I'm still objective about the entire CO2 debacle. ;)
Climate change alone is expected to threaten with extinction approximately one quarter or more of all species on land by the year 2050, surpassing even habitat loss as the biggest threat to life on land. Species in the oceans and in fresh water are also at great risk from climate change, especially those that live in ecosystems like coral reefs that are highly sensitive to warming temperatures, but the full extent of that risk has not yet been calculated.
And how do you feel about the impact on the environment with increasing air and water temps?
Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss (http://www.chgeharvard.org/topic/climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss)
Agree? Disagree?
Animal tales from icy wonderlands by Paul Nicklen - a different take on ice disappearence, including some awesome pictures
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_nicklen_tales_of_ice_bound_wonderlands
Where is the scientific part in your post? It's kind of funny you use the word scientific to debunk what almost all scientist agree on.
If one is scientifically illiterate, as most politiciams are and most members of the public are, it's understandable that most people will simply accept the media reports that there is a 97% consensus among climatologists that CO2 increases could cause catastrophic changes in climate.
Such people are not able to understand or appreciate the validity of alternative views.
The hoax about climate change is not that it is not happening, but that we can prevent it by simply reducing CO2 levels. What hubris! :(
The potential consequences of the loss of a species are impressively illustrated by the classic example of the sea otters native to kelp forests. Sea otters feed, in part, on sea urchins, which eat kelp. Because in the past sea otters were extensively hunted in some areas, sea urchin populations burgeoned, leading to the widespread destruction of kelp forests. Consequently not only were habitats changed, but even the near-coastal currents were altered in some areas.
What do these so-called expert scientists know? A mate down the pub told me that it's all a hoax, and apparently most oil company chief execs agree with him. I think that pretty much settles it.
Well, Ray did say:
So he might side with the 3%, or simply likes to stir up a discussion.
Cheers,
Bart
I understood Ray to side with the 3% and I'm actually not sure why he has started this thread ;)I think he is trying to troll me into further demolishing his position as I did on the Trump thread. I'm not going to bite this time other than to note that he has totally misread the science behind the report. I'll leave it at that and bid this thread a fond adieu.
If one can't set up experiments to falsify a particular theory, and one can't conduct repeated experiments in real time to confirm that the results are consistent with a particular theory, then the theory has to remain a hypothesis.
That our current warming phase is mostly caused by our CO2 enissions is a hypothesis, not proven.
I think he is trying to troll me into further demolishing his position as I did on the Trump thread. I'm not going to bite this time other than to note that he has totally misread the science behind the report. I'll leave it at that and bid this thread a fond adieu.
Where is the scientific part in your post? It's kind of funny you use the word scientific to debunk what almost all scientist agree on.
Mostly the debate will be surpassed in a few decades since old fashioned fossil fuels will be dead due to competition from renewable energy. That is a hypothesis, of course :) But it is pretty certain that this will happen although there will be a fairly long tail of fossil burning before it disappears entirely.
Hans,
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you referring to the scientific evidence for the existence of the MWP, or the LIA, or the droughts and lack of monsoonal rain that destroyed the Khmer civilization? A google search will provide lots of evidence for these events.
Where is your scientific evidence that almost all scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming? I understand that those scientists whose livelihood is dependent upon writing papers that confirm that CO2 is the predominant cause of our current warming period, and their assistants who work in government funded Climate Research Centres, have an invested interest in exaggerating the certainty, otherwise funding would cease and they would lose their job.
But scientists in general, and particularly Geologist and Meteorologists tend to be more skeptical.
Check out this site:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#4c7c21a44c7c
If you want scientific evidence for the global effect of the MWP, then check out the following site which provides dozens (even hundreds) of links to research papers confirming that the MWP was a global phenomenom. This fact used to be denied by certain climate scientists who claimed the MWP was a local event confined to North Atlantic region. To quote:
"Recently however, a group of 'climate scientists' and activists have attempted to deny the existence of the MWP, or downplay its magnitude, or claim that it was only local to the North Atlantic region. The motivation for these people is to try to be able to claim that current warming is unprecedented and man-made. To support their false claims they have used flawed statistical techniques to construct the totally discredited 'hockey stick' picture.
There are hundreds of scientific papers that confirm the MWP, and confirm that it was a global phenomenon. Here are a few of these:"
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/mwp
Ray, my view is basically that the best route is to avoid the issues of fossil fuel burning and this will happen anyway sooner than most would think. Of course this can be debated endlessly at this point and only in 20-30 years can be sure about what actually happened. At that time we can also look back (if we are alive :) ) on all the countries and companies left behind because they didn't see in time what was happening.
Whereas my view is basically that we should clean up our environment, impose strict controls on the real noxious emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which we know with certainty have a health consequence
...
Wouldn't it be a disaster if we discovered in 40 years time that our current warming was mostly natural and the trillions of dollars spent on reducing CO2 emissions could have saved many lives if it had been spent on the development of houses resistant to cyclones and floods.
As a geologist, I have a few comments:
1. In the geological record, there is evidence of cyclicity in temperature.
2. There is an association between these cycles and, say, important volcanic periods and events.
3. For the last 150 years or so, we can measure and get temperature data that is a lot more reliable than when we want to investigate what happened, say, 200 million, or 50 million years ago.
4. There is no doubt that the temperature is rising, what is uncertain is whether this is part of a normal cycle, or whether this rising trend will surpass previous cycles in terms of temperature.
5. Also not certain is the role and impact of Man in this rising trend.
6. From what we know, too much CO2 is not good for the nearly-closed system that Earth is. Sometimes, even small changes can have a big impact; the Earth is a sensitive system.
In the end, it is better to be proactive and do something today, than wait for more 500 or 1000 years of data.
Whereas my view is basically that we should clean up our environment, impose strict controls on the real noxious emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which we know with certainty have a health consequence, develop electric cars and photovoltaic panels in conjunction with ultra-supercritical coal fired power plants so that we have plenty of low cost energy to build projects and reorganize our suburban structures so we can protect ourselves from the effects of extreme weather events.
Wouldn't it be a disaster if we discovered in 40 years time that our current warming was mostly natural and the trillions of dollars spent on reducing CO2 emissions could have saved many lives if it had been spent on the development of houses resistant to cyclones and floods.
All they need now is a stake at which to burn those denialists.
Either humans are or are not contributing. If we are, we should do something about it. If we are not, and we do something about it, what do we really lose? Sure, there is an economic cost, but there's always a cost for a disruptive technology or fundamental industrial change.
In short, there's no good reason not to do something about it (where as there are an enormous number of effectively NIMBY reasons which are extremely selfish).
We've become a species intent on making decisions that are current, rather than visionary. It's a shame, and it may be a massive evolutionary failure.
I think it's very doubtful that the presence of 7 billion humans on the planet with all their activities of urbanisation, covering large areas of ground with concrete and tar, agricultural practices which tend to strip the soil of its original carbon content and reduce the biodiversity of the soil, and major deforestation that takes place to clear land for agricultural purposes, and so on, could have no effect at all on climate.
...
As for trees and CO2... near more of them:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/09/the-earth-has-lungs-watch-them-breathe/
Maybe we should all depart to Mars and leave the world to become overgrown again?
Well, for the next 4 years, in America under Trump, the pendulum will swing away from regulation and funding for climate change research and government paid for implementation. Elon Musk will be unhappy. Property owners will be happy that they will be able to develop their land, again. The yellow bellied toad will again have to get on without the help of man.
Well, for the next 4 years, in America under Trump, the pendulum will swing away from regulation and funding for climate change research and government paid for implementation. Elon Musk will be unhappy.
Not only Elon Musk. One could e.g. expect import duties in e.g. the European Union for environmentally unfriendly produced products from the USA to be increased.It's been environmentalists in America that have pushed for so much regulation that it has become too expensive to build nuclear plants. Of course, the Chinese can build whatever they want. Who's going to argue with the communist leaders?
If only we could build a wall around the USA to keep the pollution in, that would be something. China is reducing their insane Carbon and other emissions by adding Nuclear power plants (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/china-s-nuclear-power-fleet-seen-overtaking-u-s-within-decade), and it will help them sell know-how and technology.
It's silly to think one lives in a sealed ecosystem, yet do business on a global scale. Silly and Naive.
Cheers,
Bart
Actually, Alan, it was good old Hanoi Jane and "The China Syndrome" that got it all started. Before that movie came out we'd been making some real headway producing power in a way that didn't contaminate the atmosphere. I know, because in the Air Force I was working a specialty associated with nuclear power. We'd begun powering an entire radar site at Sundance Wyoming with a small nuclear reactor. Once the movie was out our politicians took advantage of it to scare people and to begin absurd regulations in order to get votes from "environmentalists." It's never stopped.Small reactors are still being designed and built. the trouble with large light water reactors is that utilities won't build new ones these days. It's not just the permitting issue but also the potential liability to the power company post Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; and Fukishima. No locality wants them around any longer even though new reactor designs are far safer than the older ones. Toshiba just took a $6B write-down on its US nuclear power business (they bought Westinghouse some years ago).
Let's assume for a moment that anthropomorphic climate change is in fact a "hoax".
Who started this hoax?
Why would such a hoax be initiated?
What possible advantage would the hoaxers gain by promoting it?
Small reactors are still being designed and built. the trouble with large light water reactors is that utilities won't build new ones these days. It's not just the permitting issue but also the potential liability to the power company post Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; and Fukishima. No locality wants them around any longer even though new reactor designs are far safer than the older ones. Toshiba just took a $6B write-down on its US nuclear power business (they bought Westinghouse some years ago).
Let's assume for a moment that anthropomorphic climate change is in fact a "hoax".Al Gore was one of those who was very instrumental. His "An Inconvenient Truth" headlined global warming. His push for carbon credits as the main way of reducing the use of carbon fuels created a market for the purchase and sale of these credits. He benefitted from this and is now a $100 millionaire. I think it started an industry and movement much the way Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement.
Who started this hoax?
Why would such a hoax be initiated?
What possible advantage would the hoaxers gain by promoting it?
So Ms Thatcher for short-term political advantage and Al Gore so he could make a lot of money.Well, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came originally from one man - Abraham. I'm sure Thatcher and Gore would accept the comparison.
That's it? That's where all this carbon scare came from? Just those two?
So Ms Thatcher for short-term political advantage and Al Gore so he could make a lot of money.
That's it? That's where all this carbon scare came from? Just those two?
Pretty much nobody here will be alive in 50 years when what we're doing today will really matter.
We should be asking high-school kids what they want since our actions today will shape the world that they inherit.
You've gotta hand it to them, they did a helluva job. They got the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment on board with the hoax. Luckily we have Alan and Ray to keep us from falling for it.
Not the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment. Only those on the gravy train of government funded climate research which is biased towards maintaining the scare about CO2 levels rather than doing completely impartial research on general climate matters. The leaked emails known as 'climategate' provide some insight into the biases that have existed.
Such government-funded establishments do not tolerate dissenting views that CO2 levels might have an insignificant or minor effect on climate, because without the scare being maintained, funding would cease or be significantly reduced.
Not the entire peer reviewed scientific establishment. Only those on the gravy train of government funded climate research which is biased towards maintaining the scare about CO2 levels rather than doing completely impartial research on general climate matters. The leaked emails known as 'climategate' provide some insight into the biases that have existed.
Such government-funded establishments do not tolerate dissenting views that CO2 levels might have an insignificant or minor effect on climate, because without the scare being maintained, funding would cease or be significantly reduced.
It brings me close to tears to think that adults can harbor such idiotic, nonsensical views (that climate change is a hoax). It brings to mind Albert Einstein's quip that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Small reactors are still being designed and built. the trouble with large light water reactors is that utilities won't build new ones these days. It's not just the permitting issue but also the potential liability to the power company post Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; and Fukishima. No locality wants them around any longer even though new reactor designs are far safer than the older ones. Toshiba just took a $6B write-down on its US nuclear power business (they bought Westinghouse some years ago).
Hi Alan, If I remember correctly, in the Three Mile Island event containment worked exactly as designed. A small amount of radioactive gas was released after everything was brought under control but that didn't affect the background radiation level.Absolutely. I was working in the thyroid branch at NIH when this happened. Most of the senior investigators in the branch had done significant field work in the Marshall Islands tracking increases in thyroid cancer and other related diseases following the hydrogen bomb testing in the 1950s. the day Three Mile Island went critical my boss and a couple of others were quickly summoned downtown by the Secretary of Health and Human services to provide advice about what should be done. My boss was very caustic in his remarks and told them that if there was a breech it was too late. Radioactive iodine is one of the gasses that gets released and one can block the thyroid by putting a couple of drops of super saturated potassium iodine solution on the tip of ones tongue. However, this has to be done 10 minutes prior to exposure. I think the did distribute potassium iodine to those who lived near the reactor as a preventative in case there was a further breech (didn't happen).
Chernobyl was a disaster caused by Soviet stupidity. The design of the reactor was a fiasco and the people running it were untrained.Quite right on both counts
As far as Fukushima is concerned, building a nuke that close to the ocean on the eastern side of the island was pretty dumb, but let me quote from the findings of the World Nuclear Association: "No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA in June. By December, government health checks of some 1700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/yr, 98% were below 5 mSv/yr, and ten people were exposed to more than 10 mSv." Fukushima certainly was a disaster, but the damage was caused by a major earthquake, not a nuke.
The thing that makes me ROTFL is the fact that the same people who squawk about CO2 emissions causing irreversible damage to humanity are the same people who won't countenance nuclear power, which is the obvious solution to their concern.I'm in complete agreement. Newer designs of plants are far superior than the light water reactors that have been used. they even have modular designs that can be set up quite quickly. It's totally crazy to ignore this source of power!
I'm in complete agreement. Newer designs of plants are far superior than the light water reactors that have been used. they even have modular designs that can be set up quite quickly. It's totally crazy to ignore this source of power!
Hefferdust.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WNUis6NXXuo
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Bias is not a crime, Jeremy. If it were, most companies advertising their products would be taken to court.
However, deliberate fraud is a crime. I'm surprised the Michael Mann 'Hockey Stick' fraud is still an issue in the courts. Here's the story below.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/
The reason why climatologist in Government-funded research centres can get away with their biased attitude is because the science is so utterly complex with such long time-frames involved. It does not lend itself to the usual scientific processes of falsification, so no-one, however brilliant, can prove that rising levels of CO2 have a relatively small net effect on climate, just like no-one can prove that God does not exist. Got it? ;)
Looking at the bigger picture: The obsession among contrarians and denialists with trying to overthrow climate science by discrediting seminal early paleoclimate research by Mann and his colleagues in the 1990s is about politics, not science. Paleoclimate research has continued to advance during the past 15 years. Mann and numerous other researchers have continued to add to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and here’s where things stand as of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, issued last year:
For average annual [Northern Hemisphere] temperatures, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). This is supported by comparison of instrumental temperatures with multiple reconstructions from a variety of proxy data and statistical methods, and is consistent with AR4.
–IPCC AR5, Working Group I, Paleoclimate chapter, p. 386
The critics of the original ‘hockey stick graph’ might want to spend some time looking at the actual advance of scientific understanding in this area of research — which is just one piece of the complex mountain of research on human-caused climate change.
Newer designs of plants are far superior than the light water reactors that have been used. they even have modular designs that can be set up quite quickly. It's totally crazy to ignore this source of power!
Meanwhile, Ray, still waiting for an answer to my question:Why do you doubt my original post? I said Al Gore and now you're asking Ray. Gore was so famous in this area he won the Nobel Peace Prize. "The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
Who started the climate change "hoax" and why?
Somebody had to do it. That was a well deserved prize.At least your Suzuki isn't a hypocrite like our Al Gore. While Gore continues to burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel traveling around as a big shot, Suzuki tries to limit his carbon footprint.
Here in Canada, our hero is David Suzuki. He will leave a greater legacy than many prime ministers did.
Why do you doubt my original post? I said Al Gore
"Suzuki himself laments that in travelling constantly to spread his message of climate responsibility, he has ended up "over his [carbon] limit by hundreds of tonnes."
Lets put it this way: I disagree with your assertion that Gore invented it. Gore did join and promote the "hoax" band wagon, but it was well underway before he climbed aboard.My recollection was that Gore popularized it. It seemed to become very popular after his book and he did win the Nobel prize. So he was making a large impact. Unfortunately, his promotion about global warming also pitched the carbon credit industry where he made millions. So it raised doubts about whether it was legitimate or just another con job to make money.
Why do you doubt my original post?
At least your Suzuki isn't a hypocrite like our Al Gore. While Gore continues to burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel traveling around as a big shot, Suzuki tries to limit his carbon footprint.
But to answer the question, the climate change "hoax" was started by hundreds, then thousands, of objective scientists who conducted careful studies of atmospheric temperature, CO2 levels, ocean temperature and pH, glacial melting, coral reef patterns, Arctic and Antarctic ice shrinkage, cloud changes, sea level rise, permafrost melt, and so on and so forth.
Because it's full of utter, foolish, and demonstrable nonsense?
But to answer the question, the climate change "hoax" was started by hundreds, then thousands, of objective scientists who conducted careful studies of atmospheric temperature, CO2 levels, ocean temperature and pH, glacial melting, coral reef patterns, Arctic and Antarctic ice shrinkage, cloud changes, sea level rise, permafrost melt, and so on and so forth.
But of course it must be a "hoax," just like the infamous "earth rotates around the sun" hoax.
Many people enjoy gardening and have a basic understanding that the pH of their soil can affect the health and growth of their plants.
Well gosh - if only those folks at MIT and elsewhere had done some gardening maybe they wouldn't have made this gigantic mistake, eh? Luckily Ray is here to set them straight. Really, this was entertaining for a while, but I'm done wrestling the pig.
Then why not demonstrate the nonsense of the opposing views of the skeptics, Peter.
Ray: You're still not answering my very simple question: Who first called global warming a hoax? And why?
Because it has been convincingly and factually demonstrated thousands of times by people more qualified than me.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view."[/i]
Your NASA item, while also interesting, does little except illustrate the complexity of the natural world. Anything mankind does to affect it usually ends in heartache for the planet and the perpetrators. The evidence shows that we tinker at our peril.
... I do worry about the effects of the current USA plans for defunding research, on reliable data collection.If others think it's important enough, they'll fund it. Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?
Cheers,
Bart
Meanwhile, Trump defunds NASA's Earth observation satellites.The danger here is we rely on satellite images for weather prediction. If a satellite fails it needs to be replaced. This is a laughable yet understandable proposal from this administration.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/nasa-cuts-earth-science-1.4040181
We certainly don't need to know the truth, now do we?
If others think it's important enough, they'll fund it. Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?
Why? Because the USA is (by pulling out of the agreement) aiming to be the no.1 polluter of the atmosphere again?From the agreement: "The Paris Agreement has few binding obligations. It lets all nations set their own goals for fighting climate change and has no penalties for non-compliance."
China, the current no.1, is cutting its emissions (a.o. by switching from coal to nuclear power)".
Have a look at the "The Paris Agreement" section:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-agreement-idUSKBN16Y1SP
Cheers,
Bart
If your environmental impact only affected you, that would be valid.Meanwhile, the "Green Climate Fund" that is suppose to take in $100 billion by 2020 to be distributed to help countries effected by climate change has only received pledges of $10 billion. America is the only country that has actually given pledge money to the fund: $500 million. So as usual, America winds up being the sap, the dunce, who provides its largess from the American taxpayer while the rest of the world sits on its asses. We do the same with the U.N. NATO etc. We're tired of footing the bill. We're tired of others telling us what we have to give to them.
... America is the only country that has actually given pledge money to the fund: $500 million. So as usual, America winds up being the sap, the dunce, who provides its largess from the American taxpayer while the rest of the world sits on its asses. ...
Alan, actually, 43 countries have pledged funds. And the US have pledged 3 million (https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19) and 500 million only depending upon the availablity of funds (which could end up meaning anything).Did I miss something? 43 countries pledged. A pledge is a promise to pay. Only America actually paid anything. $500 million.
Did I miss something? 43 countries pledged. A pledge is a promise to pay. Only America actually paid anything. $500 million.I read the list to show that the US have paid 3 million. In addition, the US have pledged 500 million with the proviso that funds are available when payday arrives.
I read the list to show that the US have paid 3 million. In addition, the US have pledged 500 million with the proviso that funds are available when payday arrives.Do you have a link to your figures? Wikipedia states that only America has actually given funds of $500 million (Obama in2016) See below. What have other countries actually given?
Do you have a link to your figures?Alan, the link is activated by clicking the "3 million" in my thread #88. Then see footnote #8.
Relaxed CO2 Standards in USA
In his latest executive order, President Trump will order his Cabinet to start demolishing a wide array of Obama-era policies on global warming — including emissions rules for power plants, limits on methane leaks, a moratorium on federal coal leasing, and the use of the social cost of carbon to guide government actions. Under Obama, EPA set CO2 standards for anyone who wants to build a new power plant.
The Obama-era standards basically make it impossible to build a new coal-burning facility in the United States unless it can capture its carbon emissions and sequester them underground, a costly and still-nascent technology known as CCS.
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate
If others think it's important enough, they'll fund it. Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?
Yes. This is the economically destructive aspect of pollution control which Trump is trying to overcome. The technology of coal-fired power plants has now progressed to the point where all the 'real' pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate carbon, arsenic, mercury, and so on, can be virtually eliminated, or at least reduced to insignificant levels that pose no threat. Such power plants are known as 'Ultra-supercritical'. They burn the coal at much higher temperatures and pressures. They cost more to build, but burn the coal more efficiently, so the extra construction cost is soon offset by the savings in the cost of the coal used.The Trump rule change is quite irrelevant for two reasons. 1) in order to overturn the Obama EPA rule they have to go through notice and comment rulemaking all over again which is time consuming and 2) the economics are against coal going forward: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/energy-environment/trump-coal-executive-order-impact.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Are you also concerned about being the dunce and paying for wars and invading countries based on lies? Just curious...Only a mean-spirited person would ask a stupid question like that.
The Trump rule change is quite irrelevant for two reasons. 1) in order to overturn the Obama EPA rule they have to go through notice and comment rulemaking all over again which is time consuming and 2) the economics are against coal going forward: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/energy-environment/trump-coal-executive-order-impact.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0It never had anything to do with restoring coal as an energy source - just a Village People-style photo-op for Trump in a hardhat and another promise to get votes. A year from now miners will still be unemployed and Trump will still be playing golf in Florida.
It's instructive to note that Owensboro KY is retiring their coal burning power plant and building guess what?.....a gas fired one. So much for big coal in Kentucky.
The Trump rule change is quite irrelevant for two reasons. 1) in order to overturn the Obama EPA rule they have to go through notice and comment rulemaking all over again which is time consuming and 2) the economics are against coal going forward: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/energy-environment/trump-coal-executive-order-impact.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0I'm over my limit for New York Times articles. So I can't link to it. Doesn't the removal of Obama's executive order help the coal industry? Trump made a promise to remove certain regulations. He's not responsible for what happens afterwards in the marketplace. I don't think the coal miners are going to blame him after that. They understand what's happening in the coal industry with competition. They just want some of the pressure taking off of them by the previous administration's executive orders.
It's instructive to note that Owensboro KY is retiring their coal burning power plant and building guess what?.....a gas fired one. So much for big coal in Kentucky.
I'm over my limit for New York Times articles. So I can't link to it. Doesn't the removal of Obama's executive order help the coal industry? Trump made a promise to remove certain regulations. He's not responsible for what happens afterwards in the marketplace. I don't think the coal miners are going to blame him after that. They understand what's happening in the coal industry with competition. They just want some of the pressure taking off of them by the previous administration's executive orders.Coal mining is becoming mechanized and deep tunnel mining which requires more manpower is disappearing. Even those former miners who live in Kentucky and West Virginia are under no illusions that these jobs are going to come back. Coal mining jobs have been on a consistent downward trajectory since 1980 because of strip mining and mountain top removal.
Doesn't the removal of Obama's executive order help the coal industry?
Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?
If something is really important, as this research is, funding it does not make you a dunce, it makes you responsible.What makes us a dunce is how often we pick up the tab and others who said they would contribute, don't. Like some countries in NATO. Same things happens in other fields as well. We're responsible; it's others who aren't. American taxpayers are broke. We have our own bills to pay.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/US_Electrical_Generation_1949-2011.png)As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative. The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry" That's the news. It's more political than economic. A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise. The miners understand the competition from gas. That's a marketplace issue. But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word. That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.
Who's going to invest in Coal these days? New plants are unlikely to recoup the cost of building such facilities, and as said before, employment is not to be found in that sector, but in natural gas, and renewable sources (although that might now fall thanks to Trump).
Cheers,
Bart
As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative. The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry" That's the news. It's more political than economic. A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise. The miners understand the competition from gas. That's a marketplace issue. But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word. That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.
As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative. The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry" That's the news. It's more political than economic. A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise. The miners understand the competition from gas. That's a marketplace issue. But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word. That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.
The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry"
Then how many coal-mining jobs did Trump create?
Cheers,
Bart
[/quoteThen how many coal-mining jobs did Trump create?If Obama's executive order did not reduce jobs by imposing new regulations on the oil industry by reducing production, then why did Obama do it? So the opposite is true too. Getting rid of the regulation will increase production providing more jobs. Of course, other factors like gas competition is going to effect the industry. But you're conflating the two issues to try to make Trump look bad. We get it.
Cheers,
Bart
As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative. The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry" That's the news. It's more political than economic. A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise. The miners understand the competition from gas. That's a marketplace issue. But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word. That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.
So when the coal miners lose their jobs due to marketplace issues with competing cheaper natural gas, they'll thank Trump just for trying as they go looking for another job that won't exist because they won't move to an area of the country that doesn't rely heavily on one industry, the coal mines?You must have been advising Hillary. Regulate the coal industry more so more of their jobs are lost. Great strategy.
I think you're making Trump sound more negative. The logic behind what you're saying doesn't make sense.
I am all in favor of solar power, and I realize it is growing rapidly, unlike other energy sectors. Still, employing over 40% of the energy workforce to produce less than 1% of the total energy supply is not a statistic to be especially proud of.I presume that the bulk of those jobs are installation and after a while those jobs will decrease. The question is whether the tax preference on solar will go away when and if tax reform is done.
I presume that the bulk of those jobs are installation and after a while those jobs will decrease. The question is whether the tax preference on solar will go away when and if tax reform is done.Rebates should go away. They distort the marketplace. Rich people are using rebates paid from taxes of poorer people so they can pay less for electricity then the poorer people pay. Where's the fairness in that? I also question all those jobs. Are they full time? Are they including electricians who also do other work? It seems like a big number.
Rebates should go away. They distort the marketplace.
Tell that to America's agriculture business and watch what happens.Those should stop too.
...I think switching over to other energy sources is a win win regardless of whether climate change is a hoax or not. The economic benefit of transforming energy reliance from fossil fuels to renewables is unfathomable. R &D, new infrasture, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and unforeseeable positions will be created and economies will grow.Your postulate is not true. The "invisible" hand of free markets determines the best and most efficient and most wealth creating than any other system devised by man especially one controlled and decided by a central government. This reminds me of the old 5 year economic plans of the Soviet Union where they decided what industries should be favored and which shouldn't, how much each industry should produce, etc. Their five year plans continually failed until the whole country went broke. welcome back Russia.
By the way, coal mining is a hazardous job. Life expectancy and health problems plague minors. If the government wants to keep these people employed, there are other better options.So is forestry. Should we stop providing lumber to build your house? In any case, who are you to decide what someone else choses to do to feed their family? Don't you believe in freedom? Why do liberals always want to tell others how they should live? It's not your business.
Perhaps some stink tanks have studied the issue ad nauseam. The health care industry profits from treating sick miners, I suppose big pharma comes out okay as do existing coal burning plants. From a myopic Koch-head viewpoint, more coal is good for America. And so is fracking in Florida.
So is forestry. Should we stop providing lumber to build your house? In any case, who are you to decide what someone else choses to do to feed their family? Don't you believe in freedom? Why do liberals always want to tell others how they should live? It's not your business.
No matter what side of the fence one stands on climate change, all can agree that spewing mercury, lead, carcinogens, and other forms of noxious particulate matter into the atmosphere is hazardous to health.
Methane (CH4) is over a magnitude more destructive than CO2. Methane comes from burning off fossil fuels, human and animal waste, landfills, and other sources.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is far worse than methane. It lingers in the atmosphere for at least one hundred years.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) are several magnitudes worse than methane.
CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCS are known as "greenhouse" gases. The amount of gases that enter the atmosphere have been tracked for decades. Data is data. It appears that data analysis is at the heart of the climate change controversy.
So whether or not one wants to argue about climate change, immediate public health concerns as well as environmental impact (steadily lower pH levels in fresh and salt water bodies) are quantifiable.
I think switching over to other energy sources is a win win regardless of whether climate change is a hoax or not. The economic benefit of transforming energy reliance from fossil fuels to renewables is unfathomable. R &D, new infrasture, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and unforeseeable positions will be created and economies will grow.
Only a mean-spirited person would ask a stupid question like that.
Are you happy that some of your hard earned tax dollars are going to rich people in the form of a tax rebate so they can buy a $100,000 Tesla electric car for $75,000 while you're still driving a 5 year old Camry?
Methane is highly combustible and, if it is part of the fuel mix it will burn completely. Methane does leak from the ground during fracking and get into the atmosphere. It's not just animal waste that is a source of methane but incomplete digestion in the stomachs of ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) whose flatulence contains significant amounts of methane. In a working paper I read a number of years ago, EPA identified this as a significant source of greenhouse gas.
Methane (CH4) is over a magnitude more destructive than CO2. Methane comes from burning off fossil fuels, human and animal waste, landfills, and other sources.
Ray, you really need to be more careful in your citations and quotes. You took language from a coal industry magazine and neglected to look at the whole story behind the litigation here. The lawsuits were not a part of "anti-coal" activity but a broader ecological lawsuit regarding the siting of the power plant and the transmission lines. this is a far more complicated story than you make it out to be.
The following article describes the hassles and unnecessary expenses imposed upon the construction of the USA's first Ultra-SuperCritical coal-fired power plant.
http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/
"The 600-MW John W. Turk Jr. power plant in Arkansas holds many distinctions. Completed in December 2012, it was the first USC plant built in the U.S. It also reigns as the country’s most efficient coal-fired power plant with an electrical efficiency of 40% HHV basis (~42% LHV basis). After the project was announced in 2006, American Electric Power’s (AEP) Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO) spent several years trying to secure the necessary permits while fighting legal battles launched as part of national anti-coal campaigns. Under the legal settlement, SWEPCO agreed to retire an older 582-MW coal-fired unit in Texas, secure 400 MW of renewable power, and set aside US$10 million for land conservation and energy efficiency projects. At a final cost of US$1.8 billion to build the plant, the Turk plant also became the most expensive project ever built in Arkansas.
Methane is highly combustible and, if it is part of the fuel mix it will burn completely. Methane does leak from the ground during fracking and get into the atmosphere. It's not just animal waste that is a source of methane but incomplete digestion in the stomachs of ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) whose flatulence contains significant amounts of methane. In a working paper I read a number of years ago, EPA identified this as a significant source of greenhouse gas.
Ray, you really need to be more careful in your citations and quotes. You took language from a coal industry magazine and neglected to look at the whole story behind the litigation here. The lawsuits were not a part of "anti-coal" activity but a broader ecological lawsuit regarding the siting of the power plant and the transmission lines. this is a far more complicated story than you make it out to be.
In the 1950s compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking began to confront the tobacco industry. It responded with sophisticated public relations campaigns to undermine and distort the emerging science. The strategy of producing scientific uncertainty significantly delayed regulatory changes and public health efforts. The truth eventually came out, but not until countless preventable smoking related deaths had occurred.
In the 1960s the sugar industry followed in tobacco’s footsteps, funding research that cast doubt on sugar's role in heart disease. For the most part it did so by blaming fat. The goal was not to disprove the link between sugar and heart disease, but only to create doubt sufficient to keep the public eating lots of sugar. The strategy worked like a charm.
The petroleum industry began conducting climate research as early as 1957 and knew the potential for catastrophic climate risks by 1968 at the latest. Exxon conducted extensive research using carbon dioxide sensors on oil tankers to measure CO2 concentrations over the ocean and then funded elaborate computer models to help predict what temperatures would do in the future. Based on that and other research they spent loads of money climate proofing the company. A 1982 internal “corporate primer,” told ’s Exxon’s leaders that climate change "would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion" and "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered. Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible." The document was not released outside the company but was subsequently discovered in litigation.
It seems Exxon believed their own and other climate research enough to spend lots of money based on the predictions. At the same time Exxon and the petroleum industry in general adopted the tobacco strategy regarding climate change, only more so. They invested unprecedented sums of money to obscure the science of climate change and in contributions to political candidates who would downplay global warming. They funded think tanks to spread selected climate denial "facts" (aka half-truths) and actually recruited lobbying talent from the tobacco industry.
Likewise, since 1997 the Koch Brothers gave at least $100,343,292 to 84 groups denying climate change science. A Yale study published in the fall of 2015 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that money from Exxon and the Koch brothers played a key role in polarizing the climate debate in America. As with sugar and tobacco, the petroleum industry only had to provide uncertainty and loads of professionally devised half-truths for armchair scientists to latch onto and argue about.
As a friend of mine says, “Marketing works.”, especially when you are trying to convince people to take the easy path and keep on doing what they are already doing.
So is forestry. Should we stop providing lumber to build your house? In any case, who are you to decide what someone else choses to do to feed their family? Don't you believe in freedom? Why do liberals always want to tell others how they should live? It's not your business.
As far as I am concerned, everyone is wrong here.
Coal is dirty and is effecting the atmosphere. It is also a dyeing industry, not due to regulations or an increase in renewables, but because gas and oil are more efficient. The only way coal comes back is if gas and oil become more expensive and less efficient.
Renewables are nice, but inefficient compared to fossil fuels. The post about how many jobs solar employs just helps prove that point. I once remember seeing that it take a tiny faction of a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil and bring it to market (cant remember the exact ratio, 30:1 ???), so the amount of energy harvested is significantly higher then the amount used to harvest it. I doubt this same ratio for solar is even a fourth as good, especially when you take into consideration the amount of jobs.
Point being, solar is nice, but too expensive to really take off until fossil fuels get to the point where solar is cheaper. At that point though, we're all screwed either due to climate change or the very fact that energy production will be so expensive, it will put an undo burden on the economy.
Anyway, even if solar, and others like wind, etc, were cheaper, the energy can only be harvested in the right conditions. For solar, the right conditions have the possibility of happening only half the time, and that is only considering daytime light only. Throw in weather, and it probably drops to a third. Not to say you cant produce a lot of energy during those perfect conditions, but you cant really store it either. Batteries can only be charged so much, not to mention are expensive, so any excess produced is wasted. If you need some energy on demand, and it is night time or winter, or the wind is not blowing, or you don't live near a thermal vent, you're kind of screwed.
This is why I feel nuclear is the real answer. Unfortunately, both sides, here in the USA, don't want to touch it.
As far as I am concerned, everyone is wrong here.
Coal is dirty and is effecting the atmosphere. It is also a dyeing industry, not due to regulations or an increase in renewables, but because gas and oil are more efficient. The only way coal comes back is if gas and oil become more expensive and less efficient.
Renewables are nice, but inefficient compared to fossil fuels. The post about how many jobs solar employs just helps prove that point. I once remember seeing that it take a tiny faction of a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil and bring it to market (cant remember the exact ratio, 30:1 ???), so the amount of energy harvested is significantly higher then the amount used to harvest it. I doubt this same ratio for solar is even a fourth as good, especially when you take into consideration the amount of jobs.
Point being, solar is nice, but too expensive to really take off until fossil fuels get to the point where solar is cheaper. At that point though, we're all screwed either due to climate change or the very fact that energy production will be so expensive, it will put an undo burden on the economy.
Anyway, even if solar, and others like wind, etc, were cheaper, the energy can only be harvested in the right conditions. For solar, the right conditions have the possibility of happening only half the time, and that is only considering daytime light only. Throw in weather, and it probably drops to a third. Not to say you cant produce a lot of energy during those perfect conditions, but you cant really store it either.
Furthermore, I don't think we will ever be able to get away from some type of liquid fuel source, whatever that may be.
Batteries in cars take to long to charge for most to feel comfortable, not to mention heavy machinery will never be able to operate like that anyway.
Bio-diesel is a great alternative, however it is more expensive to produce and has less energy then petroleum based diesel, so once again I don't see it taking off right away.
Rapid charging has improved a lot, but I do not think that's the best solution because it reduces the useful life of batteries (unless new kinds are developed). Exchanging/swapping batteries could be more productive.
So is forestry. Should we stop providing lumber to build your house? In any case, who are you to decide what someone else choses to do to feed their family? Don't you believe in freedom? Why do liberals always want to tell others how they should live? It's not your business.
When I hear or read people talk about how guvmint "interferes" in their lives or messes up the "free market", I just laugh now.
I like to mispell "guvmint", it's an old private joke. Sorry if you don't like it. But go ahead, read any insult you want into it, ignore the issues.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. I am not a mean spirited person, my questions was straight to the point. As a Portuguese, one of the most shameful moments in my recent country's history was watching our then prime minister, Mr. Barroso, hosting a summit in 2003 in the Azores, where Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair aired their lies about why we need to invade Iraq.Your original post implied that I approved of going to war, killing people and wasting money based on lies. That's mean-spirited and downright insulting as well as wrong. I'm not responsible for what Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush claimed. You should also be kinder to your own PM Mr. Barroso. I assume he knew about as much as I did about the facts concerning Iraq.
Mr. Barroso has since then moved on to more important jobs has President of EU Commission and today is non.exec chairman in Goldman Sachs. Enough said...
I have yet to see "guvmint" used in any other way than a slight to the right.
Sorry, this is news to me. It's not the way I use it; as I said, it's a private joke that I got carried with.
Where do you find $25.000 rebates for a Tesla?I was making a point for effect. Please don't play a "gotcha" game with me as they do with Trump and miss the whole point of my post. This is a forum. I'm not submitting a scientific paper. Rebates are less, up to $9,500 in Louisiana and $14,000 in Ontario. But the point is poor people are giving money to rich people so some rich guy with a big ego can drive a $100,000+ electric car. How is that smart? Or fair?
Methane is twenty one times more potent at trapping heat from the sun than carbon dioxide. Though less prevalent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it is the most destructive of the greenhouse gases. It’s not only farting, actually cows’ burping creates almost twenty times more methane than flatulence. Whichever orifice, each individual cow lets out between thirty and fifty gallons of methane per day. Multiply this by 1.5 billion cattle in the world today, and you have a major catastrophy looming.I've been recommending Gas-X for bovines.
Last, and one thing everyone always forgets about, are pharmaceuticals. Many drugs come from petroleum products, or use a large amount of energy to produce them. Take away petroleum, and you need a new energy source to not only continue production, but to manufacture the lost products that were harvested and used from petroleum.
I guess you haven't been reading the papers about Toshiba/Westinghouse bankruptcy. They have been building two "new" and safer nuclear plants in the southeast and have had all kinds of construction issues with them. I think the debt level is about $9B according to what I read. A nuclear plant is far more costly because of the engineering safety requirements than a gas or oil plant.
This is why I feel nuclear is the real answer. Unfortunately, both sides, here in the USA, don't want to touch it. No new nuclear power plant has been built since the 1970s, because they are "unsafe." However, since no nuclear power plant has been built is 40+ year, none of them have modern failsafes, so it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Also, no politician wants to approve transporting spent fuel throw their district, which creates more problems. I find it silly no one is advocating nuclear.
However, I get the impression that the new EPA rules regarding CO2 emissions, which came into effect later, and which Trump has now attempted to remove, would have blocked the development of any more of these advanced, low emission, coal power plants. Is this not true?Those types of coal power plans would probably pass as they are pretty close to the efficiency of a gas fired one (though I'm not an engineering expert in this field). I don't think the Obama rules anticipated that there would not be any coal plants. The key issue is efficiency since both types of plants emit CO2 (as does the gas fired furnace in my home!!!!! Damn, I'm a polluter!!!! Better get a CO2 sequestration unit set up for next winter).
I think only in legacy stuff. Any new equipment (HVAC, freezers, etc.) cannot use CFCs. We went through the same thing in the pharmaceutical industry. Metered dose inhalers used CFCs as they are inert when inhaled. All the inhalers had to be reformulated even though the amount of CFCs used was minuscule. It was a significant expense as the inhalers had to be tested for stability of the active ingredient with the new propellant.
You've nailed it. ... And CFCs are still in use throughout the world, including the USA
That requirement sounds quite obscene, but is probably true.As one who spent almost his entire working career in this industry, I take issue with your post. Let's not conflate the abuse of opioids with the life saving properties of the other 99% of pharmaceuticals. As to the quote by Fuhrnan, he presents himself as a fool of the first order.
Considering the prescription pills are the third major source of deaths, the solution would be to drastically curtail their use. Add to it millions of drug-related emergency room visis, and we could save some real money.
"Prescription drugs are now killing far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are increasing", an analysis of recently released data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by the Los Angeles Times revealed.
The Times analysis of 2009 death statistics, the most recent available, showed:
"For the first time ever in the US, more people were killed by drugs than motor vehicle accidents"
"Modern medical care evolved as a drug-distribution arm of the pharmaceutical industry, not a profession concerned primarily with improving people's health.
What is published in the most prestigious medical journals is no longer careful science, but essentially drug advertisements." - Dr. Joel Fuhrman in his book Super Immunity
I guess you haven't been reading the papers about Toshiba/Westinghouse bankruptcy. They have been building two "new" and safer nuclear plants in the southeast and have had all kinds of construction issues with them. I think the debt level is about $9B according to what I read. A nuclear plant is far more costly because of the engineering safety requirements than a gas or oil plant.
I have not been following that. Anyway, your post goes to my point, that being that fossil fuels will still be used because they are much more efficient than any other form of energy. There is no way around this; the amount of energy gained far surpasses the amount of energy used.It's not so much the efficiency but rather Mother Nature took care of all the hard chemistry by taking all the really old biomass and converting it to hydrocarbon usable material (oil, gas, & coal) over a great many (really a great many) years. So of course those sources start off with a huge advantage in that they are usable almost right out of the ground. Nuclear is a good source of energy but requires complicated engineering and of course the fuel source is highly toxic (you won't die from handling a piece of coal).
However, if we were to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels and needed an alternate fuel that produces more energy than it uses and can produce it continuously, nuclear seems to be the only option. Geothermal is another, but is limited to where it can be built.
I doubt hydrogen will ever make it either. Most hydrogen used today is drilled for, and production from other sources uses fossil fuels. Splitting water, a possibility, uses too much energy and more then what you get. Essentially the application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
As one who spent almost his entire working career in this industry, I take issue with your post. Let's not conflate the abuse of opioids with the life saving properties of the other 99% of pharmaceuticals. As to the quote by Fuhrnan, he presents himself as a fool of the first order.
It's not so much the efficiency but rather Mother Nature took care of all the hard chemistry by taking all the really old biomass and converting it to hydrocarbon usable material (oil, gas, & coal) over a great many (really a great many) years. So of course those sources start off with a huge advantage in that they are usable almost right out of the ground. Nuclear is a good source of energy but requires complicated engineering and of course the fuel source is highly toxic (you won't die from handling a piece of coal).
Hydrogen might be a possibility down the line if they can come up with some better catalytic ways of making it (of course it's also highly flammable as anyone who has seen the film loop of the Hindenberg fire). Plant based fuel has high energy inputs which require subsidies though processing of used cooking oil to diesel has a pretty decent return (there are several collectors in the DC area that get used oil from restaurants for processing).
I think you are giving solar and wind not enough credit. There are some areas where it is highly efficient and costs have come way down. It's never going to power more than 20% of the grid in the US but I think it can get to that point economically.
Hydrogen could be a good source, but the most efficient way to produce hydrogen uses a large amount of fossil fuels, so it does not really decrease the use of fossil fuels. Not to mention, the amount of energy you need to produce hydrogen is more then what you get out of using it.
I was making a point for effect. Please don't play a "gotcha" game with me as they do with Trump and miss the whole point of my post. This is a forum. I'm not submitting a scientific paper. Rebates are less, up to $9,500 in Louisiana and $14,000 in Ontario. But the point is poor people are giving money to rich people so some rich guy with a big ego can drive a $100,000+ electric car. How is that smart? Or fair?
https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives
Dr. Fuhrman is just one of many who stands up against the established practices in the pharma industry.Yes, I'm well aware of this issue and spent a lot of hours while working at PhRMA on several initiatives to help solve it. This is a multi-faceted problem with a lot of players. We spent a lot of time working on getting bar codes on all doses of packaged medicines so that technology could be employed at the bedside of hospitals to make sure the patient received the right dose of medicine at the right time. That was out part of the puzzle. Similarly, pharmacists and physicians have to play their part to make sure that a drug is not prescribed and dispensed that might lead to an adverse drug-drug interaction. This is particularly a problem with older adults who might be taking a variety of different medicines to manage various medical conditions.
Here are more facts:
In a June 2010 report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, study authors said that in looking over records that spanned from 1976 to 2006 (the most recent year available) they found that, of 62 million death certificates, almost a quarter-million deaths were coded as having occurred in a hospital setting due to medication errors.
An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the U.S. every year.
The costs of adverse drug reactions to society are more than $136 billion annually -- greater than the total cost of cardiovascular or diabetic care.
Adverse drug reactions cause injuries or death in one of five hospital patients.
The reason there are so many adverse drug events in the U.S. is that so many drugs are used and prescribed – and many patients receive multiple prescriptions at varying strengths, some of which may counteract each other or cause more severe reactions when combined.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, two-hundred and ninety people in the United States are killed by prescription drugs every day.This includes opiates, benzodiazapines, and other drugs that are abused. The opioid epidemic is well known and clearly this class of drugs is wildly over prescribed.
Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone. (Singh Gurkirpal, MD. Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy reported in The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998) - and that's just aspirinAs you note, the 1998 paper is an estimate and the author has stated it was based on early 1990 data. He said that the number today is much lower as those on long term NSAID therapy are given proton pump inhibitors to reduce the chance of GI bleed (http://www.medpagetoday.com/geriatrics/painmanagement/32971 ). In addition there is a bolded warning on all NSAIDs (many of which are available over the counter) as well as a major education program by the FDA and others to educate patients that they should only use such products for short periods of time. It's also instructive to note that there are large numbers of acetamnophen poisoning occurring every year because of acute liver toxicity.
Yes, but why make such an exaggerated number? In fact you don't have to be a rich guy to get a Tesla model S and drive it. You can buy a nice second hand for $40-50.000 and have very low running costs on the level of mass market car.The other outcome from the Tesla research is more efficient batteries. Such batteries could be used to store solar energy produced during the day for use at night. I think they are building a huge battery manufacturing plant in Nevada.
Don't forget that the Tesla highend cars were there to begin with for a purpose. To lay the foundation for the model 3 which will begin product this year. The model 3 is $35.000 entry level car and with incentives (as long as they last) will be a mass market car. Is it not smart of Tesla to do it this way? Don't you think this have already woken up the entire car industry? It certainly has.
The other outcome from the Tesla research is more efficient batteries. Such batteries could be used to store solar energy produced during the day for use at night. I think they are building a huge battery manufacturing plant in Nevada.Leaving aside the economic pitfalls for the moment, the optics can be terrible. You got some poor schnook driving in a five-year old Camry that desperately needs a brake job to keep his family safe but that he can't afford to do, reading about some rich guy getting $7500 back on a brand new $50,000 Tesla. Maybe the schnook should get a $500 check from the government so he can fix his brakes and make his family safe. Why are we wasting $7500 on that rich guy. Is he saving the planet? How many carbon emission went into manufacturing that Tesla? In any case, Tesla would just lower the price if there was no rebate. This is all crony capitalism where Tesla bribes politicians to support rebates.
The bottom line is there is government money being used to spur alternative energy research and there are tax preferences to help with its adoption. One might not like either approach from a political point of view but I don't think that the private sector can do everything. There has to be some cooperation.
Yes, I'm well aware of this issue and spent a lot of hours while working at PhRMA on several initiatives to help solve it. This is a multi-faceted problem with a lot of players. We spent a lot of time working on getting bar codes on all doses of packaged medicines so that technology could be employed at the bedside of hospitals to make sure the patient received the right dose of medicine at the right time. That was out part of the puzzle. Similarly, pharmacists and physicians have to play their part to make sure that a drug is not prescribed and dispensed that might lead to an adverse drug-drug interaction. This is particularly a problem with older adults who might be taking a variety of different medicines to manage various medical conditions.
This includes opiates, benzodiazapines, and other drugs that are abused. The opioid epidemic is well known and clearly this class of drugs is wildly over prescribed.
As you note, the 1998 paper is an estimate and the author has stated it was based on early 1990 data. He said that the number today is much lower as those on long term NSAID therapy are given proton pump inhibitors to reduce the chance of GI bleed (http://www.medpagetoday.com/geriatrics/painmanagement/32971 ). In addition there is a bolded warning on all NSAIDs (many of which are available over the counter) as well as a major education program by the FDA and others to educate patients that they should only use such products for short periods of time. It's also instructive to note that there are large numbers of acetamnophen poisoning occurring every year because of acute liver toxicity.
I don't understand what your point is.
Google search "prescription drug death statistics" will yield 930,000 links. "death caused by medications" will show over 30 million links.Yes, and think of the countless millions of lives that are saved by antibiotics, vaccines, anti-hypertensives, cholesterol lowering agents, I could go on and on. Everything is contextual.
You must have been advising Hillary. Regulate the coal industry more so more of their jobs are lost. Great strategy.
The other outcome from the Tesla research is more efficient batteries. Such batteries could be used to store solar energy produced during the day for use at night. I think they are building a huge battery manufacturing plant in Nevada.
The bottom line is there is government money being used to spur alternative energy research and there are tax preferences to help with its adoption. One might not like either approach from a political point of view but I don't think that the private sector can do everything. There has to be some cooperation.
Leaving aside the economic pitfalls for the moment, the optics can be terrible. You got some poor schnook driving in a five-year old Camry that desperately needs a brake job to keep his family safe but that he can't afford to do, reading about some rich guy getting $7500 back on a brand new $50,000 Tesla. Maybe the schnook should get a $500 check from the government so he can fix his brakes and make his family safe. Why are we wasting $7500 on that rich guy. Is he saving the planet? How many carbon emission went into manufacturing that Tesla? In any case, Tesla would just lower the price if there was no rebate. This is all crony capitalism where Tesla bribes politicians to support rebates.
Here's something you'd remember but that the young folks might not know. The "Oil Depletion Allowance". Back a few decades ago, oil companies like Exxon, Sunoco, Texaco, Mobil, and others were allowed to reduce their taxes based on oil depletion. The concept was that since you're depleting the oil in a well, you won't be able to pump oil there forever. So the government allowed the oil companies to reduce their taxes based on some depletion formula. Of course the political crony capitalism on this changed when people realized that all the oil company had to do was build a new well somewhere else as there's really plenty of oil in the world and we're not running out of it. Like rebates for electric cars and solar panels, it all sounded so good at the time but was just another ripoff of the taxpayer.
Yes, and think of the countless millions of lives that are saved by antibiotics, vaccines, anti-hypertensives, cholesterol lowering agents, I could go on and on. Everything is contextual.
You're the one that mentioned job crushing marketplace forces by competing cheaper natural gas. That has nothing to do with Hillary and regulation. It's about cleaner and cheaper energy. So how are you going to know which ended the coal miner's jobs?I don't recall saying "job crushing marketplace forces". However, I do realize that other fuels are replacing coal. Currently, coal and gas represent about a third each of the total fuel market. So while jobs may not be increasing in coal, reducing regulation will help preserve jobs and slow down their loss.
...he incentive as I wrote is not just for high priced cars but for all EV's and plugin hybrid cars. How does that have anything to do with a poor guy not paying for brakes? That does not make any sense...The poor guy's taxes are going to the rich guy. If his taxes were lower, he'd be able to buy brakes. The Democrats couldn't see this issue either. That's why Hillary lost. Not because of the Russians.
The poor guy's taxes are going to the rich guy. If his taxes were lower, he'd be able to buy brakes. The Democrats couldn't see this issue either. That's why Hillary lost. Not because of the Russians.
As I said the incentives are for the cars and irrespective of price. You have invented that this is for the rich guys only. If your concern are about the poor, there are many other ways they could be taken care of. First of all you could come an look at the Nordic countries in Europe which have a bit more social justice than the US.Yup. That's why Hillary lost.
Yup. That's why Hillary lost.
... we have made a huge mistake by spending trillions of dollars in switching from fossil fuels to renewables
Uh, say what? A mistake to change from a limited resource to a renewable one? Really? Your logic defies credibility.Peter, You chopped Ray's sentence in half and misquoted him unfairly trying to deceive the readers.
Peter, You chopped Ray's sentence in half and misquoted him unfairly trying to deceive the readers.
Here's Ray's original complete sentence:
"It then becomes apparent we have made a huge mistake by spending trillions of dollars in switching from fossil fuels to renewables instead of spending the same amount of money protecting ourselves from extreme weather events."
Your original post implied that I approved of going to war, killing people and wasting money based on lies. That's mean-spirited and downright insulting as well as wrong. I'm not responsible for what Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush claimed. You should also be kinder to your own PM Mr. Barroso. I assume he knew about as much as I did about the facts concerning Iraq.
Peter, You chopped Ray's sentence in half and misquoted him unfairly trying to deceive the readers.
Here's Ray's original complete sentence:
"It then becomes apparent we have made a huge mistake by spending trillions of dollars in switching from fossil fuels to renewables instead of spending the same amount of money protecting ourselves from extreme weather events."
One of the biggest on the market in Denmark DONG has stated "We are in the process of rebuilding a number of central power stations to burn wood chips or pellets instead of coal and gas, as they contribute to Denmark's green transition. It is our core competency and we should focus on. Our goal is that at least half of the electricity and heat coming from our power plants, must come from biomass by 2020, "says Thomas Dalsgaard.
How clean is burning of the wood chips and pellets?
I am not against all medications, many of them save indeed millions of lives. All I'm saying that some medications are harmful, and many medications are prescribed needlessly, without doctors knowing their side effects or long term dangers. Many doctors keep practising the conventional "medicine" (albeit with new drugs) and don't have the slightest clue about healthy nutrition and how it affects human bodies.You have morphed this into a discussion about medical practice. Yes, there are a lot of doctors who are irresponsible (look at all the opiate prescriptions that are written each year when the actual medically needed number should be 1/100 of that).
I also believe that currently more medications are prescribed to increase profits for pharma industry than to help patients.Please provide an example or two.
Before you accuse respectable scientists of being fools, maybe you heard of Ray Kurzweil, the famous futurist, writer, and inventor and recently hired by Google. He writes, "I was diagnosed with type II diabetes when I was 35 (1983). The conventional treatment (insulin) made it worse by causing me to gain weight. I then developed my own program based on nutrition, exercise, weight management, and supplements.Every diabetic responds differently. Some have an absolute requirement for insulin that no modification of diet & exercise can change.
Similar examples are quoted about succesful prevention or reversal of heart diseases, osteoarthristis, and various cancers. Regretably, but understandably, cases like these are being burried by millions of advertisements and promotions of dubious pharmaceutical products.Lots of regional hospitals and managed care organizations have a myriad of educational programs to help people improve their health. I got a flyer from the hospital right down the road from me that is part of the Johns Hopkins healthcare system. It contained three pages of courses to help patients. My daughter belongs to Kaiser Permanente in Oakland CA and she said there are a huge number of courses available for free or at a very nominal cost. Nothing is being buried.
And maybe you've heard that even Aspirin would not gain FDA approval if it were introduced today.Aspirin would be approved.
Already if you have a child with special needs in public school in the USA, you're screwed.Both my daughters work with special needs kids and my wife is a professor of education. Your assessment is spot on.
It is seen as a temporary solution until completely clean energy can be provided. The CO2 is neutral except for the production and transport (I believe I have heard a number like 20% of the energy is spent on transport and production). Emissions other than that I don't know. I would expect that there are filters to capture particles etc.The key issue with all fuels is the energy balance which is a combination of the efficiency of conversion and the amount of processing that is required. Natural gas is very good as the extraction costs are low, it is easy to ship, and the conversion to energy is quite high. We have been in our house for just over 30 years and have had three central heating furnaces. The first one came with the home and I don't know what the specifications were for it. The next one we had installed and it was 80 percent efficient. Three years ago we had that replaced with a model that was half the size and 92 percent efficient. You can see the trend in savings over time here.
QuoteI also believe that currently more medications are prescribed to increase profits for pharma industry than to help patients.Quote
Please provide an example or two.
Let’s start with ineffectiveness of the flu shots.
We have over-promoted and overhyped this vaccine. It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.” — Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, 2012
In the 2014-15 flu season it worked less than seven per cent of the time — or was 93 per cent ineffective.
In 2015-16, the flu shot was “Overall, just shy of 45 to 50 per cent” effective. In fact, in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, the flu shot’s effectiveness has only once been over 50 per cent.
Bone building and osteoarthritis
Calcium pills don't work. Dairy products don't strengthen bones. Drugs may be dangerous.
For years, doctors have been telling us to drink milk, eat dairy products, and take calcium pills to improve our bone vitality. The problem is, they're wrong.
https://www.amazon.ca/Building-Bone-Vitality-Revolutionary-Osteoporosis-Without/dp/0071600191
Heart disease and statins
Statin side effects can be uncomfortable, making it seem like the risks outweigh the benefits of these powerful cholesterol-lowering medications.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013
And maybe you've heard that even Aspirin would not gain FDA approval if it were introduced today.QuoteAspirin would be approved."We posed this question to Professor Peter Rothwell from the University of Oxford... Peter - No. Chris - Why? Peter - It's probably got too many side effects. Even though it's an effective drug, the drug companies would worry that they'd be sued because of the risk of bleeding, and that it wouldn't be commercially viable because the lawsuits would offset their profits."
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/would-aspirin-be-approved-today
Let’s start with ineffectiveness of the flu shots.The Centers for Disease Control as well as other folks recommend the flu shot as a preventative particularly for the elderly. A lot of the 'failure' of the vaccine depends on what strains are selected for incorporation. If a new strain suddenly appears, the current season's vaccine will not be effective. This is Mother Nature at work and what happened a couple of years ago with the new mutation that arose in Southeast Asia. I can tell you from personal experience that I've been getting vaccinated for over 30 years not and have not had a major case of the flu. Prior to that my body was a magnet and I usually had the flu before anyone else. Even if the vaccine is 50% effecting it can still help out via herd immunity particularly in areas where there are lots of elderly.
We have over-promoted and overhyped this vaccine. It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.” — Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, 2012
In the 2014-15 flu season it worked less than seven per cent of the time — or was 93 per cent ineffective.
In 2015-16, the flu shot was “Overall, just shy of 45 to 50 per cent” effective. In fact, in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, the flu shot’s effectiveness has only once been over 50 per cent.
Bone building and osteoarthritisNot my area of expertise other than to note that the medical literature is inconsistent on this subject.
Calcium pills don't work. Dairy products don't strengthen bones. Drugs may be dangerous.
For years, doctors have been telling us to drink milk, eat dairy products, and take calcium pills to improve our bone vitality. The problem is, they're wrong.
https://www.amazon.ca/Building-Bone-Vitality-Revolutionary-Osteoporosis-Without/dp/0071600191
Heart disease and statinsAll drugs have risks and benefits. Long term studies have shown the value of statins in preventing cardiac disease. Patients will have to weigh the impact of the side effects.
Statin side effects can be uncomfortable, making it seem like the risks outweigh the benefits of these powerful cholesterol-lowering medications.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013
How clean is burning of the wood chips and pellets?
But, I believe the point with burning wood chips is not that it is necessarily cleaner than coal (although it is) but that it is renewable. When trees are cut for chips, new trees will eventually grow and absorb the CO2 that burning the chips released. Over the long run, in theory, burning chips is carbon-neutral.
Both my daughters work with special needs kids and my wife is a professor of education. Your assessment is spot on.My understanding is that it was the no kid left behind program that attempted to give special needs kids the same program as regular kids. Since they couldn't keep up, the filed. They should have been given special courses.
Nice analysis of employment in the coal industry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.3b744b7d92a1 The fast food chain Arby's employs more people than coal mining in the US!!!Less employees per BTU of coal means it's more efficient. Creating loads of jobs for less BTU production isn't as productive, wastes money and raises costs of the product. A rich economy isn't based on the number of people working. Rather, is how much each worker produces. It's about productivity. The more he does, the richer he and the country is. Otherwise you could argue that China should go back to pick and shovels and let millions of people dig ditches rather than as it is today when they use modern backhoes and other heavy and efficient construction equipment. China is rich today because they have become very productive per unit of work. The best fuel would be one where only one person could produce the complete supply for the entire country.
My understanding is that it was the no kid left behind program that attempted to give special needs kids the same program as regular kids. Since they couldn't keep up, the filed. They should have been given special courses.I don't know all the ins and outs of No Child Left Behind. I can tell you that charter schools and school voucher programs do not have to accept special needs kids. Public schools do. the longest voucher program in the country is in the city of Milwaukee that has had vouchers since 1990. The vouchers can be used at any school including parrochial schools. The get around the religious establishment clause by allowing any student to opt out of the religious study and chapel requirements as needed. There are a large number of Lutheran, Catholic and even two Jewish schools that qualify for the voucher program. There were a lot of startup schools in the early days but most of them have been closed as they were sub-standard. The Catholic schools because of the voucher program are keeping a number of Parrish churches alive as without the income from the schools they would close (not enough contributions from the parishioners). Special needs kids all attend Milwaukee city schools as there is no alternative.
So, if this is true, wouldn't special needs kids be better off if we did away with no child be left behind and let local education departments assess their kids and provide special programs for them. The Feds could turn the money over to the states for this or frankly, just get out of the school business entirely and let local communities handle education.
I don't know all the ins and outs of No Child Left Behind. I can tell you that charter schools and school voucher programs do not have to accept special needs kids. Public schools do. the longest voucher program in the country is in the city of Milwaukee that has had vouchers since 1990. The vouchers can be used at any school including parrochial schools. The get around the religious establishment clause by allowing any student to opt out of the religious study and chapel requirements as needed. There are a large number of Lutheran, Catholic and even two Jewish schools that qualify for the voucher program. There were a lot of startup schools in the early days but most of them have been closed as they were sub-standard. The Catholic schools because of the voucher program are keeping a number of Parrish churches alive as without the income from the schools they would close (not enough contributions from the parishioners). Special needs kids all attend Milwaukee city schools as there is no alternative.Charters seems to be pretty successful in NYC. There are about 50,000 kids, mainly minority, trying to get into these schools. Curious about the establishment clause. Vouchers are given to individuals, not the schools directly. So it's the parents who decide where to spend the money, just like if it was a tax rebate. AS long as the school meets some state standard of curriculum, I don't see it as a US constitutional issue unless Wisconsin has some special issue.
Charters seems to be pretty successful in NYC. There are about 50,000 kids, mainly minority, trying to get into these schools. Curious about the establishment clause. Vouchers are given to individuals, not the schools directly. So it's the parents who decide where to spend the money, just like if it was a tax rebate. AS long as the school meets some state standard of curriculum, I don't see it as a US constitutional issue unless Wisconsin has some special issue.My wife has done visits to a number of charter schools in the DC area. There are some good ones but there has to be careful examination that they are performing. Michigan where our Sec of Education is from had a great deal of difficulty implementing their charter school system because they did so in the absence of standards. the state had to totally redo the program because the kids were failing miserably in standardized achievement tests.
"Even as the federal government did its best to pretend that climate change didn't exist, the push against it expanded out into the school system this week. The state legislature in Idaho removed mention of climate change from its science education standards, even as a "think" tank sent school teachers copies of a text that promotes a plethora of non-scientific ideas about climate change."
"A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction" or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communication, sources have told POLITICO."
Anti-climate science think tank trying to get textbooks into US schools:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/anti-climate-science-think-tank-trying-to-get-textbooks-into-us-schools/
Disgusting.
Time for naming and shaming of those who poison even the discussion about climate science.
Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’:
https://secure.politico.com/story/2017/03/energy-department-climate-change-phrases-banned-236655
Cheers,
Bart
The key issue with all fuels is the energy balance which is a combination of the efficiency of conversion and the amount of processing that is required. Natural gas is very good as the extraction costs are low, it is easy to ship, and the conversion to energy is quite high. We have been in our house for just over 30 years and have had three central heating furnaces. The first one came with the home and I don't know what the specifications were for it. The next one we had installed and it was 80 percent efficient. Three years ago we had that replaced with a model that was half the size and 92 percent efficient. You can see the trend in savings over time here.
Natural gas power plants are more efficient than coal plants and require fewer emission controls as it has virtually no pollutants (heavy metals and sulfur & nitrogen oxides). I think wood is not as efficient (you have to include a much higher processing cost for cutting, processing into pellets which includes drying, and transportation as you cannot do this via a pipeline; because of those reasons it will always be a "local" fuel, one would not want to truck large quantities of pellets to a power plant in the desert). As Hans noted, you would have to have filters to scrub fly ash and you would also have maintenance of the plant for the ashes left after combustion (as anyone with a fireplace is well aware).
The practice of conflating the terms, 'Climate Change' with 'Anthropogenic Climate Change', (or Human Induced Climate Change), is probably the reason for the Energy Department's reluctance to use the term 'Climate Change'.Ray, two questions: 1) do you believe the earth is getting warmer? if so, 2a) what is responsible for this? if not, 2b) what is causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap, breaking of Antarctic ice shelves, and melting away in Greenland?
It would be better if there were less biased reporting on the issue of climate change, but the nature of the news media is to focus on bad news, which is more attention-grabbing. It's why almost every extreme weather event in Australia is initially reported as the worst on record. That's much more attention-grabbing than reporting the facts, which are usually the 3rd or 4th or even 7th worst on record.
Here in North Carolina we provide huge amounts of wood chips to Europe. It's very impressive to see the enormous piles of logs and chips on the docks at the Morehead City port waiting to be loaded.
But, I believe the point with burning wood chips is not that it is necessarily cleaner than coal (although it is) but that it is renewable. When trees are cut for chips, new trees will eventually grow and absorb the CO2 that burning the chips released. Over the long run, in theory, burning chips is carbon-neutral.
Ray, two questions: 1) do you believe the earth is getting warmer? if so, 2a) what is responsible for this? if not, 2b) what is causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap, breaking of Antarctic ice shelves, and melting away in Greenland?
That's the argument, but it is not a sound argument. Surely one can understand that there is a difference between several decades of slow absorption/transformation of CO2 during tree growth, and the sudden release of huge amounts of CO2 (and sulfur and heavy metals) into the atmosphere and oceans when burning. When equilibrium is disrupted, which triggers other accelerations (like melting land ice), which triggers other accelerations, ...
Cheers,
Bart
Nice analysis of employment in the coal industry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.3b744b7d92a1 The fast food chain Arby's employs more people than coal mining in the US!!!
And a nice report on what the shift to renewables will mean for Germany. Maybe Trump should take a look?Trump was elected for his promises to coal miners not promises to solar installers. Also, as I posted previously, it's more productive and better economically to have less workers producing more energy like coal than more workers producing less energy like solar.
Ray, two questions: 1) do you believe the earth is getting warmer? if so, 2a) what is responsible for this? if not, 2b) what is causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap, breaking of Antarctic ice shelves, and melting away in Greenland?
Trump was elected for his promises to coal miners not promises to solar installers.
Also, as I posted previously, it's more productive and better economically to have less workers producing more energy like coal than more workers producing less energy like solar.
Trump was elected for his promises to coal miners not promises to solar installers. Also, as I posted previously, it's more productive and better economically to have less workers producing more energy like coal than more workers producing less energy like solar.
Now you ask what is causing the current warming phase. The issue is so complex that no scientist can be certain, but a number of causes have been identified, such as changes in solar activity, gradual changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, and maybe cosmic rays which interact with the earth's magnetic field. I don't deny that man's activities in general will have some effect, but thinking we can change our climate by reducing the very tiny percentages of CO2 in our atmosphere seems bizarre.
Trump promised more American jobs, so he wants to put all those solar installers out of work and hire relatively few coal miners? Duh. But then again, if we keep burning lots of coal, there will be plenty of work for people recovering and rebuilding after climate-change related weather disasters. Is this what Trumpy had in mind?You can't create any jobs if you don't get elected. In any case, Presidents don't really create jobs. They can create a better economic climate where more jobs created by the private businesses. Trump said he was going to do that by lowering personal and business taxes, reducing regulation and making trade fairer.
Cow farts play a part in our planet’s climate growing hotter. Livestock is the largest source of methane gas emissions worldwide, contributing over 28 percent of total emissions. Methane gas, like all other greenhouse gases (which includes water vapor), acts like a blanket around our planet, trapping heat.We should put a carbon tax on steaks. :)
In recent years, several different solutions have been proposed. Scientists and experts have experimented with cows’ diets to see if that could help cut down on the amount of methane gas. For instance, Welsh scientists studied the effects of putting garlic into cows’ feed. According to BBC News, “Garlic directly attacks the organisms in the gut that produce methane.” Some farms have even experimented with having their livestock live in a plastic bubble, which takes the expelled gas and converts it into electricity. "So far, results have been positive".
Ray, when you dig more deeply into the sources that you are fond of quoting and find out that they have direct links to organizations funded by the Koch brothers who are strongly against any scientific efforts to understand global warming, I might take your posts a little more seriously. All I ever see are quotes from way outside the mainstream climatology community from you. the only true statement I've seen from you is that global warming is complex. Of this we are in agreement and nothing else.
Are you still a 'natural climate change' denier, Alan? ;)
We should put a carbon tax on steaks. :)
Ray, when you dig more deeply into the sources that you are fond of quoting and find out that they have direct links to organizations funded by the Koch brothers who are strongly against any scientific efforts to understand global warming, I might take your posts a little more seriously. All I ever see are quotes from way outside the mainstream climatology community from you. the only true statement I've seen from you is that global warming is complex. Of this we are in agreement and nothing else.There are people funding both sides of the argument. The biggest in favor is probably the politically inspired government whose politicians for it have a huge interest in proving it exists because it coincides with their election campaigns. Also researchers who get funding for their studies and new cars that funding pays for, clean energy producers, videographers and photographers who make nature programs, companies that sell carbon credits, etc.
Peer-reviewed science, that who I believe.
That's a big part of the problem. There's too much money involved on both sides. So who do you believe?
Peer-reviewed science, that who I believe.That's tainted as well. Additionally, the believers are willing to sacrifice people on the altar of the 'science". There's no concern of those who are hurt whether they lose jobs or lose the use of their property. Why would deniers trust believers who call them Nazis, and worse? You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
That's tainted as well. Additionally, the believers are willing to sacrifice people on the altar of the 'science". There's no concern of those who are hurt whether they lose jobs or lose the use of their property. Why would deniers trust believers who call them Nazis, and worse? You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
The problem is today we have divided ourselves up into non-compromising groups. Not only with the climate but with everything. There's no compromise any longer. No one listens and tries to understand the other side. We're up to page 11 and I doubt anyone changed their minds about anything.
... For a short time, I was involved in academia (physics), and in my experience you can't get 3 scientists in a room together at the same time to agree on the colour of the wallpaper.
And while I'm on a soap box, I am getting pretty sick and tired of people complaining about the problems of climate models because they get some things wrong...
If the science community can be confused and get it wrong, what do you expect the lay public to know and believe?
If 97% of the scientists do agree, then why assume that they are wrong???????You totally ignored the rest of my post which answered your post. Let me re-post mine for you.
Cheers,
Bart
You stated my point. If the science community can be confused and get it wrong, what do you expect the lay public to know and believe? Especially when you insult them and tell them you want to take away their jobs and property.There is seldom confusion within the scientific community on probably 98% of the issues. You will always find some outliers who will take a contrarian point of view. Take for example of something that I've worked on. There were a couple of papers published by a British MD saying certain vaccines caused autism. The brought about considerable alarm and parents stopped having their children vaccinated. We knew that these claims were false as many national health systems in Europe that have computerized medical records (unlike the US who are behind the eightball on this) showed absolutely ZERO correlation between vaccines and development of autism. It turns out the British researcher had made up the data, was forced to retract it, and lost his medical license. Even with all this happening there is still a significant population who continue to believe in the linkage including our President who made some comments on this a couple of months back.
When I asked (assuming the science is right) where and what should we spend money on in the future, how it should be divvied up, no one answered me. How do we protect people and industries who will be hurt if we implement all the plans of the supporters of climate change? No one responded. If you can't express measures that will help people due to changes in the economy to minimize warming, why would anyone want to support you? Or believe you? You see, people think you don't care about them. That you would sacrifice humans for nature. That you put a toad before someone's property. That you tell a coal miner that for the sake of better climate 50 years from now, he should accept that he'll have to feed his family beans and water because he's going to lose his job now. You really don't seem to care about him.I don't think anyone is callous enough to tell a coal miner to go shove it. However, what is happening in coal country (we get a number regular stories in the Washington Post about what is going on in that region) is there is a recognition by a lot of those who live in the Appalachian mining region which is where all the deep tunnel mining is going on that those specific jobs are disappearing and will not be coming back. It's being replaced in Appalachia by mountain top removal. Areas outside of Appalachia are all strip mines (some parts of Indiana, Utah and Wyoming). As I have noted in a number of posts, the energy economics right now are working against coal and this is why new plants are all gas fired. Gas is much more efficient, less polluting, and costs less so it's a purely economic decision on the part of the power company. This is purely a market driven event, the sort that you and I champion.
When I asked (assuming the science is right) where and what should we spend money on in the future, how it should be divvied up, no one answered me.
...I can't find the number of jobs in coal mining worldwide, but in 2013 there were 80,209 people employed in coal mining in the US. There are less now. The lowest estimate I could find of the number of people who will be displaced by climate change by the end of this century is 50 million. Who cares about them? Who cares about people a few generations from now who will have to contend with the weather and environmental mess we're leaving them?
You see, people think you don't care about them.
...
Why would one, if you can't even handle the truth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA)?No one is dismissing clean energy jobs. Trump only retracted new regulations on coal that would hurt existing coal jobs. If there is a market for clean energy, private industry will create the jobs just as any other job is created.
Besides, suggestions to gradually shift the efforts towards energy conservation and renewable energy (which would only be a partial solution) where more jobs are to be found, are immediately dismissed because that's not what Trump is doing. In fact, he is doing the opposite ...
Cheers,
Bart
You totally ignored the rest of my post which answered your post. Let me re-post mine for you.
------------------
Especially when you insult them and tell them you want to take away their jobs and property.
I can't find the number of jobs in coal mining worldwide, but in 2013 there were 80,209 people employed in coal mining in the US. There are less now. The lowest estimate I could find of the number of people who will be displaced by climate change by the end of this century is 50 million. Who cares about them? Who cares about people a few generations from now who will have to contend with the weather and environmental mess we're leaving them?What will it cost to make a difference? What will you do?
There are many reasons why jobs disappear and new ones come along and as we all know this has happened all the time through history although with an increasing rate now. A much more important loss of jobs or change of jobs is likely to happen when self driving cars and trucks arrive within the next few years. The coal miners are a small number of people compared to these numbers. In 8 years or 12 there will be a Trump mk II that will get votes to stop self driving cars and get drivers behind the steering wheel again :)You probably are right. However, if government interfered, that would be harmful just as it was harmful that Obama put in more regulation to damage the coal industry without even considering the people he would hurt. Government should not be choosing winners and users and let free markets work. I realize that some regulation is required to check harmful conditions. But these should be kept at a minimum. The pendulum has swung to far the other way. Trump is pulling it back to the center.
We should put a carbon tax on steaks. :)
...I don't think anyone is callous enough to tell a coal miner to go shove it. However, what is happening in coal country (we get a number regular stories in the Washington Post about what is going on in that region) is there is a recognition by a lot of those who live in the Appalachian mining region which is where all the deep tunnel mining is going on that those specific jobs are disappearing and will not be coming back. It's being replaced in Appalachia by mountain top removal. Areas outside of Appalachia are all strip mines (some parts of Indiana, Utah and Wyoming). As I have noted in a number of posts, the energy economics right now are working against coal and this is why new plants are all gas fired. Gas is much more efficient, less polluting, and costs less so it's a purely economic decision on the part of the power company. This is purely a market driven event, the sort that you and I champion.I've asked in previous posts what the cost will be to stop warming. No one wants to answer my questions.
The loss of jobs in one industry and the creation of jobs in another industry that are tangentially linked to climate change is happening. The President realized during the campaign that he needed to win certain states. He campaigned hard against the climate regulations arguing that these are costing jobs in the coal industry when such jobs had been on a downward trajectory for the past 40 years. The voters in those regions wanted to believe him and they voted for him in big numbers. That is their right. They may be disappointed that the way of life that they want is not going to come back. This is no different than what is happening in many Midwestern farming communities where population is dropping. That's a trend that has been going on for well over 100 years. Change is difficult but this is what's going on right now.
I've asked in previous posts what the cost will be to stop warming. No one wants to answer my questions.
The issue is that we're not only talking about coal. If global warmists have their way, there will be profound changes to a huge part of our economic system. You'd see major legislation phasing out coal completely followed closely by phasing out all carbon. Regulations would force electric cars into your garages and mandated solar panels on everyone's roof. The cost would be astounding. We'd have to de-militarize, pull out of NATO, let Japan and So Korea worry about nukes in North Korea. We'd have to cut back on Medicare and Social Security and Obamacare. That's the true cost.
It's not just about a few coal miners.
I don't think anybody can answer your question especially now without knowing the timespan and what cost curves (and new tech) will be in play 5-10-15 and 20 years from now. It is simply not known and therefore your question cannot be answered with any degree of precision. But there are some trends and it is pretty clear that e.g. EV's will be on par with fossilcars in purchase price in the early 2020'ties probably around 2022 or so. Maintenance and "fuel" for these cars will be way cheaper than fossil cars. On top of that they will be self driving within that same timespan and therefore you may not even need a car or at least not multiple cars. So it is highly likely that the cost actually will go down instead of up for that part. That does not mean, of course, that all cars are replaced at that time, but I think we can expect that a lot of fossilcars will be worthless at that time (and a few car companies that didn't see this coming in time will go bankrupt). If not 2022 then 3-5 years later. Many things can change much faster than we think, just think of the digital photo revolution and smart phones. A lot fo what we are discussing here cannot, of course, go quite as fast, but I think the cost curves will break the back of the fossil camel.You mean to tell me that after all this time and arguing in the public arena, no one has published figures to quantify costs and what reductions in global warming there will be based on those costs? Even a little start-up has a business plan that projects costs and income. Otherwise no investor or bank will loan them money. Certainly we can expect some analysis before making a national and global commitment to changing the ways our economy works that will effect us profoundly.
You mean to tell me that after all this time and arguing in the public arena, no one has published figures to quantify costs and what reductions in global warming there will be based on those costs? Even a little start-up has a business plan that projects costs and income. Otherwise no investor or bank will loan them money. Certainly we can expect some analysis before making a national and global commitment to changing the ways our economy works that will effect us profoundly.
Let me make it easy for you.
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
Let me make it easy for you.
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
All of those questions are unanswerable by the laypersons here, as you very well know. Total red herring.Peter: Fine. If the people here don't know, provide analysis from the experts. If they don't use my criteria below, use their criteria. But indicate in actual values the costs and the reduction in warming. Hans; You provided no data. Only general statements and bromides.
I'd ask: What changes in global warming will happen if we continue exactly as we're doing?
To which 97% of climate scientists answer in unison "DISASTER!. Probably by the end of the century."
I'd venture to say that those scientists know better about this topic than you, Ray or anyone here. Including me.
Peter: Fine. If the people here don't know, provide analysis from the experts. If they don't use my criteria below, use their criteria. But indicate in actual values the costs and the reduction in warming. Hans; You provided no data. Only general statements and bromides.OK I found one answer to my question. It seems like a lot of money for not much.
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
Peter: Fine. If the people here don't know, provide analysis from the experts. If they don't use my criteria below, use their criteria.
OK I found one answer to my question. It seems like a lot of money for not much.
This has a.o. been agreed in The Paris Agreement on climate change: each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that it intends to achieve.That's not a summary. One report has page after page of calculus, derivatives, etc. The other is the total UN report that runs almost 100 pages. If you want people to buy much less understand what the costs and results are going to be, you have to put in into an executive summary like the one I showed from Copenhagen above.
Here you can find the details:
http://unfccc.int/focus/long-term_strategies/items/9971.php
Here is THE UNITED STATES MID-CENTURY STRATEGY (other nations have goal and strategies specific to their geography):
http://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mid_century_strategy_report-final_red.pdf
and here some additional documentation:
http://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/us_mcs_documentation_and_output.pdf
Of course, without proper funding of e.g. the EPA, it is very likely that progress will fall behind schedule, and then additional cost will be involved when trying to catch up with the rest of the world at a later date. And of course, the fact that the USA is the current no.2 polluter of the world, makes an extra effort unavoidable.
Cheers,
Bart
According to ... who is 'climatedepot.com' (sponsored by ..., mission statement ...)?It's easy to be critical. If you provide a summary that's easy to understand like the one I provided, I'll be glad to read it.
What is, according to them the cost of doing nothing?
Cheers,
Bart
It's easy to be critical.
If you provide a summary that's easy to understand like the one I provided, I'll be glad to read it.
You're dodging the simple question.OK. So you can't furnish the data only make a joke about not being able too. I get it. Thanks.
So you are saying that you can't handle the truth (which is not a simple one page summary)?
Okay, let's make it simple enough for you to understand:
Disaster: imminent.
Required action: No time to lose.
Solution by Trump administration: Cover eyes, plug ears and shout LaLaLa...
Cheers,
Bart
Ray, when you dig more deeply into the sources that you are fond of quoting and find out that they have direct links to organizations funded by the Koch brothers who are strongly against any scientific efforts to understand global warming, I might take your posts a little more seriously.
All I ever see are quotes from way outside the mainstream climatology community from you. the only true statement I've seen from you is that global warming is complex. Of this we are in agreement and nothing else.
You mean to tell me that after all this time and arguing in the public arena, no one has published figures to quantify costs and what reductions in global warming there will be based on those costs?The one place to look is the property casualty insurance industry. they have to quantify impacts of weather in order to make a profit. Insurance in areas where violent weather is a 'fact of life' (tornadoes, hurricanes) is more expensive than other areas. Building along beachfront areas subject to erosion also falls into this category. Because of the porous nature of the substrata in Florida, coastal regions will be very susceptible to damage from sea level rise. It would be interesting to know what is happening to insurance premiums in this region.
Your kidding, Alan. Right? Did you miss the link to the references at the foot of the following article I linked to?There are many more references that argue the other side. Moore is no expert in climatology but rather someone who writes on international trade. He has worked for organizations that are anti-climate change and receive funding from the Koch Foundation. His past affiliations with groups such as the Tobacco Institute don't inspire confidence. Again, had you done a little bit of research you might be a more credible commenter on this topic.
https://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
There are about 80 or so references to a broad range of studies by various universities and institutes. I could list them all at the foot of this post, but it would take up too much space. That's why we have links, so I'll list just a few of those studies selected at random.Number of references matter little; quality of references matter a lot.
Of course, many of those studies are not necessarily freely available. You might have to pay to view the full text.
You mean to tell me that after all this time and arguing in the public arena, no one has published figures to quantify costs and what reductions in global warming there will be based on those costs? Even a little start-up has a business plan that projects costs and income. Otherwise no investor or bank will loan them money. Certainly we can expect some analysis before making a national and global commitment to changing the ways our economy works that will effect us profoundly.
Let me make it easy for you.
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
All valid questions that the culture needs to think about. However, we also need to ask what is the cost of NOT doing anything.
OK I found one answer to my question. It seems like a lot of money for not much.
Quote: "Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: 'We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree...the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years...Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model.'
'If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.'
'But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free -- quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.'"
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100/
...The seven, fine looking fat cows represented 7 years of plenty (ie. good weather), and the seven ugly and gaunt cows who ate up the fine looking cows, represented 7 years of drought.Of course, it's those damn cows what with all the farts and methane that caused Pharaoh all that grief.
Does anyone have factors and costs relating to how maximum demand for electricity on the hottest day of the year requiring the most air conditioners to operate are handled with clean energy and traditional fossil fuel generators? In other words, do fossil generators still have to be in place to take up the slack on a very hot but cloudy and no-wind day? If so, aren't you paying double the costs to maintain both system approaches? Are you also paying for double the replacement costs over the life cycles of both type of systems? Are these costs included in the charts that compare the various methods of producing electricity?
Not if you use large and highly efficient batteries.So are countries doing that or is it a mixed bag? Major cities are providing batteries so they can completely turn off their fossil generators? Do you have any links that I can read.
Where are these batteries you mentioned? Are they of sufficient size to handle a whole city's demand?
Maybe in the future. We'll have to check with Ellon Musk about his new batteries.So if a town has upgraded to wind and/or solar, there still has to be a conventional electric generation plant using fossil fuels to back up it up. You can't shut down the plant. You have to use it when it's dark and no wind outside. You now have to replace both electric production plants when their equipment life cycles are over. You now have two plants to maintain and service. So when I read what the cost to produce electricity with solar and wind, do the figures include the cost of the fossil fuel plant that must back it up? What are the true costs?
I don't think we should mothball all existing power plants, but a networked system combining solars, wind, large batteries, waves, intermixed with some mega, micro and even nano power plants will offer new ways to generate, store, and distribute electrical power. And on dark, windless days we could generate some juice by using crank and pedal machines. Or build small home methane digesters and generators.
My main objection is with the description of the current and projected levels of CO2 as a pollutant. That's just nonsense.
Perhaps the big question is, 'Do the ends justify the means?' Is lying about the climate effects of CO2 justified if the eventual outcome is a cleaner and more efficient energy supply.
Simply put, no.
Here in Australia we have a state government building a gas-fired plant for "backup" purposes, to deal with extreme loads and/or failures of other system (including renewables). It will operate all the time, but at a very minimal level. When it needs to increase output, it will. There is no prediction of cost increases for consumers. Most businesses have backups and BCP in place, and those costs are factored in. Overall, though, vastly reduced costs of renewables mean the cost of maintaining a backup isn't that great.
Analyzing this a bit further, it seems that individual costs for electricity will go down for those on solar after the ROI Return on Investment period covering it's installation. There will be less "pollutants" and CO2. However, since fossil fuels plants have to remain as backup to solar, the overall cost to society could be higher. If government has to subsidize fossil fuel plants to make them available during "dark" periods, those costs have to be passed on to the taxpayers. So you may save on electric costs for your home but then pay for it in extra taxes reimbursed to the fossil plant. So the government first subsidizes solar to get people off of fossil fuel. Then the same government has to subsidize fossil fuel. A case of unintended consequences.
Has anyone figured this in the actual monetary costs to society? Not that it will matter. What will drive the market is lower costs through solar to the individual home owner.
Maybe in the future. We'll have to check with Ellon Musk about his new batteries.
The cost of storage using batteries is going down rapidly although this is probably not a universal solution to be paired with solar and wind power storage.
Simply put, no.Phil's point is correct. There will always be the need for traditional power plants but the need will be much reduced. Plants will be much smaller as the share of renewables increase. It worth noting that not every house can accommodate solar panels. It may be a lack of sufficient roof size or the wrong orientation. Large apartment buildings have insufficient roof size per the number of inhabitants. Look at Manahattan; it will never be able to generate enough solar panel for the 2M citizens who live there.
Here in Australia we have a state government building a gas-fired plant for "backup" purposes, to deal with extreme loads and/or failures of other system (including renewables). It will operate all the time, but at a very minimal level. When it needs to increase output, it will. There is no prediction of cost increases for consumers. Most businesses have backups and BCP in place, and those costs are factored in. Overall, though, vastly reduced costs of renewables mean the cost of maintaining a backup isn't that great.
...
...
Has anyone figured this in the actual monetary costs to society? Not that it will matter. What will drive the market is lower costs through solar to the individual home owner.
Not true, the anthropogenic amount of additional greenhouse gas CO2 (and other combustion byproducts) is detrimental to the environment as a whole.
So according to you 97% of the scientists are lying? Not true.
My main objection is with the description of the current and projected levels of CO2 as a pollutant. That's just nonsense.
So is that statement.
As far as I know, you are not a climatologist, you are just a person on the Internet who happens to disagree with science.
Inflammatory, ill-informed statements like that do little to advance your specious claims.
Phil's point is correct. There will always be the need for traditional power plants but the need will be much reduced. Plants will be much smaller as the share of renewables increase. It worth noting that not every house can accommodate solar panels. It may be a lack of sufficient roof size or the wrong orientation. Large apartment buildings have insufficient roof size per the number of inhabitants. Look at Manahattan; it will never be able to generate enough solar panel for the 2M citizens who live there.
We are seeing a weird thing going on in my area. Older houses are being demolished for new very large homes. Most of these are not designed with solar panels in mind which is rather strange. I think in other areas of the country this is not the case.
I tend to agree, it is not the solution but it can be one of several solutions. Besides the important step to first conserve more energy, there are several technologies that can currently be employed as buffer storage during low wind and/or low light conditions. It depends on local conditions and maturity of the technology which ones are to be preferred. GeoThermal is an option, Hydro Pumped Storage (either below ground or on/above the surface) can be a solution, and Hydrogen produced with solar/wind can also be a solution. In coastal areas, tidal and wave generators can contribute as well.where's the money coming from to pay for all these new techniques? It would seem that existing grids would continue to use existing power generator stations that use coal or at the most switch over to gas.
Some of these can be used as buffer storage and some may produce enough to feed the grid as an auxiliary source.
With ongoing R&D, the efficiency of existing solutions will also increase over time, so it then becomes more of a logistical problem to transport the energy to those spots where it's needed.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here's an overview of some of the current Energy storage technologies:
http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/energy-storage-technologies
You are really going off the rails on this Ray. 100% of Trump voters probably don't believe in climate change or global warming and that doesn't prove anything. Someone with a PhD in organic chemistry might not be equipped to pass judgement on atmospheric chemistry but they are a scientist and maybe they don't believe in global warming either. A scientist who receives funding from a Koch Brother foundation might have a different view on this than someone working on a scientific grant from the US government and so on. Your statement blithely ignores what happens in peer reviewed science (at least here in the US; you can better tell me how it works in Australia).
There are big, blatant lies at one end of the spectrum, such as the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph, and little white lies at the other end of the spectrum, such as telling your overweight wife that she isn't really fat when she asks if you think she is overweight.
97% of all scientists certainly do not accept that CO2 and Methane levels are a significant problem, but 97% of scientists working in government-funded climate research centres might well tell you that they agree with the ethos and ideology of their workplace, otherwise their prospects of promotion would not only be seriously reduced, they might even get the sack.
If you wanted to determine scientifically what the true consensus of opinion is among the scientists in the various disciplines involved in climate research, ticking a box on a questionnaire form would not be sufficient. To get a scientifically sound result, each scientist would have to be interviewed whilst attached to a reliable lie-detector machine. Unfortunately, there are no such reliable machines, and such a process would be socially unacceptable anyway.Yes, and we have now way of discerning whether you represent any type of consensus among those who post on LuLa in the absence of a lie detctor.
There is also the issue that many scientists are able to justify their dishonest stance on the dangers of CO2 because they believe that switching to renewables will be of benefit to mankind in the long run because fossil fuels are a limited resource, and sooner or later they will become scarce, and also because certain countries with major issues of poverty will not spend the money to build the cleanest fossil fuel power plants that modern technology can provide, such as the Ultra-Supercritical variety of coal plants.Do you really believe in conspiracy theories? Perhaps this is all part of a big plan by Putin to distract everyone. Perhaps it is a bit plot by the Chinese so that they can position there country to capture the majority share of renewable energy equipment and supplies (Hey, wait a minute; this is actually happening!!! they are the world leaders in solar panel and wind turbines right now. Maybe this is why President Trump is meeting President Xi).
There is also the issue that at least some of the scientists working in these government-funded research centres may simply be second-rate scientists who genuinely accept the mantra that CO2 is bad because they are conformists, or are pathologically worried about the future of their grandchildren, or are not particularly good at thinking for themselves.Perhaps but also don't forget that it might just be you have bias in the other direction. Confirmational biases run in both directions.
You are correct, of course, but have you seen this new feature from Google? Right now only for the US though https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#p=0Hans, the new houses whose prices start at $1.5 million tend to have these gabled roof designs that are not amendable to standard solar panels. Each roof section is too small in area. Dow Chemical had developed solar shingles that could have been used in such designs but the shingles were not cost competitive and have been withdrawn from the market.
Hans, the new houses whose prices start at $1.5 million tend to have these gabled roof designs that are not amendable to standard solar panels. Each roof section is too small in area. Dow Chemical had developed solar shingles that could have been used in such designs but the shingles were not cost competitive and have been withdrawn from the market.Solar panels are ugly, to boot. How do you repair and replace the roof when you have too? Do people consider those costs when they buy solar? What's the real ROI on solar?
where's the money coming from to pay for all these new techniques?
It would seem that existing grids would continue to use existing power generator stations that use coal or at the most switch over to gas.
Also, as Alan G posted apartment buildings and many homes don't lens themselves to solar panels on rooves. Congrats areas like the DC NYC Boston corridor are to crowded. Also, areas in the north don't get enough sun as do areas on winter.
Here is a solution from Tesla's Elon Musk for Australia http://www.wired.co.uk/article/tesla-elon-musk-australia-power-island
Solar panels are ugly, to boot. How do you repair and replace the roof when you have too? Do people consider those costs when they buy solar? What's the real ROI on solar?The installation companies do a roof assessment before the panels are installed and I believe also provide a warranty on the roof. The ROI is positive. Our neighbors who have them have pretty much a zero electric bill as they sell excess electricity generated during the day back to the gird. We haven't done this as we probably will not be in our house for the necessary time to make it pay off.
In defence of 'real' scientists, I will admit that the certainty expressed about the effects of CO2 and the so-called 97% consensus is merely a political tactic to get people motivated.
Solar panels are ugly, to boot. How do you repair and replace the roof when you have too? Do people consider those costs when they buy solar? What's the real ROI on solar?
Solar panels are ugly, to boot. How do you repair and replace the roof when you have too? Do people consider those costs when they buy solar? What's the real ROI on solar?
The installation companies do a roof assessment before the panels are installed and I believe also provide a warranty on the roof. The ROI is positive. Our neighbors who have them have pretty much a zero electric bill as they sell excess electricity generated during the day back to the gird. We haven't done this as we probably will not be in our house for the necessary time to make it pay off.ROI (Return on Investment) is time based. I assume it's positive. How long to pay back the original costs? When I dealt with real estate owners and managements companies, they weren't interested in energy reduction systems unless the ROI was 3 years, maybe up to 5 years. What's it with residential solar ?
Breakeven after some 10 years, profit from then on. A lot depends on local energy prices, solar PV location/orientation, and local climate (cloudy/sunny).In the example you provided, there was an approximate 7% return in value for a residential solar system. However, the savings did not include depreciation-the panels and equipment will eventually have to be replaced like hot water heaters, washing machines and other equipment. They also did not cover maintenance and repairs. Things do break, panels get dirty and have to be cleaned, etc. What happens when the roof has to be repaired, etc? What's the costs to temporarily remove and replace it? The report also indicates that some of the installation was offset by a rebate, not figured in the costs and savings calculations.
Here's some more background:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/solar-power-is-it-for-you/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/for-a-brighter-future-science-looks-to-re-energize-the-common-solar-cell/
And large corporations also reduce their Utility power requirements by building their own solar PV energy suppplies:
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/03/amazon-to-cover-millions-in-warehouse-rooftop-square-footage-with-solar-panels/
Cheers,
Bart
Depreciation and life cycle.
Versus rising energy bills from utility companies?I'm only interested in the true costs and savings of solar panels on the roof for my home. There are others in my neighborhood that have them. But I'm not convinced. Is the payback really there? Are the headaches worth it? My luck, two weeks after I install them, some goose will fall out of the sky and break it.
Cheers,
Bart
Hans, the new houses whose prices start at $1.5 million tend to have these gabled roof designs that are not amendable to standard solar panels. Each roof section is too small in area. Dow Chemical had developed solar shingles that could have been used in such designs but the shingles were not cost competitive and have been withdrawn from the market.
I think that all anyone really needs to know, is that the claimed 'Anthropogenic Climate Change' is due to lizard alien overlords, and their attempt to impose a New World Order in conjunction with the Free Masons, the Vatican and the Bilderberg Group. It's all about creating an atmosphere more readily amenable to the lizard aliens, who need atmospheric carbon reduced, in order to fully materialise, without having to hide in holographic projections that make them appear human. Donald Trump is the world's only hope.
I think that all anyone really needs to know, is that the claimed 'Anthropogenic Climate Change' is due to lizard alien overlords,... Donald Trump is the world's only hope.
Yes, and we have now way of discerning whether you represent any type of consensus among those who post on LuLa in the absence of a lie detctor.
..you don't even have to do this as they all publish in the open scientific literature and their results are out there for anyone to try to poke a hole into.
Do you really believe in conspiracy theories?
Perhaps but also don't forget that it might just be you have bias in the other direction. Confirmational biases run in both directions.
In defence of 'real' scientists, I will admit that the certainty expressed about the effects of CO2 and the so-called 97% consensus is merely a political tactic to get people motivated.
Why would they want to "motivate" people? And for that matter, motivate them to do what?
Speaking of biased researchers reminds me of the original Jurassic Park. Remember the scene early in the movie when the male and female stars were digging in rock trying to expose a 65 million year old T-Rex. When the owner of the park helicopters in and asks them to take time off from their work to assist him on a project on a small little island. Well, the two paleontologist said no they can't as they are honestly devoted and committed to continue doing what they were doing uncovering rocks in the sandy desert. So the park owner said that he would provide two years of funding for them to continue their research if they would go. In a blink, the two stars are on a little island being chased by a real T-Rex.
So much for honest devotion and commitment.
And as far as our wellbeing is concerned and (almost immediately quantifiably) affected by coal power plants:
Nuclear power policy in the ’80s caused low birth weights after coal stepped in:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/low-birth-weights-found-in-areas-where-coal-replaced-nuclear-power-in-the-80s/
It's much better to prevent such things from happening (or continue doing so), than trying to cure the effects after the damage has been done.
Cheers,
Bart
I assume the solar company provides a warranty for any damage they do to the roof during installation. I was referring to regular roof replacement due to age. You have to deal then with the costs to temporarily remove and reinstall the solar system. How much is that? What about warranties by the company doing the solar work? How do you get electricity into your home during the roofing replacement? What if you're off the grid entirely because of batteries during the work?I don't think any of the homes around here are off the grid. They stay hooked up and sell excess power back to the electric utility (they get a credit on their bill). the roofing issue is one that I think is underrated. Most fiberglass roofing shingles do not have the life that they are advertised for. We have been in our house for 33 years and done two roof replacements because of age. The first was five years after we had been in the house and the second seven years ago. Shingles do not last as long in areas where there are real winters and summers.
Yes, I have seen several comments being sceptical about this approach. Nevertheless Tesla has announced such tiles which will begin delivery this year http://nordic.businessinsider.com/tesla-solar-roof-solar-city-features-2017-2?r=US&IR=TI'm skeptical about this. I followed the Dow Chemical R&D on solar shingles as it looked like an interesting alternative to the panels. The shingles were not as efficient as the panels and more expensive to produce. The ROI was not there compared to the panels. I look forward to the Tesla field work. As far as I know they are not being marketed in the US.
Maybe they don't spend money in Australia but they certainly do in the US. A large amount of money has been spend over the years in the US building dams and levees in rivers prone to flooding. this link might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927 I'm sure that this was far worse of a disaster than any that has occurred in Australia. There are other flood control districts in the US as well.
What must be puzzling for many people is why the government doesn't take measures to eliminate, or at least reduce the effects of such floods. Surely the total cost of the damage and disruption to economic activity, which occurs every 20 years or so, must be higher than the cost of fixing the problem.
I'm skeptical about this. I followed the Dow Chemical R&D on solar shingles as it looked like an interesting alternative to the panels. The shingles were not as efficient as the panels and more expensive to produce. The ROI was not there compared to the panels. I look forward to the Tesla field work. As far as I know they are not being marketed in the US.
Maybe they don't spend money in Australia but they certainly do in the US. A large amount of money has been spend over the years in the US building dams and levees in rivers prone to flooding. this link might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927 I'm sure that this was far worse of a disaster than any that has occurred in Australia. There are other flood control districts in the US as well.
Seems that the problem was due to particulate carbon, not CO2. Modern Ultra-Supercritial coal-fired power plants do not emit particulate carbon and the other real pollutants, such as SO2, Nitrogen Oxides and heavy metals. Problem solved.
You do realise that it was a fictional story, not a documentary? Just thought I'd check.I thought Jurassic Park was a very picturesque way of showing how two people who are very honest and forthright could in any case have their minds totally influenced when money is offered to pay for their research. While fiction in my example, this human failing is all too often apparent in the real world, even to include climate researchers.
Another milestone, if you will, has been reached now that Tesla has passed Ford in market cap. See here http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/tesla-shares-surge-to-all-time-high-pushing-its-market-cap-past-fords.htmlThis is why the government should stay out of it and not pick winners and losers. Free markets will do the best to sort these out.
and just a few billions below GM. Who would have thought that 5 years ago? Yes, some would argue they are not profitable, but they invest huge amounts into new factories (gigafactory 1 and 2) and R&D. Especially ramping up for the production of the model 3. Daimler just announced that they see no future for fuel cell cars http://fortune.com/2017/04/02/daimler-fuel-cell-car-development/
It's interested to see the disruptions within the car industry. Similar disruptions will happen for solar power, storage and the grid. We just have to wait to see what it looks like in 5 years.
They are specifically sold in the US and Tesla says that the cost of the roof is the same or slightly cheaper than similar non-solar roofs and last twice as long and in addition they produce electricity. That's what Tesla and Elon Musk says and expect to believe him given what else he has produced. The questions is how soon they will be available outside of the US but since Tesla now is one company that does the cars, solar panels and roofs and battery storage for both residential and grid use, I expect that all these products will be available world wide over time. We will see.Thanks for clarifying. I stopped following the solar shingle technology last year when Dow exited the business. It will be interesting to see if this technology supplants solar panels given how cheap panels are these days.
I don't think any of the homes around here are off the grid. They stay hooked up and sell excess power back to the electric utility (they get a credit on their bill). the roofing issue is one that I think is underrated. Most fiberglass roofing shingles do not have the life that they are advertised for. We have been in our house for 33 years and done two roof replacements because of age. The first was five years after we had been in the house and the second seven years ago. Shingles do not last as long in areas where there are real winters and summers.So what are the real costs and savings. I think the advertised ones are bogus. I was reading that it costs $150 a year for an annual inspection. Then $20-30 per panel to have them cleaned annually. So that's pushing $4-500 a year just for annual upkeep. What if a baseball hit by your neighbor's kids breaks one of the panel elements? Another $4-500? But the big cost seems like when you replace the roof. I'm not familiar with the installations. I assume the supports go right though the roofing materials to the wood roof below. That means when the roof is replace, you basically have to completely remove and reinstall the solar system, supports and all. It's not just a simple matter of the panels. Or is it? What about the associate wiring? Do you need an electrician in additional to the solar installers? What does this cost? Most of all, are any of these costs actually included in the figures when "experts" talk about how cheap solar is?
Thanks for clarifying. I stopped following the solar shingle technology last year when Dow exited the business. It will be interesting to see if this technology supplants solar panels given how cheap panels are these days.That seems promising. The advantages are you don't have to worry about how roof replacement effects the solar system. It's done at the same time. The downside is maintenance and repair. What if you lose some of output due to a failure sort of like when Christmas lights go out when one light goes out on a two wire system? Now you have to find the problem and remove and replace tiles. How easy is that compared to replacing a common defective solar panel used today?
Thanks for clarifying. I stopped following the solar shingle technology last year when Dow exited the business. It will be interesting to see if this technology supplants solar panels given how cheap panels are these days.
That seems promising. The advantages are you don't have to worry about how roof replacement effects the solar system. It's done at the same time. The downside is maintenance and repair. What if you lose some of output due to a failure sort of like when Christmas lights go out when one light goes out on a two wire system? Now you have to find the problem and remove and replace tiles. How easy is that compared to replacing a common defective solar panel used today?
More info here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/musk-says-tesla-s-solar-shingles-will-cost-less-than-a-dumb-roof and I didn't hear details about how they are interconnected. But I assume they have thought about how to make it robust not only physically (which they clearly have) but also electrically. It's clearly a high-end product initially so it might be similar to the cars where they also started with a high-end car and then go mainstream with a midsize car in high volume. Tesla drives a lot of innovation these days, but I'm sure others will follow quickly.Think of all the possibilities with those solar tiles. You can paste one on your back to power your heart's pacemaker. No more scrambling around looking for an AC outlet to charge your iPhone. Of course, the downside is you can't tell your wife you missed her phone call because the batteries were dead.
In Norway thet have a lot of EV's and here is a video showing just some of the infrastructure they have now for charging. A bit of the future for most places https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73-rYe82lI
Maybe they don't spend money in Australia but they certainly do in the US. A large amount of money has been spend over the years in the US building dams and levees in rivers prone to flooding. this link might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927 I'm sure that this was far worse of a disaster than any that has occurred in Australia. There are other flood control districts in the US as well.
WOW! 50 kW!
Norway continues to make the rest of us look like idiots.
It's important to understand that, whilst Australia is roughly the same size as continental United States, the total water flowing through all of our waterways, is less than the Mississippi.
The vast majority of the country is flood plains, with a majority of that being desert or very arid. With a population only a fraction of that of the US, but with a similar geographical size, we can have floods that are massive without really affecting anyone. In the late 80's there was a flood water about the size of western Europe and it affected less than 10,000 people. It just depends where it happens.
So, anyway, it's hard to build dams and levies for rivers which, most of the time, literally have no water in them.
Not really solved, yet. First, at best a modern coal plant has reduced SO2 and NOx emissions, not zero emissions. Second, not all power plants are modern. Also, the Trump Administration has, instead of creating additional incentives for upgrading, relaxed the restrictions for existing (incl. older) powerplants and infrastructure.
For AGW alarmists it seems that the most worrying aspect is that the emissions of that clean, odourless gas called CO2, which is so much loved by plants, are reduced by only 17%. I guess that's the killer. ;)
It nearly was the killer. Remember Apollo 13? Inadequate CO2 scrubbing was nearly the end of those boys.
Just because plants love it doesn't mean it's good for everything.
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf)
Publication and citation analyses are not perfect indicators of researcher credibility...
Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here...
There is no completely impartial organisation which funds climate research, as far as I know.
It's perfectly obvious who stands to gain from the deniers. The fossil fuel people. But who's hiring the 97% of climate scientists who are warning us of imminent disaster? Who's paying for their research? And why? Just to stir up trouble? What do they have to gain? Why are they not "impartial"?
And please, please, please don't try to tell us that they're doing it simply to ensure continued funding. They're not that venal. Not all of them.
Ray, in Australia where you live, are climate changes different because you're in the Southern Hemisphere?
...
Whilst the Arctic might be melting in some respects, the Antarctic might be increasing its ice.
Google that. Antarctic ice is melting faster than anyone realized.
Virtual power plants in Australia http://www.sunverge.com/australia-modernizing-grid-impressive-pace-us/
And btw. interesting to see the US only as number 4 in installed solar power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country in 2015. Germany is number 2 after China! And wind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country and here the US is number 2 after China. China has grown both solar and wind enormously and more than any other country in the world.
True. One shouldn't exaggerate. I meant the harmful emission during the burning process have been reduced to negligible levels. It's difficult to get precise figures but it is claimed that the latest Ultra-supercritical plants in Japan emit 50% less SOx, 80% less NOx, 70% less particulate, and 17% less CO2 than the older subcritical units that were replaced.The big effort to clean up US coal fired power plants took place several decades ago. During the 1970s it was noted that lakes and streams in the eastern part of the US were becoming rapidly acidified from rainfall that carried sulfur and nitrogen oxides from the power plants. This was harm fish as well as trees since the pH of the soil was changing. Scrubbers were mandated to control those pollutants and at least that part of the problem was solved. Particulate matter is also controlled because of mandates. From those perspectives, coal burning is much cleaner than it was.
If as you suggest, the fossil fuel industry were to fund climate research, yes, it's reasonable that that research would benefit the funders. That's what always happens when industries hire scientists. Just as the tobacco guys did with their "research".ExxonMobil now has a very clear statement on climate change: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
The big effort to clean up US coal fired power plants took place several decades ago. During the 1970s it was noted that lakes and streams in the eastern part of the US were becoming rapidly acidified from rainfall that carried sulfur and nitrogen oxides from the power plants. This was harm fish as well as trees since the pH of the soil was changing. Scrubbers were mandated to control those pollutants and at least that part of the problem was solved. Particulate matter is also controlled because of mandates. From those perspectives, coal burning is much cleaner than it was.
ExxonMobil now has a very clear statement on climate change: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
Hans,
There's been a lot of controversy recently in Australia about the issue of inadequate back-up power in states that rely heavily on solar and wind power, such as South Australia.
During recent heat waves there have been blackouts due to inadequate supplies to meet peak demand.
ExxonMobil now has a very clear statement on climate change: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
Good! So perhaps the issue is, will Trump's new policies encourage the construction of even cleaner coal-fired power plants of the Ultra-Supercritical variety?
But it is always a bit strange to hear that from those companies that are considered to be a mayor source of pollution.
You know in the end they ( their investors) want you to burn even more oil. This is pure marketing.
Yes, and the Shell oil company already in 1991 issued a documentary with a warning about Climate change:I don't have a problem with fuel companies defending their interests. They have the same rights as everyone else. Their interests include their stockholders and their employees. They provide enormous wealth and jobs to the country in general, taxes, and provide the main energy to run our cars, trucks, commercial aviation, ships, and tanks, and power plants to produce electricity. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger
Unfortunately, they didn't really act on it then, and are still not very active (but slowly improving). Shorter term shareholder satisfaction is more important than sustainable growth, alas.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm not sure that the issues in South Australia that you mentioned were due to inadequate backup for renewable power, but rather a limited maximum production capacity.
Cheers,
Bart
It's uneconomic to build capacity for those extremes and run on under-capacity for most of the year.
In general, nobody in his right mind would invest for the long term in Coal fueled centralized power generation. The whole idea of centralized production is questionable anyway, because that means that peak capacity has to be built for extreme events in the entire grid section, and those extremes will become more extreme.
Bart,Is America doing anything with HELE? Does America produce black coal and is it shipped overseas?
It looks like Japan is leading the way, once again. They obviously think that coal is safer than nuclear, and presumably cheaper and more reliable than wind and solar. However, they do have a mix of various sources of energy and will continue to develop renewables.
The Japanese seem very sensible people to me.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/japan-coal-power-plants/8224302
"The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations."
And here's a list of all those proposed USC power plants in the following article.
http://in.reuters.com/article/japan-carbon-plant-idINL3N16X0RE
Is America doing anything with HELE? Does America produce black coal and is it shipped overseas?
Bart,
It looks like Japan is leading the way, once again.
The numbers are in. The year 2016, according to the Meteorological World Organization in Geneva, was the warmest since records began in 1880. The global average temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the value of pre-industrial time.
Compared to the average of the years 1981 to 2010, Arctic ice was diminished in the surface area equivalent to four times of Germany. That will have direct consequences for the northern and central Europe.
Interesting article about the effects of, and requirements for, the mix of renewable energy sources and intermittent use of more traditional power generation as complement for swings in renewable production. It also shows that smaller traditional power generating plants make more sense than huge capacity centralized production for that purpose of complemental generators. Also the Hydro pumped storage is mentioned as a means of complementary energy backup.
Renewables won’t drive up cost of electricity from fossil fuel plants:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/renewables-wont-drive-up-cost-of-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/
Cheers,
Bart
It was due to both factors, Bart. Here's the story.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/aemo-report-on-heatwave-rolling-blackouts-reveals-low-wind-power-inability-to-turn-on-gasfired-pelican-point-led-to-power-cuts/news-story/2c4d4257f53ab94e98a30b9937329f70
"The problem was predominantly due to demand for power reaching above expectation to near-record SA highs, and wind power dwindling to just over two per cent of total output.
At that point AEMO puts a notice out to market seeking extra generation, however sources said the operator should have known that all generators able to respond were already running.
They said AEMO should have made a call to Pelican Point’s operator Engie to find out if the mothballed station could be switched on."
Whatever is most economic is the best choice, taking all known factors into consideration rather than uncertain factors such as the possible harmful effects of CO2 emissions. It is a fact that electricity prices have risen quite significantly in recent years, in Australia, by a greater degree than the inflation rate.
Downwind impacts of a coal fired power plant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/03/wealth-didnt-matter-pollution-from-a-coal-fired-plant-carried-miles-by-wind-still-hurt-their-babies/?utm_term=.7221ce6e2235
The global average temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the value of pre-industrial time.
The year 2016, according to the Meteorological World Organization in Geneva, was the warmest since records began in 1880.
The global average temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius above the value of pre-industrial time.
Interesting article about the effects of, and requirements for, the mix of renewable energy sources and intermittent use of more traditional power generation as complement for swings in renewable production. It also shows that smaller traditional power generating plants make more sense than huge capacity centralized production for that purpose of complemental generators. Also the Hydro pumped storage is mentioned as a means of complementary energy backup.Bart: Your comment does not reflect the article. The article says that costs to start-up fossil fuel plants when renewables don't provide the power (no wind or sun) are going to go up during these slack periods. It costs every time you turn on a fossil fuel plant which is currently 2500 going up to 4500 times a year by 2030. The 4500 happens because they'll be more renewables, not less. The article also does not indicate the costs for building more efficient alternative fossil fuel or hydro plants to replace existing fossil fuel plants. The costs for non-renewable plants are not going to go away because we have renewables.
Renewables won’t drive up cost of electricity from fossil fuel plants:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/renewables-wont-drive-up-cost-of-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/
Cheers,
Bart
Bart: Your comment does not reflect the article.
The article says that costs to start-up fossil fuel plants when renewables don't provide the power (no wind or sun) are going to go up during these slack periods.
Great! Thank God for that! The climate in pre-industrial times was awful in Northern Europe.
It wasn't the warmest year in Australia since records began, according to our Bureau of Meteorology. It was the fourth warmest.
Right. That pre-industrial period is known as the little ice age. It was damn cold ...
... and the cold had absolutely nothing to do with human activity or the lack theeof.
Alan, I does.I didn't argue that wind and solar do not provide a savings. My point is that solar promoters do not include the costs to continue running fossil fuel plants to provide power during slack periods. It's the same when global warmists only discuss the negative aspects without mentioning the positive ones. It causes people to feel like they're being deceived by those with an agenda.
And it's more than offset by the savings during the periods that the fossil fuel plants do not run.
Cheers,
Bart
I didn't argue that wind and solar do not provide a savings. My point is that solar promoters do not include the costs to continue running fossil fuel plants to provide power during slack periods. It's the same when global warmists only discuss the negative aspects without mentioning the positive ones. It causes people to feel like they're being deceived by those with an agenda.
It was maybe 0.5 degrees colder than the long term average.
It preceded the industrial revolution period since which emissions and temperature broke all upward trends.
Cheers,
Bart
"The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009:
I would suggest that the accuracy of the record of past climate changes have a much higher level of confidence than the computer projections of future changes in climate.
Here's a graph of recent past climate changes, from the Geological perspective, showing that the Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climate-Optimum, was warmer than today.
I didn't argue that wind and solar do not provide a savings. My point is that solar promoters do not include the costs to continue running fossil fuel plants to provide power during slack periods. It's the same when global warmists only discuss the negative aspects without mentioning the positive ones. It causes people to feel like they're being deceived by those with an agenda.
Thursday, April 6, 2017, 6:16 PM
Over the past week, the town of Gander in Newfoundland has received over 130 cm of snow. With 241 cm currently on the ground, Gander has broken an all-time record snow depth of 174 cm set in 2004. "I remember in the 60s we used to get a lot of snow, but I moved to Gander in 1974 and I have to say this is the most that I've ever seen this late in the season."
Yes, significant weather events are becoming more common.
However, the problem with the climate change deniers is that they'll just use global figures, where the droughts in parts of the world (like where there are currently some 20 million people in East Africa at risk of dying from forced displacement and famine) are somewhat leveled by superfluous precipitation in others.
Sad, and as for some governments in this world, it borders on criminal neglect or even intent.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, significant weather events are becoming more common.
...there are currently some 20 million people in East Africa at risk of dying from forced displacement and famine....Sad, and as for some governments in this world, it borders on criminal neglect or even intent
Of all the (serious) reports I have read about solar and wind power generation it has been mentioned over and over that there is a need for either storage of energy and/or other power plants that can fill in the gaps. If these other power plants can be based on biofuels and the need be reduced significantly over time then fossil power plants can be retired, but not before that and there is a cost of having backup. I have not seen serious analysis denying that or even omitting this fact.Regarding , your first paragraph, serious analysis may include the positive aspect of global warming. Unfortunately, the mainstream media mainly pushed the negative. Every time I watch a nature program, the underlying comment is that man is bad and hurts the environment. Business is bad and hurts the environment and never do you hear how business feed millions of people and provides protection for their families. It's always about the negative.
Btw. the total electric power consumption in the US in 2008 was 3,814 Twh according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_energy_consumption . The average consumption per day was then 10.4 Twh. If the total electric energy consumption was to be stored for just one day (ignoring peaks) by batteries coming from the Tesla Gigafactory built out to 150Gwh/year then it would need 7 Gigafactories to produce batteries for 10 years. Just to put this into perspective. Not impossible. At a production price of $810 per Kwh the price per Twh battery storage is $810 M so the 10.4 Twh would cost a little over $8 B. This is just for the battery packs and then comes cost of the infrastructure around it. The pricing of the power packs are here from one year ago https://electrek.co/2016/04/22/tesla-energy-powerpacks-pricing/ and these prices goes time over time. Looking at Tesla's homepage https://www.tesla.com/powerpack/design#/ now the price per Kwh is down to about 50% of that number from 1 year ago. So of course this is a bit of a superficial example and if all transport in cars were to be electric the total power consumption would go up a lot.
To put it in some other perspective:First, we should all be good stewards of the environment. However, as any other species, we also use the environment to keep us alive and expand our population. Your argument gives no allowance for the environmental processes that cleans itself and restores balance. The idea that there is no Plan B sounds like a "scare" to get people to do things as if we're all going to wind up like a crisp from a comet crashing into us.
What we are doing at the moment in this carbon burn industrial age is finding all sources of carbon stored in the ground, bring it to the surface and burn it.
The result is that the atmosphere changes from content.
The atmosphere is a very delicate part of the earths system and the easiest to bring out of balance because it has very little mass.
At the same time the perfect balance of the atmosphere is very important to the climate on the surface of the earth.
Humans, animals and plants are very sensitive to any change of it. Humans may adapt to the changes quicker than the animals and plants.
On a microlevel the burning of carbon fuels pollutes the environment.
That a large majority of scientists see that the climate is changing because of our bad habits should be taking seriously also for there is no plan B to stop this climatic change.
Furthermore there are indications that climatic change will not be gradual, but that it is possible that when some tresholds are passed the climate may change in a strong way.
So there is enough reason to invest in clean energy, rather than keep coal mines open, that in fact are not so economical.
The damage to the environment and to the health of people they cause has never been part of the economical consideration, but should be.
Aggressive emissions cutbacks would drop heat waves in half in 20 years:
First, we should all be good stewards of the environment. However, as any other species, we also use the environment to keep us alive and expand our population.
The atmosphere is a very delicate part of the earths system and the easiest to bring out of balance because it has very little mass.
So there is enough reason to invest in clean energy, rather than keep coal mines open, that in fact are not so economical.
The damage to the environment and to the health of people they cause has never been part of the economical consideration, but should be.
To be good stewards of the planet is wise. To expand our population is not.Regarding expanding population, humans are like other animals. If the resources are there, they will increase their numbers. While it's true that we can think and over-ride our instincts to a point, other influences have greater effect. The cost to rear children, pay for shelter, taxes, health costs, are going up. People decide they can't afford more than a couple of kids. Many countries like Japan, Italy, are limiting their reproduction. Population is going down there although it's going up in other areas which will, by the way, need cheap fossil fuel to support themselves.
Easy questions and very difficult answers.What do you mean "....sanctioned by government(s)..."? Do you prefer governments regulating birth control like the Chinese did?
The solution is definitely not adding more load to the planet. While adding another billion of people seems today like a doable thing, you can't grow the population indefinitely. In essence, it is the largest pyramid scheme, sanctioned by government(s). The question is only when is the breaking point. You and me won't be around when it happens, but it won't be pretty.
I've been reluctant to start a new thread on this topic because I understand there's a lot of emotional/religious views that prevail, and most people seem unable to investige the issue [...]
If one is scientifically illiterate [...]
What do you mean "....sanctioned by government(s)..."? Do you prefer governments regulating birth control like the Chinese did?
Well, if the population decreases, then there won't be enough young people to pay for your social security and health care when you get old.
You mean all those young people without jobs and proper education?
You mean all those young people without jobs and proper education?Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population with a decreasing younger population that currently provides the money needed? Medicare and Social Security are already slated to run out of money in a few years. Maybe we should let in more Mexicans.
That's the old, conventional thinking (pyramid scheme), which worked when the world population was in a decent, manageable range.
Managing a decreasing population is possible, but a continuing growth will lead to a sure disaster. The question is only at what point.
Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population with a decreasing younger population that currently provides the money needed? Medicare and Social Security are already slated to run out of money in a few years. Maybe we should let in more Mexicans.The US has perhaps the lowest rate of overall taxation of any developed country. I'm reading TR Reid's great new book on the US tax system and it's failings, "A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and more Efficient Tax System." This is important reading for any American, particularly the chapters on tax avoidance by major corporations. Our Congress has made the tax system a total laughingstock compared to other countries. All the current problems with various social programs can be dealt with by ending all the stupid tax preferences. In return, Americans will get lower 'real' rates.
Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population with a decreasing younger population that currently provides the money needed? Medicare and Social Security are already slated to run out of money in a few years. Maybe we should let in more Mexicans.
The US has perhaps the lowest rate of overall taxation of any developed country. I'm reading TR Reid's great new book on the US tax system and it's failings, "A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and more Efficient Tax System." This is important reading for any American, particularly the chapters on tax avoidance by major corporations. Our Congress has made the tax system a total laughingstock compared to other countries. All the current problems with various social programs can be dealt with by ending all the stupid tax preferences. In return, Americans will get lower 'real' rates.
Alan (if he's reading) will be interested to note that we manage both universal healthcare (well, a decent hybrid of it) and relatively strong military expenditure :-)Quite right about health care and virtually all other countries save the US provide universal health care to their citizens.
Quite right about health care and virtually all other countries save the US provide universal health care to their citizens.Just wondering where the money comes from? This year our deficit is $600+ billion. Our debt has grown $10 trillion in the last 8 years. Should we keep borrowing from the Chinese? Should we start printing money again and reduce the value of everything we own and earn? Will you accept a 10% cut in your Social Security? Will you agree to double your Medicare payments before and after retirement? Should we pull out of NATO and let Europe defend itself? Should we stop dropping bombs on Syria and let others become the arbiter of international norms? Should we reduce our carrier forces to let's say 6 rather than 12 and tell the Japanese, Australians and South Koreans they'll have to deal with an expanding China on their own? Should we pull out of the Middle East and let Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and other friends deal with a nuclear Iran on their own? Should we become America First?
The fact that there are many healthy reefs in areas with similar temperatures and ocean acidification needs an explanation.
Just wondering where the money comes from?
Just wondering where the money comes from? This year our deficit is $600+ billion. Our debt has grown $10 trillion in the last 8 years. Should we keep borrowing from the Chinese? Should we start printing money again and reduce the value of everything we own and earn? Will you accept a 10% cut in your Social Security? Will you agree to double your Medicare payments before and after retirement? Should we pull out of NATO and let Europe defend itself? Should we stop dropping bombs on Syria and let others become the arbiter of international norms? Should we reduce our carrier forces to let's say 6 rather than 12 and tell the Japanese, Australians and South Koreans they'll have to deal with an expanding China on their own? Should we pull out of the Middle East and let Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and other friends deal with a nuclear Iran on their own? Should we become America First?Alan,
We're stretched too far. We're not the rich country we use to be. Something's got to give.
Reduced overspending, and bearing a more collective burden.In the book I cited, Reid interviews the head of the Revenue Department (don't know the Dutch name) in the Netherlands. He asked him how long it takes the average citizen to complete their taxes and the answer was about 15 minutes!!! As a comparison, it takes me about 10 hours and I don't have all that complicated a return to file. Most of the work I do is collecting all the data that our IRS already has and doing what amounts to duplicate data entry. It's really quite ridiculous!
Reduced partisanship also helps to create more sustained policies, instead of wasteful flip/flopping and repealing.
Cheers,
Bart
Most of the work I do is collecting all the data that our IRS already has and doing what amounts to duplicate data entry. It's really quite ridiculous!
Fact? 'Similar' temperatures and ocean acidification????
"What is coral bleaching?
When corals are stressed by changes in conditions such as temperature, light, or nutrients, they expel the symbiotic algae living in their tissues, causing them to turn completely white."
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html
Cheers,
Bart
An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming:35 million people can become farmers. All that land will become arable. You never mention the benefits of global warming only the negatives.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3262.html
If countries do not meet the Paris agreements, then an amount of permafrost soil larger than Australia will thaw. This will release captured methane to the atmosphere, which will accelerate the warming up of our earth.
Permafrost, that can be found near the polar circles and at high altitude in mountains, appears to be more sensitive to warming up than was considered before.
For each degree C warming of the earth, 4 million square kilometers of permafrost will be lost. A global increase of 2 degrees, as was set as the high goal in the Paris agreement, will thaw 40% of all permafrost on earth.
It is estimated that approx. 35 million people live in cities and vilages built on permafrost. Thawing of that soil will cause instability, and could lead to collapse of buildings and infrastructure.
Cheers,
Bart
Reduced overspending, and bearing a more collective burden.Everybody wants more stuff as long as someone else is paying for it.
Reduced partisanship also helps to create more sustained policies, instead of wasteful flip/flopping and repealing.
Cheers,
Bart
Alan,I don't have time to read a book. Could you summarize what his suggestions are in a couple of sentenses? . Thanks.
I'm not going to get down in the weeds here. the blunt fact is that the US is 1) under taxed for the what the citizens want and 2) the tax code is riddled with give aways to all sorts of interests. Get a copy of Reid's book. It's only about 300 pages and you will be filled with outrage after reading it. We can have lower tax rates if we do away with all the tax preferences and raise enough money to fund everything you mention.
35 million people can become farmers. All that land will become arable. You never mention the benefits of global warming only the negatives.
For each degree C warming of the earth, 4 million square kilometers of permafrost will be lost.
I don't have time to read a book. Could you summarize what his suggestions are in a couple of sentenses? . Thanks.Sent you an email.
This one's for Ray: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/science/carbon-dioxide-plant-growth-antarctic-ice.html interesting article on CO2 and increased plant growth . This shows that I'm open minded on the topic.That's what Ray's been saying in his posts here. That CO2 makes for greater plant growth. I didn't know of that but assumed just from a logical standpoint that as the earth warms, more cold areas getting warmer will be able to support trees, grass, and all the animals and plants and insects that can expand on to those areas which are relatively barren now because the climate was cold there. For every polar bear that may be lost because of the warming in the Arctic, there' additional land warmed up enough to support a extra grizzly or brown bear.
That's what Ray's been saying in his posts here. That CO2 makes for greater plant growth. I didn't know of that but assumed just from a logical standpoint that as the earth warms, more cold areas getting warmer will be able to support trees, grass, and all the animals and plants and insects that can expand on to those areas which are relatively barren now because the climate was cold there. For every polar bear that may be lost because of the warming in the Arctic, there' additional land warmed up enough to support a extra grizzly or brown bear.
Who says that how the climate was 100 years ago was the optimum? It may turn out that an extra 2-3 degrees may prove better overall to the world.
Grizzlies have certain charm, but polar bears are just more photogenic. They eat seals, and thus help the fish population. Unlike grizzlies who feed on valuable salmons and sometimes even livestock.Polar bears eat seals! How disgusting. Those cute animals I used to throw a little fish to in the zoo when I was a kid? Well, I for one, am glad we're making polar bear ranges smaller and giving grizzlies a better shot. Anyway, after taking all their territory away, I think we owe grizzlies.
Beside, at one time grizzlies roamed through most the western United States, but something must have happened what caused their demise. Could be exposure to lethal metals. As a matter of fact, grizzly bears were eliminated from 98% of their original range in the contiguous United States during a 100-year period.
Polar bears eat seals! How disgusting. Those cute animals I used to throw a little fish to in the zoo when I was a kid? Well, I for one, am glad we're making polar bear ranges smaller and giving grizzlies a better shot. Anyway, after taking all their territory away, I think we owe grizzlies.
Adaption is the key, not arrogant control.
What in the world is a site called, "Luminous Landscape" debating climate change for?
So we're arrogant if we want to control...pollution? Or population? Or the extermination of entire species? Or is that somehow different in your mind vs controlling the amount of heat and other gases released into the atmosphere?
::)
This one's for Ray: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/science/carbon-dioxide-plant-growth-antarctic-ice.html interesting article on CO2 and increased plant growth . This shows that I'm open minded on the topic.
That's what Ray's been saying in his posts here. That CO2 makes for greater plant growth. I didn't know of that but assumed just from a logical standpoint that as the earth warms, more cold areas getting warmer will be able to support trees, grass, and all the animals and plants and insects that can expand on to those areas which are relatively barren now because the climate was cold there.
Hi Alan,You're assuming that the current climate is the optimum condition from throughout history for "best" situation for all of nature. Wouldn't that be just an amazing coincidence? That the climate from let's say around 1880 was the "best" in the history of the earth or at least man, and we should do everything to maintain that exact climate condition.
When viewed in isolation, or in a controlled environment (like a greenhouse), it's been known for a long time that CO2 has a positive effect on the development of biomass in most/many plants/weeds. That's why purpose built greenhouses use CO2 generators, but they also have full control over moisture/precipitation, nutrients, weeds, and usually a decent level of control over pests.
Unfortunately, outside of a controlled environment such as a greenhouse, the situation gets complicated pretty fast. For one, humans live outside greenhouses. Increased levels of CO2 have an adverse effect on many of our brain functions, especially those that have to do with decision making and learning. Fortunately, we do not immediately die from asphyxiation (CO2 displaces Oxygen in our blood) because that would take much higher levels than found on average in the atmosphere. But we are affected by those negative effects when we do not ventilate enough indoors, so a doubling or tripling of current outdoor levels already affects us (especially those with respiratory or cardiac conditions).
But the situation is more complex still. Besides the question whether more foliage also leads to more nutricious food (assuming nutrients are available in the soil, without the need to use more fertilizer that will also spill in runoffs), it also affects the watermanagement. Because CO2 boosted plantgrowth uses water more efficiently, there will be more soil erosion during rainfall. That runoff has detrimental effects on water quality and for river/lake/marine life.
Also, because less water is being evaporated by the CO2 boosted foliage, atmospheric temperature will increase (evaporation requires/extracts heat). Studies mention effects in the order of up to 40% higher plant temperature, depending on plant species. Add that to the greenhouse effect that CO2 already has on the temperature, and we will see already elevated levels increasing further. And because something like 30-40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, ocean acidification will increase as well, which will negatively affect sealife (a huge food source for the future).
You see, a chainreaction of effects (and I've only mentioned a couple of them) is to be expected when humans artificially add significant amounts of CO2 to the natural fluctuations by burning of fossil fuel.
Besides, a simpleton's reaction that loss of permafrost soil will increase agricultural opportunities (while disregarding the release of methane, which is an even worse greenhouse gas, and e.g. fungus/viral release) totally disregards the suitability of such grounds for growing food. Nutrients, accessibility (soggy ground, mountain slopes), light levels at those Latitudes, etc. all play a role.
Scientists are rather unanimous in their assessment, reduction of anthropogenic CO2 levels is required, and it has to be implemented soon. First a reduction of growing amounts from fossil fuel burning is needed, then a reduction of absolute levels can be considered based on improved insight. Prediction models also improve all the time, but we need to act before irreversible effects set in, as they are doing right now.
Things like coral bleaching are a sign, a thermometer of sorts, especially when the coral doesn't get a chance to recover (which can take one or more decades) like they are now hit by raised water temperatures year after year, without chance of recovery. The irreversible loss of land-ice and the inability to regrow seasonal sea-ice is another source of concern, since lots of human/animal life is concentrated around seashores or rivers. Besides flooding, access to drinkable (or usable for irrigation) water is another concern with rising water levels, and if we need to increase desalination projects (which can require a lot of additional power) due to rising sea levels.
Cheers,
Bart
You're assuming that the current climate is the optimum condition from throughout history for "best" situation for all of nature. Wouldn't that be just an amazing coincidence? That the climate from let's say around 1880 was the "best" in the history of the earth or at least man, and we should do everything to maintain that exact climate condition.
You're only pointing out what seems like negatives due to changes in climate, and many of them will be. But there are also positives, many of which we haven't even thought of yet. But the main point is we may find that a temperature rise may be just different from what we've been accustomed too, neither better or worse. And man, animals, and all of nature will adjust just like they have been for millennia.
You're assuming that the current climate is the optimum condition from throughout history for "best" situation for all of nature.
Wouldn't that be just an amazing coincidence? That the climate from let's say around 1880 was the "best" in the history of the earth or at least man, and we should do everything to maintain that exact climate condition.
You're only pointing out what seems like negatives due to changes in climate, and many of them will be. But there are also positives, many of which we haven't even thought of yet
But the main point is we may find that a temperature rise may be just different from what we've been accustomed too, neither better or worse. And man, animals, and all of nature will adjust just like they have been for millennia.
But the situation is more complex still. Besides the question whether more foliage also leads to more nutricious food (assuming nutrients are available in the soil, without the need to use more fertilizer that will also spill in runoffs), it also affects the watermanagement. Because CO2 boosted plantgrowth uses water more efficiently, there will be more soil erosion during rainfall. That runoff has detrimental effects on water quality and for river/lake/marine life.
Also, because less water is being evaporated by the CO2 boosted foliage, atmospheric temperature will increase (evaporation requires/extracts heat).
Studies mention effects in the order of up to 40% higher plant temperature, depending on plant species.
Add that to the greenhouse effect that CO2 already has on the temperature, and we will see already elevated levels increasing further. And because something like 30-40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, ocean acidification will increase as well, which will negatively affect sealife (a huge food source for the future).
You see, a chainreaction of effects (and I've only mentioned a couple of them) is to be expected when humans artificially add significant amounts of CO2 to the natural fluctuations by burning of fossil fuel.
Besides, a simpleton's reaction that loss of permafrost soil will increase agricultural opportunities (while disregarding the release of methane, which is an even worse greenhouse gas, and e.g. fungus/viral release) totally disregards the suitability of such grounds for growing food. Nutrients, accessibility (soggy ground, mountain slopes), light levels at those Latitudes, etc. all play a role.
Let's say you're right, and as land large areas in places like Africa become incapable of growing food, other places become green. I guess that means you're willing to help the hundreds of millions of displaced people move, and I'm sure the US will be willing to take in maybe 10% of the climate refugees as our fair share, which should amount to at least 10-20 million people.250,000 deaths seems like a made-up number that doesn't include how many more births climate change will create. The number is too small, about .00005% of the total population of the world, that one feels confident the scientists really could figure it out.
The WHO says that "Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress." and "The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030. I guess you'd say that's "just different from what we've been accustomed too, neither better or worse. As long as it doesn't affect you, I guess.
...What we do know is that human influence made matter worse. Deforestation, greenhouse gasses and other pollution in the form of Mercury, and Sulphur, and Volatile Organic compounds, and man-made erosion (just look at the land/mudslides where people have chopped away vegetation), the destruction of pollinating bee populations, and plastic-soup in the oceans, and ..., etc.You're conflating the issue of pollution with climate change due to fossil fuels. No one here is suggesting we pollute the environment. We've added scrubbers to coal burning plants and have switched to cleaner burning gas for much of our electric production. Deforestation, plastics in the ocean, etc are a separate issue from climate change.
...
The WHO says that "Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress." and "The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030. I guess you'd say that's "just different from what we've been accustomed too, neither better or worse.
Not true, Bart. Sounds like complete clap trap to me. Where are you getting your information from, Bart?
250,000 deaths seems like a made-up number that doesn't include how many more births climate change will create. The number is too small, about .00005% of the total population of the world, that one feels confident the scientists really could figure it out.
We're talking about the death of 250,000 people per year between 2030 and 2050 (13 years from now) due to climate change in addition to a whole bunch of suffering. How can additional births make that OK? The unnecessary death and suffering of real living people can't be compensated for by having babies. You may think these people don't matter but I'll bet they have a different opinion. And yes, I'm sure the WHO is far less reliable than Breitbart and Fox.Don't play that guilt trip game with me. What have you done to save those 250,000 people that are suppose to die in 30 years?? Have you shut off your heating system and slept with a couple of extra blankets? Have you installed solar panels?
Here's a link to an older study that stresses the importance of including these evaporation effects in the modelling of climate changes:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9513.full?sid=af9cc0cd-9a7c-45f7-b664-2b397f3b98e3
I've seen others as well, but you can also look for them yourself. Think of it as a homework assignment to substantiate your clap trap presumption.
Enjoy,
Bart
P.S. Here is a link to the PDF of the same study, it may display elements that a browser could have difficulties with:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9513.full.pdf
Dodge just introduced a Demon muscle car with a 840-horsepower 6.2-liter supercharged V8.
In order to save weight, and indirectly reduce amount of emitted CO2, Demon comes standard with no passenger seats, with just one driver seat. In this ingenious way, engineers saved 113 pounds in seats. Not having stereo speakers or an amplifier saved another 24 pounds. That's an exemplary contribution in saving the environment.
Thanks for the link, Bart. This is getting curiouser and curiouser. You've linked to a study which is not only based upon computer simulation models, which tend to be unreliable when simulating such complex issues as climate, but the study openly admits that their models do not include the increased growth of the plants, which I suggest is a known factor (with a very high level of confidence).
How weird is that?
Not that weird, since they did not attempt to create an all-encompassing world climate simulation but rather:
"In this study, we examine the climate effect of CO2 physiological forcing using a coupled global atmosphere-land surface
model".
and
"the focus of this study is to examine the nature of climate response to CO2-physiological forcing in terms of both magnitude and pattern, and contrast it with the effect of CO2-radiative forcing".
and
"This study provides an independent evaluation of the role of CO2-physiological forcing in CO2-induced climate change."
But the trillions of tax dollars spent on unnecessary or unattainable attempts to change the climate could be going to more productive things beside fighting wars such as better health, more food for starving people, etc.
...There may be nothing that man can do to prevent this current cycle of climate change, but perhaps we can slow it down or lessen the effects of climate change. Perhaps not, but why not try?
I will be more willing to have my tax dollars spent on this than on fighting wars.
Head smack, Yes Alan we can do things to change the environment, just think of LA in the 70s.Local environment is not world climate. I can clean my house. But I can't clean the whole city. There's a huge difference.
https://www.kcet.org/history-society/how-los-angeles-began-to-put-its-smoggy-days-behind
Grrrr,
Local environment is not world climate. I can clean my house. But I can't clean the whole city. There's a huge difference.
Sure Alan, but why pollute the entire city instead of only your own house?The US is at 97th place as dirtiest polluter and The Netherlands is slightly better at 101. There you again pointing fingers. You really do hate America, don't you? Just like the Trump haters always looking for something to criticize.
Cheers,
Bart
The US is at 97th place as dirtiest polluter and The Netherlands is slightly better at 101. There you again pointing fingers. You really do hate America, don't you? Just like the Trump haters always looking for something to criticize.I just looked at that map again. It raises an interesting question we haven't really talked about. First look at the colored maps that shows where the worst pollution (and I assume fossil fuel burning) comes from. It's in China, India and most of Asia except Japan and South Korea.
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp
Head smack, Yes Alan we can do things to change the environment, just think of LA in the 70s.
Once again, you alarmists are confusing the issues. Sensible and wise people understand that in order to fix a problem one has to correctly identify the causes.Ray, I appreciate what you have been saying about CO2 levels and plant growth. However, I think you are missing the trees in the forrest. Increased CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation (look at all the clear cutting in parts of Indonesia and the Amazon basin in Brazil). Also we cannot ignore the effect of water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas and would be expected to increase with warming temperatures. Not only do we get all of the bad effects that you mention but there is also a lot more methane released to the air as a result of oil drilling and hydraulic fracking. I've been pointing out that you cannot model based on just one variable but need to adopt a stochastic approach.
Smog and air pollution is not caused by CO2, but by sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, small particles of carbon or smoke, hydrocarbons, volatile compounds, and so on.
Ray, I appreciate what you have been saying about CO2 levels and plant growth. However, I think you are missing the trees in the forrest. Increased CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation (look at all the clear cutting in parts of Indonesia and the Amazon basin in Brazil). Also we cannot ignore the effect of water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas and would be expected to increase with warming temperatures. Not only do we get all of the bad effects that you mention but there is also a lot more methane released to the air as a result of oil drilling and hydraulic fracking. I've been pointing out that you cannot model based on just one variable but need to adopt a stochastic approach.
There is no question that CO2 is contributing to global warming. Whether there will be major benefits as a result of increased plant growth is something that cannot be proven; it is mere conjecture at this point in time.
I'm sure this link has been posted at one point, but it's worth re-reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Proportion_of_direct_effects_at_a_given_moment
I think that I will exit this discussion now as it continues to be too circular just as Kekule's benzene snake dream.
There is no question that CO2 is contributing to global warming. Whether there will be major benefits as a result of increased plant growth is something that cannot be proven; it is mere conjecture at this point in time.I am a believer in global warming, but it does no good to over-state the case like this. One could equally well say "There is no question that CO2 increases plant growth. CO2 is not the largest contributor to global warming; the relative importance of CO2 is a matter of conjecture at this point in time."
Solar energy has plunged in price—where does it go from here?
A look forward to how we get to Terawatts of solar power capacity.:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/whats-next-for-solar-energy/
"In the year 2000, the entire world had roughly four Gigawatts of solar power capacity installed, and it didn't seem to be going anywhere fast. In 2002, the International Energy Agency forecast suggested that, by 2020, global solar capacity would still be hovering at around 10GW, and still barely register on the global energy markets.
How things change. Over the 15 years that followed, solar energy capacity expanded by 5,700 percent, reaching 227GW."
Cheers,
Bart
I am a believer in global warming, but it does no good to over-state the case like this. One could equally well say "There is no question that CO2 increases plant growth. CO2 is not the largest contributor to global warming; the relative importance of CO2 is a matter of conjecture at this point in time."
Indeed. And pointing out flaws in his reasoning only makes him produce more unsubstantiated assumptions/suggestions/confusions.
Like his (failed attempt at a) redifinition of Pollution, by only pointing to Smog.
To help him get back on track;
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment, that cause adverse change.
One can also check with e.g. the Merriam-Webster definition:
"the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste"
Because the air we inhale has a much higher percentage of Oxygen (20.84% oxygen) than Carbon Dioxide (0.04%), a doubling or tripling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, will not even come close to significantly reducing the amount of Oxigen, which seems to be one of his latest (unfounded) arguments. Besides, reduced availability of oxygen is compensated by deeper and more frequent breathing.
However, the elevated level of CO2 does affect how our brain functions:
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941
"Significantly, the Harvard study confirms the findings of a little-publicized 2012 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) study, “Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.” That study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm."
Now these are mostly issues we encounter indoors, with poor ventilation, but the accumulating effects on the global climate changes are what we are actually talking about. These CO2 pollution effects do cross borders, affect huge numbers of people and other living creatures, and some of those effects are becoming irreversible.
Good point! That's a very balanced approach. I've often been puzzled by Alan Goldhammer's position in this regard, because he claims to have qualifications in Chemistry.This is absolute hogwash and I don't know why your are mentioning my name in this post (and yes, I have both an undergraduate and doctoral degree in chemistry though the doctorate was in biological chemistry with a minor in organic chemistry). I had a one term course in atmospheric chemistry a lot of years ago when I was an undergraduate. There is a lot that comes from computer modeling and the ones being used today are far from being "simplified." Look at all the analyses that went into the chemistry of smog formation and through the use of catalytic converters in automobiles and a reduction in sulfur content in gasoline, the great smog crisis in the Los Angeles basin was solved. Nobody sat around waiting to see what mother nature would do. Another good example were the early theoretical calculations of the impact of supersonic aircraft on the Ozone layer (the exhaust is destructive). Back in the late 1960s, there was a lot of effort on the part of commerical aviation to develop supersonic passenger aircraft but the combination of high fuel cost and Ozone impact did this technology in.
Chemistry is a so-called 'hard' science which lends itself to the rigorous scientific processes of repeated testing under controlled conditions which can be observed over relatively short time scales. It also lends itself to experimentation designed to falsify a particular theory.
The consistency of the results of repeated experiments, together with a failure of all attempts to falsify a particular theory which is based upon the observations, results in a high degree of certainty that the theory is correct and allows for reliable predictions to be made.
Now surely it must be obvious to anyone with an understanding of the general methodology of science, that the subject of anthropogenic global warming falls outside the parameters of this rigorous approach.
It's impossible to create a realistic model of our planet and climate, with all its complexities, and conduct experiments to see what effect on the climate a 0.02% increase in CO2 might have. Instead, we rely upon very simplified computer models.
However, the subject of the 'CO2 fertilization effect' does lend itself to repeated experimentation under various degrees of controlled conditions. Farmers have been observing for many decades the increased growth that results after they pump CO2 into their greenhouses, and have been getting extra cash for the increased growth.It's time to get off this hobby horse and realize that more has been done to increase crop yield through plant breeding than will ever be seen from CO2 fertilization which will only play a minor part in things if at all.
I would also add, that the certainty that increased plant growth due to CO2 is good, is greater than the certainty that possible warming due to CO2 is bad....and I can take the opposing point of view with the full certainty that neither of us will be proven right in our lifetime.
There is a lot that comes from computer modeling and the ones being used today are far from being "simplified." Look at all the analyses that went into the chemistry of smog formation and through the use of catalytic converters in automobiles and a reduction in sulfur content in gasoline, the great smog crisis in the Los Angeles basin was solved. Nobody sat around waiting to see what mother nature would do. Another good example were the early theoretical calculations of the impact of supersonic aircraft on the Ozone layer (the exhaust is destructive). Back in the late 1960s, there was a lot of effort on the part of commerical aviation to develop supersonic passenger aircraft but the combination of high fuel cost and Ozone impact did this technology in.
It's time to get off this hobby horse and realize that more has been done to increase crop yield through plant breeding than will ever be seen from CO2 fertilization which will only play a minor part in things if at all.
Ray, you again are totally missing the point!!! Plant breeding has accomplished far more in terms of yield increase than the marginal CO2 effect you are championing. If one looks at the increase in corn and wheat during the 20th century which was also the dawn of the coal/oil/gas power transition with accompanying increases in CO2 the yield increases came from breeding and not marginal increases in CO2.
What on earth are you talking about! CO2 is the most essential fertilizer of all. Without the fertilization effect of CO2 we'd all be dead. Nothing can grow without the presence of CO2. Even during preindustrial times when atmospheric CO2 was about 60% of current levels, the CO2 still had an essential fertilization effect, but not as great as today.
My point is that the effect on the global climate of relatively tiny increases of atmospheric CO2, are outside the parameters of the rigorous processes of the scientific methodology. Any certainty expressed about such effects are more to do with religion and/or politics than science.
What on earth are you talking about! CO2 is the most essential fertilizer of all. Without the fertilization effect of CO2 we'd all be dead. Nothing can grow without the presence of CO2. Even during preindustrial times when atmospheric CO2 was about 60% of current levels, the CO2 still had an essential fertilization effect, but not as great as today.
However, as with anything, too much can cause problems. CO2 levels of 1200 to 1500 ppm tend to have the maximum fertilization effect for some plants.
Ray, you again are totally missing the point!!! Plant breeding has accomplished far more in terms of yield increase than the marginal CO2 effect you are championing. If one looks at the increase in corn and wheat during the 20th century which was also the dawn of the coal/oil/gas power transition with accompanying increases in CO2 the yield increases came from breeding and not marginal increases in CO2.
I've already commented on the biomass increase that you are fond of referencing. Biomass only matters for ruminants who can digest and metabolize cellulose. It doesn't have much of an impact on humans as we are incapable of doing so. If food crops begin morphing to more biomass production as opposed to seed that's not a good thing.
Wow! If this rate continues, at 3 parts per million per year, in 100 years time the levels of CO2 could be as high as 700 PPM, or a massive 0.07% of the atmosphere. How disastrous for those poor city dwellers who live in poorly ventilated rooms. They'll have to open their windows wider. How stressful! ;)