Walter,
The problem though is that Mortkat couldn't buy a rumproast without his boy! Mortkat relies on his boy to support him. Buys him stuff, not to mention a monthly stipend. He made the mistake of fessing that up on Abuzz one time.
Anon
You asked for commentary on "Global Warming" Walter Hinteler? Here it is. I posted it about a couple of hours ago. I think you missed it. NOW GO AHEAD AND REBUT MY POINTS--i f y o u a r e a b l e to do so.
l. Surface temperatures on the earth have varied throughout the centuries. The Medieval Warm Period manifested warmer temperatures than today without the benefit of co2 produced by man.
2. The US Senate decisively voted against acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997 with a DECISIVE vote of 95-0. One of the major sticking points was that the C02 emissions of China and India were not to be cut back because they were both classified as "developing countries
3. The National Academy of Sciences published its report in 2001 and found that a large portion of the research on "global warming" could only be classified as 'UNCERTAIN"
4. There was a strong surface warming between 1890 and 1940 followed by a pronounced cooling between 1940 and 1970( and warnings of a catasthropic ice age to come) then rising tempertures from 1970 to today.
Since CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early 20th century, it is a puzzle why substantial warming happened anyway. It could have been due to natural causes of Climate Change.
5. Recent warming trends have been measured only on the earth's surface. There are major uncertainties connected with those trends, one of which is the heat island effect. The important point is that satellite measurements do not show the warming trends.
6. The Academy pointed out a serious problem with the theories concerning global warming. They noted that "The nature and magnitude of hydrological feedbacks give rise to the LARGEST SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY since all of the computer models assume that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air. If that assumption is untrue and the theories of Richard Lindzen, perhaps the US's foremost professor of Meterology at MIT hold true, then the thoery of global warming falls apart.
Dr. Lindzen holds that clouds tend to reduce much of the warming expected fromCO2 since he states that cirrus clouds act as thermostats. Dr, Lindzen points out that both clouds and water vapor-EACH MORE IMPORTANT IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL ENOUGH UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.
7. The National Academy of Sciences points out that without computer models there would be no evidence of global warming, no Kyoto. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra fast computers, scholars try to learn just how it will react to new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. The NSA points out that AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION.
The NAS concludes that "Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in thier formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as in nature"
8. Perhaps, more important, the NAS report highlights the difficulty in understanding NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE. If we can't understand those, then we can't understand the human effect. One of the MAJOR natural component in changing the climate is--the sun. New findings, based on satellite measurements,suggest that the heat emanating from the sun to the earth changes significantly on time scales of decades to centuries. NASA satellites have uncovered the fact that the sun's changing magnetism over the course of its sunspot cycle is accompanied by a change in total energy output. SINCE THE SUN IS AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE TODAY AS IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS OF DIRECT TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS, IT MAY BE THAT THE SUN IS HEATING THE EARTH WITH LITTLE THAT MAN CAN DO ABOUT IT.
Your information is out of date deceasedfeline. There is no longer any wriggle room. Over the last year all the arguments of the climate change deniers have been shot down. The matter is settled, global warming is real and it is anthropogenic.
Mortkat,
In addition to being needlessly (and foolishly) offensive, you have your facts wrong. Despite its well-publicized economic stresses, Germany operates a very effective exonomy. I believe that in relative terms it is one of the world's largest exporters - a quite remarkable feat for a high labor cost nation. They have a few things to teach us in that area.
Walter,
Interesting piece. I note that the article cites a goal of 10% electrical power production in the UK from renewable sources. For a country without major hydroelectric sources, that is probab;ly a large share. The U.S. currently gets about 13% of its electrical power from renewable sources, the largest of which is hydroelectric, amounting to about 6%, I believe that Canada's share is even higher in this area. It remains noteworthy that the solar, wave, and windpower sources that get so much attention in the press still amount to little more than 1 or 2% of production in both Europe and America.
georgeob1 wrote:I believe that in relative terms it is one of the world's largest exporters ...
...´the solar, wave, and windpower sources that get so much attention in the press still amount to little more than 1 or 2% of production in both Europe and America.
The solar panels at Stillwell Avenue Metro station on Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York's largest photovoltaic solar power installation, are German made :wink:
(By SCHOTT Solar GmbH, one of the world's leading and largest manufacturers of PV solar power components.
And the European wind industry has 90% of the world equipment market. Germany, Spain and Denmark alone account for 84% of European production capacity.)
In 2005, the USA gets about 2.500 MW, Germany nearly 1.700 MW from wind energy (source:
American Wind Energy Association,
German Renewable Energy Federation .
In 2005, 6.4% of all energy in Germany is from renewable resources (nuclear less than 6 %).
Walter, That's pretty impressive! When looking at the overall skill level of industrialized countries, the US is falling behind in education in math and science. That's going to impact our economy big time, because our governments (national and local) are ignorant about the level of education of our children. According to recent studies, even college graduates in the US are considered illiterate.
Walter Hinteler wrote:In 2005, the USA gets about 2.500 MW, Germany nearly ....
The above should read more correctly:
In 2005, the USA gets about 2.500 MW, Germany nearly 1.700 MW from wind energy (source:
American Wind Energy Agency,
German Renewable Energy Federation ).
In 2005, 6.4% of all energy in Germany is from renewable resources (nuclear less than 6 %). (Source as above)
cicerone imposter wrote:Walter, That's pretty impressive! ...
Sometimes, c.i., and really only sometimes, I get the idea that some nations are only against all this about global warming, because ''that ship has sailed'' re earning money in a newly developed industry.
But as said: only sometimes :wink:
One of the largest energy producers in California has gone bankrupt, and according to reports, we will again suffer from blackouts and brownouts, and higher cost for energy that must be bought on the open market.
And we're helping Iraq build energy plants while ours are declining. I find this picture to be troubling, but Americans are sooooo generous!
In the first place, California has only itself to blame for its dependence on imported power. The NIMBY attitudes of communities and regulators, together with the paranoid belief that corporations are out toi screw them have left Californians hostage to external sources that properly don't give a damn if the state screws itself once againn just as it did a few years ago under the now departed Gray Davis.
The U.S. is still midway in the transition from regulated monopoly sources and distributors of electrical power to a partially open market. The middle of a stream can be a dangerous place to occupy.
The U.S. has roughly 25% of the world's known reserves of coal, and that shapes our views of alternatives. U.S. industry has a good history of quickly and efficiently exploiting new technologies when they become cost competitive. Right now the wind and solar technologies that so interest Walter are far more expensive than readily available alternatives. The big payoff new areas are (1) demand reduction through better design of buildings and systems; and (2) new investments in nuclear power.
george, I agree, but I have reservations about our ability to a) design better buildings to lessen demand that'll make much difference overall, and b) investments in nuclear power.
georgeob1 wrote:The U.S. has roughly 25% of the world's known reserves of coal, and that shapes our views of alternatives.
That's correct:
Quote:The United States with 26 percent and the FSU with 23 percent account for nearly half of global coal reserves. China (12 percent), Australia (8 percent), Germany (7 percent), South Africa (5 percent), and Poland (2 percent) also have significant amounts of the world's recoverable coal reserves.
Coal Reserve Information Sheet
(Regarding the the seize of land and population in relation to the USA, our figures might equal yours.)
Living in the state with the most resources of (black) coal and not much less brown coal, I have mixed feelings that we shutting one pit after the other since 30 years.
I think it was a question of economics Walter. The sudden availability of relatively cheap natural gas from Libya and Russia enabled the transition to relatively small and low initial cost gas turbine generation plants. With regeneration and waste heat recovery systems these plants are nearly as efficient as the coal-fired plants they replaced, and their NOX & SOX emissions are less. However these coal reserves are still available for new technologies that may yield efficient gas recovery or safe direct combustion applications.
From the perspective of greenhouse gases, coal and gas are about the same.
I remember reading something about coal shale in Colorado that has great potential, but the cost was prohibitive. I wonder if that's still true today concerning cost vs benefit.
cicerone imposter wrote:I remember reading something about coal shale in Colorado that has great potential, but the cost was prohibitive. I wonder if that's still true today concerning cost vs benefit.
Shell have been trying to cook a mountain. It takes a lot of power to do that. Its Energy Return on Energy Invested that counts, not just cost v benefit.
Cost would include "energy invested."
"encouraging consumer energy management "
starting next year households in ontario will be outfitted with new meters that will meter electricity as : high demand usage, mid demand usage and low demand usage , and the rates will vary accordingly . it is expected that within three years all households will be supplied with these meters . it is expected that users will start to restrict day-time use of electricity considerably once they find out what the cost is .
in woodstock/ontario consumers were encouraged to buy "pre-paid" electricity use cards that are put into the meter and read and record the consumption . a/t a report i received , consumers cut their use of electricity back as much as 20% once they started to see on an almost daily basis what the cosst was (there was no discount allowed on the purchase of the cards). on of the problems with current metering and billing practices is that consumers don't really know what their consumption is until a month or too after they have used it .
from what i understand , the problem isn't so much a scarcity of supply but uneven demand . some utilities are actually given power away at night because it is cheaper than shutting down and firing up the equipment (this has been widely reported on in american business magazines). hbg
I believe there's a somewhat similar program in the San Francisco Bay Area. If consumers reduce their energy use compared to last year's average, the utility rates will be reduced and/or a bonus given.
