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

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

hahahaaa... okay: I applaud President Bush for spending $1 billion, over a 10-year period, on a demonstration project trying to create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant...

I truly give President Bush credit for this initiative!

(There you go. Awaiting acknowledgements...)

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

no

wind turbine powered bmw?

yes

I get it he's got a tube up his ass and is farting in the engine...

Quote:

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.

Now, this is the statement which I disagree with the most.

Solar and wind have the possibility to produce far, far more of our power than they currently do. Technology increases have reduced the cost of solar panels and wind farms; part of the reason they don't produce much energy right now is that they require a big investment to begin with, after which they start to make up the cost, at a certain point the energy becomes practically free. I don't see why it would be 'virtually impossible' to build these plants across the country, and while we may not be able to produce them fast enough to meet Gore's doomsday scenario, what's the harm in getting started? What if we could only produce 40 or 50 percent of our energy through solar and wind? Do you have any idea how much pollution that would save? Tons, literally.

Solar also has the great advantage of being scalable. You can make your house solar powered one room at a time. New techniques for printing solar sheets onto plastic have been discovered, making solar shingles and solar gutters for homes a reality. Once the prices drop a little more - and this is something that can be done through legistlation, rebates, incentives, etc - you will find that solar shingles and gutters will soon be the standard for houses. Imagine, the power needs for one's home being supplied by the sun, up to 30 or 40%. On days where you are at work all day, you sell the extra power back to the grid. Solar tiles on the roofs of electric and hybrid cars can greatly improve the efficiency of the vehicles, even on cloudy days. So I truly believe that solar has a long, long way to go towards powering our needs, and that it can be ramped up relatively quickly.

If you are interested in learning more about the new technologies, let me know and I can provide you with a bevy of links to them.

I think that we can make changes, significant changes, within the decade. All we have to do is decide that we want to do it.

We went from basically no space program, to a man on the moon, because we decided to do it.

We went from no mobilization, to being the strongest army in the world, during WW2, because we decided to do it.

We built the interstate highway system and ramped up the oil industry in just 10 years, because we decided to do it.

We have done a lot of things by working together as a country. Environmentalism has the upside of making everything cleaner for everyone, including legions of your future descendants. If we can find ways to make it profitable, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and unite the American people in pioneering new technologies and practices that can help clean the world, while making profitable new industries for everyone.

Cycloptichorn

Besides the problem of inconsistent wind in some regions, another key problem with wind even in good areas is its intermittence that limits its contribution to that of that of being a contributor that does not stand on its own. So experts predict it could contribute up to maybe 5% of electrical generation in the U.S.

I would be interested in your solar links, Cyclops and any realistic projections as to how much solar could contribute to the mix in the next 10 or 20 years.

all the great innovations, such as electricity, the telegraph, the telephone, airplanes, the automobile and the assembly line, the cotton gin, the computer, and so many other things have been given to us by the entrepeneur, the free market, and capitalism here in this country.

And the screams of the free marketeers that any government intervention to alleviate climate change will mean total economic collapse remind me strongly of the debate over clean air, emission controls, and mileage standards for cars, which involved a lot of the same kinds of changes. The auto industry spent years bitching and whining and pissing and moaning that pollution controls or compulsory CAFE standards would bankrupt the industry. But we actually had some government people with backbone enough to stand up to the whining of the special interests and the standards were enacted.

And the screams of the free marketeers that any government intervention to alleviate climate change will mean total economic collapse remind me strongly of the debate over clean air, emission controls, and mileage standards for cars, which involved a lot of the same kinds of changes. The auto industry spent years bitching and whining and pissing and moaning that pollution controls or compulsory CAFE standards would bankrupt the industry. But we actually had some government people with backbone enough to stand up to the whining of the special interests and the standards were enacted.

The result was probably the greatest single concerted period of development of the automobile, and related technologies. Materials science developed by leaps and bounds. Incredibly more efficient engines were developed, aerodynamics were actually applied to cars, rather than the 50's style "streamlining", which was just design, not science. Today's cars just plain work better, for twice the mileage they used to. Used to be before all this if you had a car with over 100K on it, it was a clapped-out junker. Today it's just broken-in.

And guess what, the industry didn't go bankrupt (well, Ford and GM have made some incredibly bone-headed production decisions, but that's because their execs are really dim--nothing to do with the R&D). And you can still get a basic car for about the same amount of work time that it took to buy a 1925 Chevy, and I ask you which you would rather have for a daily driver--a Toyota Yaris, or the 25 Chev--top optional, windshield wipers optional, heater optional, roll up windows optional, 0-60 time--yeah, sure, in your dreams, only when you drive it off a cliff, 50 mph top speed, if that.

The industry didn't progress by itself (well, again, the Japanese looked at the direction things were going and took the initiative, just like they're doing today). The American companies just sat there and pouted, until government kicked their spoiled little backsides.

Quote:

The result was probably the greatest single concerted period of development of the automobile, and related technologies. Materials science developed by leaps and bounds. Incredibly more efficient engines were developed, aerodynamics were actually applied to cars, rather than the 50's style "streamlining", which was just design, not science. Today's cars just plain work better, for twice the mileage they used to. Used to be before all this if you had a car with over 100K on it, it was a clapped-out junker. Today it's just broken-in.

I will agree to a point, but I also think competition would have driven much of the same improvements in cars. The price of gasoline would have driven up the fuel economy as well, and I think it is right now as we speak.

Competition did lead to improvements in cars, but these improvements had often enough nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

If you are arguing for a free market economy and against government intervention to achieve improvements, you would have to oppose the SPR and its misuse in order to keep gas prices down.

Have you ever been to the USA? Have you noticed that the cars in American streets are much larger there than in Europe? Maybe that's because European governments have made fuel more expensive that American governments have. Maybe Europen drivers reacted to these price increases by demanding more fuel-efficient cars.

Have you ever looked at historic European and American cars .... and at the price of petrol?