- #1
Andre
- 4,311
- 74
Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind. Kyoto is on. Based on the multiple refuted evidence of the hockeysticks we bravely start fighting windmils with windmils.
Thoughts anybody?
Andre said:Sid,
Your report of the study follows the usual line:
There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming.
(well, yes but there is still no forest back in Greenland and the UK wine is not world market leading yet as in the Medieval Warming Period). But agreed, it is warming.
Mankinds greenhouse gas emission continues
Yes and?
increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature
This step is usually omitted because it'so obvious as we have been brainwashed by the hockeystick. But it is not. The hockeystick is exposed and we can go back to the correct physical properties of greenhouse gas meaning that due to saturation the effect of increasing CO2 is very small.
If we don't cut emissions we will fry
That's the scaremongering part. It's plain simply false and outrageous. Not only are the physics wrong, but remember also that only some dozen millon years ago the CO2 concentration was 3-5 times as high as nowadays but the Antarctic ice sheet already existed. So why would it melt now?
Why it is warming is not determined exactly there are some ideas but greenhouse gas forcing is certainly at the bottom of that list.
Sariaht said:Yeah yeah so what, i read that the speed of light is changing and it looks like it will rise
Andre said:Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind.
BTW, isn't global warming largely a result of water vapors although greenhouse gases contribute too?
Do you think that global warming will endanger our survival in the future?
Andre said:That's my idea.
My priority list, not necesary in that order:
Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)
Reforestation and oceanic fish management
Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.
Invest in nuclear fission power plants.
Invest in nuclear fusion research.
Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.
Andre said:Things not to do:
investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback
Discussion?
Andre said:About renewables.
The question is: are they worth the effort? Living in a flat rainy place with only some occasional rumors that the sun may exist indeed, the first thought is not about solar energy. Problem with that, according to my magazine is the low yield with high production costs. But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?
About windmills, with performance in the order of magnitude of a megawatt, you need several thousands to replace one power plant of severak gigawatt. But the production costs (and hence required energy) may also be orders of magnitude higher than powerplants. The effectiviness is highly dependent on clean rotor blades, the catch of insects of a few days is enough to decimate effectiviness. Consequently the maintance problem is very high. Moreover you keep replacing the ageing ones.
And then there is no wind.
So you need the total capacity in other forms as well. If that happens to be nuclear power only, then the contribution of the windmills to a better environment is exactly zero.
But there are more forms of renewables of course.
Andre said:That's my idea.
My priority list, not necesary in that order:
Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)
Reforestation and oceanic fish management
Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.
Invest in nuclear fission power plants.
Invest in nuclear fusion research.
Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.
Things not to do:
investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback
Discussion?
Andre said:But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?
Andre said:which name is visible below the bear of little brain.
How are we going to continue to sustain Jumbo-jets and Air-busses with fuel. Synthetic fuels? Perhaps but any idea how much jet - air fuel A1 is consumed every second?
Andre said:-If that's no longer economical feasible what are we going to burn in the planes?
Things not to do:
investing in renewable energy sources
Be realistic though: what is the total energy consumption of Africa compared to the US? Its not selfish to focus our efforts on the US.Locrian said:For someone of your education, this is an incredibly shallow remark. There may not be many people in the sahara who need it, but there are people north, south, east and west of it who might be able to benefit. The sun shines equally bright just a little outside of a desert.
Such calculations are dubious and biased and even if true, its still not that simple: you have to weigh the short term vs long-term costs and benefits. People dying of cancer is an extremely long-term cost of coal that is difficult to reconcile with the extremely low short-term cost of the electricity. Plus, I doubt such studies consider all the costs of wind power: such as the land it requires and the real long-term cost. That has a little to do with the bias of the assumptions, but also has to do with the fact that the wind-power industry is not mature, so you have to make projections that you don't have to make regarding coal.You don't quote any numbers when talking about solar and wind power, and I feel it is safe to say you may not be aware of the most recent ones. It's already been shown here in the US, for example, that when you take into account the amount of money society spends on coal miners healthcare, the difference in cost between coal and wind power is negligible.
I don't reeally care what you call it, but if calling nuclear power "alternative" causes hippies to stop sabbotaging it, I'm all for it.Regardless of your views on global warming, the sharp rise in oil and natural gas prices may make alternative sources of energy economic more sooner than later; should we invest in them now? If we are reasonably forward thinking, we will certainly invest in their research.
The new nuclear power plants China has opened could certainly be considered "alternative," and may very well be superior to all other current types of power generation.
I don't want to speak for Andre (I've been accused of focusing too much on nuclear power before), but keep some perspective: You gave two excellent examples, but what is the size-ratio of those examples? Ie, if we built windmills on farms and used nuclear power for our cities, what would the ratio be? 99% nuclear? I wouldn't suggest putting all of our eggs in the nuclear basket, but it is perfectly appropriate to put the vast majority (90%+) of our efforts into nuclear power.Anyhow, I see no reason why investing completely in nuclear coverage is more effective than dividing assets between several power types. I believe there are a couple of things you are not taking into account.
1) Is it safe to say you are from a country whose population is reasonbaly dense? Nuclear power is a fantastic solution to city energy supply. Nuclear power is a poor solution to rural areas energy supply. It is expensive to transport power.
Here in the US we have vast tracts of open land, and huge farm areas. In both of these, the size to effectiveness ratio is virtually meaningless; windmills placed on farmland can reduce the crop yield by tiny amounts, and increase the economic value of the farm considerably. It still isn't economic to do this on large scales, but we are getting close to reaching a time when it will be.
That's fine too, but the same caveat applies: how much of your electric (gas) usage goes to your water heater? My argument has always been to go after the big fish. A dozen successful alternates would not even begin to compare to the effect of a single successful nuclear program.2) I believe you are only considering a single use for these alternative energy sources - that of electricity. Solar power especially has direct uses that do not require electricity, but save electricity and other recources. Wind qualifies too, but less so and in different ways. Take solar water heaters for instance; it has been shown they pay for themselves in warm areas, and are beginning to be sold regularly in the US. Why shouldn't we invest in them?
Be realistic: with what is a Western-Saharan nomad going to pay for solar-powered water purifier and how much impact would selling it to him have on the global energy/pollution situation?If you have a hard time imagining what the 250,000 nomadic people of Western Sahara would do with a lightbulb (which you shouldn't), maybe you can think of some use for a solar water purifier that can purify any water in a short time (even urine and many types of polluted water).
Simple: when sales of such things are so microscopic, a doubling of sales is pretty easy to achieve and equally meaningless. Such numbers are trumpeted by environmentalists all the time regarding wind power. But how about a reality check: http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageId=93If renewable sources are so poor choices, then answer this: why has Japan seen a huge increase in solar power sales even as government funding has been phased to a fraction of what it once was? Why have solar cells seen huge increases in sales worldwide over the past decade?
Sounds great, right? The reality is quite different: first, wind power (and solar) has a horrible utilization factor. While a nuclear plant can average 90% for its lifetime, a wind plant is at the whim of the weather and more often than not, is generating a small fraction (or nothing) of its theortical capabilities. For http://library.iea.org/Textbase/stats/surveys/mes.pdf , wind power isn't even listed, but the total average production of "geothermal/other", which includes wind and solar, was about 14,000 MW. Far cry from the 39,000 MW of theoretical capacity for wind alone.New wind industry investment was worth $9 billion in 2003, up from $7 billion in 2002. The total capacity of 39,294 MW [that's global] provides enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9 million average American homes...
How big and how do we do it? From the link above, global energy usage is going up by around 1% a year and fossil fuels make up about 2/3 of our total usage. Is it possible to decrease global energy usage by a meaningful fraction (say, 25%) and be able to maintain even current (much less, continue to improve) living standards? I don't think it is possible, and in any case, people won't do it on their own (despite high gas prices, SUV sales continue to increase).ohwilleke said:I think you are wrong about renewables and are also missing a huge piece of the puzzle, which is conservation.
The most obvious problems with Kyoto are that it is inequitable ("developing" countries are completely exempt, and that's a big problem: China's pollution output is exploding), its not enough, and it focuses on results instead of solutions.remcook said:Why not? You probably made your argument many times before, but I just saw this.
and why is Kyoto a gamble? what is there to loose?
russ_watters said:Be realistic though: what is the total energy consumption of Africa compared to the US? Its not selfish to focus our efforts on the US.
Locrian said:If you have a hard time imagining what the 250,000 nomadic people of Western Sahara would do with a lightbulb (which you shouldn't), maybe you can think of some use for a solar water purifier that can purify any water in a short time (even urine and many types of polluted water).
Russ said:Be realistic: with what is a Western-Saharan nomad going to pay for solar-powered water purifier
russ_watters said:Such calculations are dubious and biased and even if true,
I wouldn't suggest putting all of our eggs in the nuclear basket, but it is perfectly appropriate to put the vast majority (90%+) of our efforts into nuclear power.
how much of your electric (gas) usage goes to your water heater?
Such numbers are trumpeted by environmentalists all the time regarding wind power.
"The Kyoto Gamble: Fighting Climate Change with Windmills" is a book that explores the use of wind energy as a solution to combat climate change. It discusses the history and current state of wind energy, its potential to reduce carbon emissions, and the challenges and controversies surrounding its implementation.
"The Kyoto Gamble" was written by James Gustave Speth, an environmental lawyer and advocate for sustainable development. He has served as a professor at several universities and held various positions in the field of environmental policy.
Wind energy is a renewable and clean source of energy that does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. By using wind energy to generate electricity, we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and decrease the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere, thus mitigating the effects of climate change.
Some challenges to implementing wind energy include the high upfront costs of building wind farms, the intermittent nature of wind, and the need for large areas of land for wind turbines. Additionally, there may be opposition from local communities and concerns about the impact on wildlife and aesthetics.
"The Kyoto Gamble" suggests that a combination of government policies, technological advancements, and public support can help overcome the challenges of implementing wind energy. This includes providing financial incentives, improving grid infrastructure, and addressing concerns through proper planning and communication with local communities.