Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

miniTAX wrote:

Sweden has plenty of hydroelectric or wood ressource. GB or Ireland has virtually none.

The UK, btw has about 200 hydroelectic projects operating (especially in Scotland, run by Scottish Hydro-Electric plc), providing about 2% of the electricity, however, only.

Ireland has hydroelectric power stations since 1896, delivering ca 5% of the total electricity.

(Data from the Energy and Environment Data Reference Bank (EEDRB) via the Intaernational Atomic Energy Agency.

"Virtually" means less in my eyes. :wink:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am advocating we do something, but I do not advocate the possibility of weaning ourselves totally off of oil until something else practical is available to replace it, and there is not at this point. You are correct it will be a slow process, I think driven by price and competition, supply and demand. To really reduce CO2 significantly, the slow process would have to be sped up drastically, so much so that such a changeover would cause economic upheaval. That is what I do not believe is necessary.

You, Parados, and others do not seem to grasp the obvious truth that if the CO2 problem is as serious as some claim, as Al Gore claims, the slow process of changeover to alternative energy sources, as the track currently is, it will not impact CO2 enough to avert impending disaster. Since I do not believe disaster is likely to happen at all, I therefore advocate a sensible and reasonable policy of transition, based on conservation, economics, and technology.

You on the other hand must somehow figure out what you really believe. If you believe the Al Gores of the world, the likely track the world is headed in is not sufficient, and not even near sufficient by orders of magnitude. You must somehow get your leaders into power so that they can do something very drastic and quick to avert the predicted disaster. So make up your mind. Is the problem as serious as predicted by some or not?

Probably not quite as serious as Gore claims, but hey, it might be, or at least close, so why can't we start trying?

You don't seem to understand that current Oil technologies have the benefit of large subsidies from the govt', as well as a well-defined distribution system and a lot of market momentum. Just saying 'we'll let the market sort it out' isn't good enough. It doesn't address the current need to be cleaning things up.

There is a hell of a lot that we could do to encourage the market to shift to renewable energy sources, from a legistlative point of view. If some of these solutions cause American companies to lose profits, so f*cking what? Other companies will arise to make new profits in their place, except these other companies won't revolve around a hugely pollutive business model. You don't think that's worth looking into?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Probably not quite as serious as Gore claims, but hey, it might be, or at least close, so why can't we start trying?

You don't seem to understand that current Oil technologies have the benefit of large subsidies from the govt', as well as a well-defined distribution system and a lot of market momentum. Just saying 'we'll let the market sort it out' isn't good enough. It doesn't address the current need to be cleaning things up.

There is a hell of a lot that we could do to encourage the market to shift to renewable energy sources, from a legistlative point of view. If some of these solutions cause American companies to lose profits, so f*cking what? Other companies will arise to make new profits in their place, except these other companies won't revolve around a hugely pollutive business model. You don't think that's worth looking into?

Cycloptichorn

We are trying and have been for a long time, maybe not to the extent you propose. But lets talk about some alternatives that come to mind for the US.

Tree huggers killed the building of additional nuclear power plants 25 or 30 years ago.

Hydroelectric increase is virtually impossible as hardly any new dams are being built due to environmental concerns, plus older dams are being removed in the Pacific Northwest so that salmon can more easily swim upstream like in the old days before the dams. The Sierra Club would like to remove one of the largest lakes with hydroelectric plant, Lake Powell.

Using coal to replace imported oil does not eliminate greenhouse gases.

Producing hydrogen for vehicles would still require power plants to produce electricity to make the hydrogen, which would not eliminate greenhouse gases unless you convert the plants to non-fossil fuel, but here we are up against the same problem, nothing solved.

In regard to electrical power production facilities, solar and wind produces less than 1 or 2% of our electrical power, and it would appear to be virtually impossible to build enough of these plants that would be efficient enough in all parts of the country to produce more than a small minority of the power required to run the country, especially if we switch to electrically powered vehicles. Wind and solar are not plentiful throughout the country and do not appear to offer sure potential for replacing fossil fuels in a major manner anytime soon. I think they could be grown substantially, but not enough to nearly meet the requirements of averting Gore's doomsday scenario.

Geothermal is another option that offers little hope of ever producing a significant amount of electrical power or as an energy source.

Ocean wave electrical generation is another one you see in popular science magazine but offers little hope for significant electrical generation any time soon.

Any other suggestions I am missing here, Cyclops?

To be clear, I am not saying solutions will not eventually be found, I am only pointing out we do not have the solutions ready to implement practically right now or within the next decade or two at least, to the extent necessary to practically change CO2 to any significant degree. We can and will economize with smaller more efficient vehicles, but the truth is the population growth and increased demand by industrialization of many countries will more than make up for the improvements.

http://www.epsa.org/competition/sources_mp.cfm

0 Replies

okie wrote:

We are trying and have been for a long time, maybe not to the extent you propose...

subject object verb oike yes you are trying at times

0 Replies

I know its tough for liberals to escape the dreamland of idealistic solutions, but eventually you must face the reality of the real world. Look at the facts and projections of what can realistically be done in the energy world.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I know its tough for liberals to escape the dreamland of idealistic solutions, but eventually you must face the reality of the real world. Look at the facts and projections of what can realistically be done in the energy world.

Most greenies want the developped world to powerdown, but when they are proposed to have a Chinese or Indian standard of living, they say "you first".

They don't use anymore the malthusian trick of the 80's, where Ehrlich, an unrepentant powerdowner predicted that England would no longer exist in 2000 and the USA would lose millions of people due to overpopulation. Instead, its GW now. Same old craps and always as many believers. Confused

Erhlich :
* "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (1968)
* "Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
* "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
* "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

0 Replies

In the first edition of The Population Bomb, Ehrlich wrote: "The possibilities are infinite; the single course of events that will be realized is unguessable. We can, however, look at a few possibilities as an aid to our thinking, using a device known as a 'scenario'. Scenarios are hypothetical sequences of events used as an aid in thinking about the future, especially in identifying possible decision points...Remember, these are just possibilities, not predictions." (p. 72)

0 Replies

I was unable to find a site that perfectly illustrates the point I've been trying to make, which is fossil fuels burning is not going to be reduced significantly, if at all, between now and the next 50 years. The technology to do so is simply not known or perfected. I think MiniTax's posts have amply demonstrated it, but to give it another try from a slightly different angle.

The following site shows graphs for different scenarios of energy production contribution, and in all, not less than about 55 to 60% is produced with fossil fuels through the year 2050. With the projected growth of energy demand, I don't have the number, this simply will not impact CO2 production in any significant way for at least 50 years. Regardless of what graphs show, I think it is foolhardy to project 50 years, let alone 100 years, so I would consider the graphs going to the year 2100 meaningless. They are simply no better than some imaginary drawing based on no data at all.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/scenario.asp

The next site shows energy consumption and methods of production in China, which obviously shows this humongous population will continue to grow its industry and appetite for energy, which will be largely fueled by more and more fossil fuel use.

http://www.bu.edu/cees/classes/binna/304/energy_profiles/China.htm

So, Cyclops, Steve, Walter, and others, I don't wish to beat a dead horse here, but your idealistic statements about converting fossil fuel sources for energy into something like all solar, wind, or hydrogen, or whatever else in short order, in the next few decades, they are simply not based on any informed scientific facts about what is practically attainable. Not unless something new and fantastic is discovered, which is always possible, and I am in favor of research and new discoveries, but the point is you cannot do it until it is discovered or perfected into practical solutions. So I would suggest you give up on your arguments until you can come here with something realistic.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So I would suggest you give up on your arguments until you can come here with something realistic.

Well, I'm quite content with what can - and partly already is - done here.

Be it scientifically approved by the one or the other or not by you and your sources.

0 Replies

you've got a cheek okie

I never made any statement to the effect of

Quote:

converting fossil fuel sources for energy into something like all solar, wind, or hydrogen, or whatever else in short order

.

[the fact that you used hydrogen as alternative energy source displays your ignorance. Its not an energy source, its a medium for energy transmission.]

You completely mis understand my position. I have never said there was a magic solution to the problem of fossil fuels and in particular oil. The solution will be hard won, it might be painful and we should have started decades ago [/b]. You however are not willing to face up to realities you just want to carry on as before with your head in the sand (looking for oil?). There is no easy solution to this. Its by far the biggest problem on the planet and until people like you wake up and understand the nature of whats going on, it makes the chances of a peaceful transition to a carbon neutral economy that much more unlikely.

0 Replies

okie,

First of all you ignore new technology that uses fossil fuels but doesn't release CO2. Such technology exists today and is starting to be implemented. Coal could become or stay a large producer of electricity while emitting zero CO2.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

you've got a cheek okie

I never made any statement to the effect of

Quote:
converting fossil fuel sources for energy into something like all solar, wind, or hydrogen, or whatever else in short order
.

[the fact that you used hydrogen as alternative energy source displays your ignorance. Its not an energy source, its a medium for energy transmission.]

You completely mis understand my position. I have never said there was a magic solution to the problem of fossil fuels and in particular oil. The solution will be hard won, it might be painful and we should have started decades ago [/b]. You however are not willing to face up to realities you just want to carry on as before with your head in the sand (looking for oil?). There is no easy solution to this. Its by far the biggest problem on the planet and until people like you wake up and understand the nature of whats going on, it makes the chances of a peaceful transition to a carbon neutral economy that much more unlikely.

Steve, I apologize for mis-characterizing your position. I will admit to lumping together those that appear to take various angles of opposing arguments here. I don't think my arguments have been understood either. I am a big believer in technological innovation, and I think we should have been further down the road as well. Probably the biggest difference in mine with others, I am not sure about yours on this point, is that the free market is the best driver of technological innovation, as history has proven this to be the case. I do favor using the tax system to encourage innovation, and I support some government research, but ultimately the answers lie in good old fashioned ingenuity to make a buck. I have always been in favor of nuclear, which really offered and still does offer great potential to produce a significant percentage of our electricity. I woke up to the problem decades ago, Steve, as I worked in the energy industry, and those people in the industry have been making noises trying to get the attention of government and people, to no avail.

I think we have two problems, one being imported oil, such that if we could produce our own oil, that would be far preferable to sending money to the Middle East. The second problem involves developing feasible alternative fuels. I think we need to work on the first problem while we also work on the second problem. That is why I have always been in favor of drilling offshore, Alaska, and other places, for many reasons, but one big reason being the reduction of the possibility of more international conflicts. The reasoning here is pretty basic, much like everybody runs their own affairs. If you have an old car, you maintain it while you are working on buying or building a better one.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie,

First of all you ignore new technology that uses fossil fuels but doesn't release CO2. Such technology exists today and is starting to be implemented. Coal could become or stay a large producer of electricity while emitting zero CO2.

Can you site your source?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
okie,

First of all you ignore new technology that uses fossil fuels but doesn't release CO2. Such technology exists today and is starting to be implemented. Coal could become or stay a large producer of electricity while emitting zero CO2.

Can you site your source?

tataaa: FutureGen - Tomorrow's Pollution-Free Power Plant - brought to you by the US Department of Energy....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
parados wrote:
okie,

First of all you ignore new technology that uses fossil fuels but doesn't release CO2. Such technology exists today and is starting to be implemented. Coal could become or stay a large producer of electricity while emitting zero CO2.

Can you site your source?

tataaa: FutureGen - Tomorrow's Pollution-Free Power Plant - brought to you by the US Department of Energy....

Yes, the government at all levels are looking at all sorts of stuff like this. (I wonder if you're willing to give our President his due credit for pushing this initiative?)

I've always believed that one of the keys to long term energy needs lies in coal because it is so cheap and so plentiful. We just have to find ways to mine it and use it that don't harm the environment.

0 Replies

Quote:

tataaa: FutureGen - Tomorrow's Pollution-Free Power Plant - brought to you by the US Department of Energy....

Great. I hope I am proven wrong. It sounds good, and maybe it will work since its being run by Bush's energy industry buddies forming of a consortium:

"The project will require 10 years to complete and will be led by the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., a non-profit industrial consortium representing the coal and power industries, with the project results being shared among all participants, and industry as a whole."

I thought Bush was too stupid to do things like this!! And where are the accusations of handing out sweetheart deals to the energy industry? Maybe thats one thing Cheney was working on in those secret meetings? Thank goodness we have leaders that actually know something about the energy industry. Very Happy

PS: Ditto to your post Foxfyre, I was working on mine when you posted.

0 Replies

Foxy and okie, shouldn't you two guys rather be thanking me for digging up the DoE website than bashing me Very Happy

And of course I've applauded any approaches towards an economy that doesn't rely as much on oil as it does now.

Of course America is still a bit behind most Western nations when it comes to renewable resources, or to clean power production, or research funding, or....

0 Replies

The Swedish firm Vattenfall is also constructing a pilot installation in Germany that is supposed to have zero-emission characteristics.

It will open a bit earlier than the proposed US-pilote installation, since they already started builting it.

A question aside: even if there is plenty of uranium, how long will it take us if we get our electricity from that more or less exclusively?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxy and okie, shouldn't you two guys rather be thanking me for digging up the DoE website than bashing me

And of course I've applauded any approaches towards an economy that doesn't rely as much on oil as it does now.

Of course America is still a bit behind most Western nations when it comes to renewable resources, or to clean power production, or research funding, or....

I did NOT bash you sir. I only asked if you would give President Bush his due credit for the initiative. You didn't quite do that. In truth, my ulterior motive was to see if you could bring yourself to do it. Smile

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Steve, I apologize for mis-characterizing your position.

no problem :wink:

So what is my position (I ask myself)?

Pretty pessimistic I must admit. A few years ago I'd never heard of 'peak oil' or Hubbert. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/tribute.htm

Later I thought it was unduly alarmist...maybe in the school of "something will turn up". Now I think USUK govts are taking it very seriously and its driving foreign policy, although they will NEVER admit it.

We have to move towards a carbon neutral economy for several reasons. The most important is the long term affect of climate change. But the more immediate and pressing concern is that before we can pollute the atmosphere with the by products of burning fossil fuels, we are finding fossil fuel in its most useful form i.e oil harder and harder to find and extract. Plus there is increased competition for remaining oil from China and India. Our aggressive search the world over to feed our oil addiction is producing a reaction (in particular from Muslims) who have the absurd notion that the petroleum reserves beneath their feet somehow belong to them. So its a major driver for terrorism too. The symmetry of world problems (immediate, medium term, long term) all coming back to oil is quite impressive

So how do we get to a carbon neutral world economy? I have some ideas but I dont know for sure, its way above my pay grade. All I know is that we have to get there, and that private vested interests spontaneously coming up with the answer is not enough. It needs intergovernmental co operation and direction on an unprecedented scale. Its the world-wide equivalent of the Apollo or Manhattan project if you ask me.

What makes me pessimistic is that I see every indication of the USUK governments acting in out moded selfish and brutal manner. Might is right it seems, sod everyone else.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know