ; if I can't measure it or count it or weigh it or see it , I can't understand it.  
> **username_5**: @username_4: Don't believe everything your hear :-)  But you (well, not you personally, but lots of people working together) CAN measure temperatures at thousands of locations around the globe, and discover that they're increasing.  As for not seeing it, can you understand that if you jump off the Empire State Building, you might have a problem?  Even if things seem perfectly fine as you're passing the 40th floor :-)  
> **username_4**: NASA reported satellite global temperatures about 20 years ago, but when the temperatures showed no warming username_7 (?) ( crony of Al Gore) removed the info. Legally NASA must report the data so now they publish code gibberish.  
> **username_5**: @username_4: This is false.  You can download the data here: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-observation-data/near-real-time/download-nrt-data  And what exactly is your beef with Al Gore?  Isn't the man allowed to have friends?  
> **username_4**: My internet says that " page does not exist".  
> **username_5**: @username_4: Must be a problem with your internet.  The link works fine for me. (And it's hardly the only one with data, just the first that turned up in a quick search.)  And incidentally, if you understand what you can't see, weigh, or measure, why do you seem to take all these AGW-denialist claims as gospel?  I would wager you've done no weighing or measuring on them :-)  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-07-30. Score: 1

A [recent study](https://phys.org/news/2019-07-global-energy.html) says:

> in temperate zones, a warming climate will increase the energy used for cooling during summer but reduce the energy used for heating during winter.  
> "In the tropics, we see a positive effect—energy increase—but as you move away from the tropics, we see a positive and a negative effect," he says. "When you add up the two positives and the negative, you could in principle get a negative.. .but what we actually see is a substantial positive"—a significant net increase in energy usage.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-07-24. Score: 0

> Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter

That may be true if you live at a high latitude, but it isn't universally true.
Fortunately, solar is not our only source of low-carbon electricity, and in many climates, wind farms and wave generators become *more* effective in winter.

> We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during
> those months

[citation needed]

> so we fall back on nuclear.

Do we?
There may be some country where this is the case, but it's not common anywhere that I'm familiar with.

> Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global
> temperature? I mean, a higher temperature means you don't have to warm
> your home during winter (as much). During summer, you can use the
> extra energy generated by the photovoltaic cells to power
> airconditioners

A higher temperature means less heating needed and more cooling needed. I don't know how it will balance out globally, or on a per-country (or per-electrical-grid) basis. I think you're hoping that the extra cooling isn't a problem because of getting more power from photovoltaics, but I think you're assuming that higher temperatures mean more sunlight. This isn't necessarily the case.

> will the rise in temperature have a positive effect on our energy
> production and the ability to satisfy energy demand?

The rise in global average temperature, in itself: I don't know, and I don't know if anybody knows. Different energy sources will be affected differently, and much will depend on regional weather responses to changes in climate.

The socio-economic effects of global warming, IMHO, will almost certainly have a net negative effect on our ability to satisfy demand - unless we have a full-on collapse of civilization in some areas and demand crashes.


---

### Answer by username_9 on 2019-07-23. Score: -7

We are going to get climate change whether we like it or not. Climate change has been happening throughout the last 4 billion years, and it is highly improbable that mankind is suddenly going to stop dead it in its tracks in the 21st century. It can't be denied that human activity is very gradually increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but up to a point this process is self regulating. The higher the concentration of CO2, the more vigorously plants will grow and extract it again, but this self regulation could be overwhelmed if the amount of CO2 increases too rapidly. The present warming phase began 12,000 years ago, long before human activities contributed to CO2 levels, so there must have been some other cause. It isn't known for sure whether the sun's radiation is constant and never varies. We are now in an interglacial, which if we go by the geological record is due to end in about 5,000 years time, then it's back to the ice ages again. There was a 450 year Little Ice Age between about AD 1350 and AD 1810.

Higher temperatures don't necessarily mean more sunlight for your solar cells, but the prospect of serious climate warming provides an incentive to develop non-polluting sources of energy, of which fusion power is the most promising (yes, I know fusion produces small amounts of radioactive pollutants, but nothing by comparison with fission). I'm a bit puzzled by your snowball effect of higher temperatures. I would have thought a snowball effect would be more likely with lower temperatures.

> **Comments:**
> **username_10**: The sun's radiation does vary and has been measured varying - therefore it is easy to take it out of the observed temperature changes over the last couple of centuries. It does not explain the warming we've seen over the last century.  
> **username_9**: I'm not talking about the 11-year sunspot cycle, I'm talking about a much longer and possibly erratic dimming which might, for example account for the Little Ice Age.  
> **username_10**: I am talking about variations over the last century or so.  
> **username_0**: What I mean with the snowball effect is that once temperatures rise to a certain point, there's no need for humans anymore in order for rapid climate change to continue. Simplified: higher temperature means less ice, less ice means less reflective surfaces for light to travel back into space, which causes a higher temperature. Or is that incorrect? The term "snowball effect" might not be right.  
> **username_9**: I see what you mean, but your choice of words could have been better. Yes, snow and Ice do reflect energy back into space.  
> **username_11**: @username_0 Sounds like you're looking for the phrase "ice albedo feedback" and whether sea ice and ice sheets are tipping elements in the climate system.  
> **username_11**: The first para of this answer is a strawman argument - the question is about relationships between climate and energy production/demand in the near future (e.g., 21st century).  
> **username_5**: Plants in nature do not, in general, grow more vigorously given increased CO2, whatever some may do in an experimental greenhouse.  Their growth is most often limited by the sunlight they recieve, or by other factors such as water & soil nutrients.  Thus the use of irrigation and artifical fertilizers in agriculture.  

---

