W
weller2
Guest
Could you be more specific?
- Status
W
weller2
Guest
Not really. You are attempting to obfuscate a simple issue.
The topic of the thread is whether human-produced CO2 causes global warming. This boils down to balance of energy flowing in and out of planet, which IS a Gaussian problem (in fact, one that has been solved back in 1820, when J.B.Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect, by calculating that solar irradiation can only bring the surface temperature to -17C). In 1898 Arrhenius demonstrated that increased CO2 → decreased out energy stream → increase in total thermal energy of the planet. As you can see, all that is quite simple to calculate, because these guys worked with pen and paper, not computers.
Feedbacks and energy storage only come into play when you are attempting to calculate how much warming you will have per CO2 doubling and whether the energy will go into heating air, ocean or melting ice. This is information needed for policy definition (and real estate investors
).Nevertheless, from policy perspective, the difference between climate sensitivity of 1.5 and 3 deg. C. per CO2 doubling is actually quite minor: you need emission controls anyway, just at different level – because even lower climate sensitivity does not mean that we can put unlimited amounts of CO2 in the air.
W
weller2
Guest
Actually, coal and oil industries are quite inefficient – they only appear to be efficient due to an accounting trick.
Consider a direct alternative, which is nuclear energy. The nuclear energy is more expensive then coal, and one of the main reasons is that the nuclear industry must handle safe disposal of its waste products.
In contrast, the coal-fired power plant simply dumps its waste product (CO2) in the air. If we mandated that CO2-fired power plant must capture and store its produced CO2, its energy efficiency would go down by 30-40% – enough to put most energy companies in the red. But instead the CO2 (along with all of the periodic table, including radioactive elements) is dumped into the air for free, and the cost of dealing with that is transferred to the taxpayer. Cost externalization is a form of government subsidy.
What’s even worse is that energy efficiency of carbon industry is going down. It used to be that coal had EROI of 14 – meaning, 1 ton of coal was needed to mine 15 tons of coal, so 14 tons could be put to actual use. In other words, 6% of energy was used to produce more energy, and 94% of energy was used to do useful things: heating houses, making steel and the like. In terms of CO2, it meant that 6% of all CO2 produced was needed to sustain the energy industry (mine more coal), and 94% was produced by doing useful things.
So take the newest darling of the carbon industry, Alberta Tar Sands. The EROI there is 3. THREE. That means 25% of energy produced from mined carbon is used to mine more carbon – and 25% of CO2 production is due to sustaining the carbon energy industry. Only 75% of both is used for actual work.
THAT is the reason the carbon industry is fighting emission controls tooth and nail. It is already on the verge of profitability by normal metrics, and enacting emission controls will just flip it over a few years earlier.
Color me unimpressed. $500M? That would be 1/26th of an aircraft carrier. These babies retail at $13B each. Or about 3 Atlas V rockets, if you prefer to spend on space.
In the mean time, I’d point out that in 2003 the country which was the world’s largest consumer of oil attacked the country with 5th largest oil reserves. Allegedly because of WMDs, but no WMDs were ever found, but oil – very much so. That war has costed something like $2.5 trillion.
And for what? EROI of the oil industry is still falling like a rock. And profitability with it.
A
alevanpa
Guest
Gotcha! I did not see the original message.
This is true. There has not been a single industry that did not get some sorting government (state or federal) help. However, they do not need that assistance over the long run. It is a constant complaint against federal spending that profitable industries are given benefits via their representatives and senators. They don’t need the money.
Here, however, I believe you are mistaken. Production of PhotoVoltaic panels, in the US are completely subsidized by government–the cost of installing, and maintaining,solar panels can never be reclaimed by savings generated, or electric power generating resale to power companies, over the life of the panel. Businesses, and homeowners, install them only because there are subsidies, and/or, tax rebates (which are subsidies).
This is not to say that there are not idealistic citizens who install them because they believe it is their duty, as citizens of the world, to use them to conserve the atmosphere from some CO2–and who also think that the rest of us should do the same. But, they are no-where near a percentage of energy users required to make a difference in the economy of scale to make Solar Panels an economical choice for the vast majority of energy users.
This is also true of “Wind.” “Wind” requires vast tracts of land, and thousands of generators, to generate enough energy to compete with one, small, oil based generating plant. Wind is not economical, and will also require government support for the foreseeable future.
There is only one generating method that meets all clean and plentiful, generating requirements. That is nuclear–but the very faction demanding “clean” energy fights against using it. It is a conundrum of our own making.
I don’t know where you got the idea that wind and solar are profitable in countries where it is relatively plentiful, but that energy is vastly subsidized there, too–or, really expensive. But, in those countries, I’m thinking Europe, oil and coal are vastly more expensive there than here. That’s why many countries generate their electricity from nuclear power.
A
alevanpa
Guest
Gotcha! I did not see the original message.
This is true. There has not been a single industry that did not get some sorting government (state or federal) help. However, they do not need that assistance over the long run. It is a constant complaint against federal spending that profitable industries are given benefits via their representatives and senators. They don’t need the money.
Here, however, I believe you are mistaken. Production of PhotoVoltaic panels, in the US are completely subsidized by government–the cost of installing, and maintaining,solar panels can never be reclaimed by savings generated, or electric power generating resale to power companies, over the life of the panel. Businesses, and homeowners, install them only because there are subsidies, and/or, tax rebates (which are subsidies).
This is not to say that there are not idealistic citizens who install them because they believe it is their duty, as citizens of the world, to use them to conserve the atmosphere from some CO2–and who also think that the rest of us should do the same. But, they are no-where near a percentage of energy users required to make a difference in the economy of scale to make Solar Panels an economical choice for the vast majority of energy users.
This is also true of “Wind.” “Wind” requires vast tracts of land, and thousands of generators, to generate enough energy to compete with one, small, oil based generating plant. Wind is not economical, and will also require government support for the foreseeable future.
There is only one generating method that meets all clean and plentiful, generating requirements. That is nuclear–but the very faction demanding “clean” energy fights against using it. It is a conundrum of our own making.
I don’t know where you got the idea that wind and solar are profitable in countries where it is relatively plentiful, but that energy is vastly subsidized there, too–or, really expensive. But, in those countries, I’m thinking Europe, oil and coal are vastly more expensive there than here. That’s why many countries generate their electricity from nuclear power.
A
alevanpa
Guest
What do I say to this? You are absolutely right!! But, that is the very problem: there is no rational reason why this should be so. We have, in the country, plenty of places where storage would be safe and relatively inexpensive.
The problem is exactly what I said it is: there is a faction who want nothing less than wind and solar. To them, it doesn’t matter the expense. They would rather, it seems to me, the nation economically draw down to third world status than produce inexpensive, efficient energy. I think it’s just that simple.
This is simply not true! Coal fired plants do not just emit CO2, or any other chemical, into the environment. Furthermore, new designs make coal fired plants clean, safe and cheap. Again it is only a hard-headed faction, admittedly a powerful one, that prevents their entry into the economy. The reason is the same as for nuclear: they do not want cheap energy in the US. This faction wants the economic power of the US downgraded.
The rest of your diatribe is simply obfuscation: baffle them with B.S! It makes no attempt to respond to my initial assertions: solar and wind power. are expensive and inefficient. They will never be as efficient, inexpensive and plentiful as coal and oil in the production of energy. We may be forced to use them by raw political power, but not because they are actually better.
Are you really this obtuse? It is not the matter of a single company, but the fact they would not exist if it were not for government subsidy. They are government manufactured entities.
The fact is that, in case you didn’t know, AtlasV rockets actually work. They are perfectly efficient and cost effective at what they do. Solar panels are not. That’s the point! Maybe, if we turned solar panel design and production over to the military, they might actually become practicable?
I don’t get it…what is it you are trying to say? Exactly what does the Iraq war have to do with the efficiency and expense of solar panels?
You are right, here…finally! This is exactly my point.
Pacem?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…I’ve got to agree with you there.
That is true too. Photovoltaics have not reached universal grid parity yet. The only way they can appear cheaper to the consumer is because of the subsidies. However, that tipping point of grid parity without subsidies is quite close. It is already achieved in some places with high electricity costs. While PV panels are available at less the $1/watt, the unsubsidized price is closer to $2 per watt. Using this unsubsidized price, the panel would have produce for 20,000 hours to get the price of electricity down to $.10 / kWh, which is like we pay now in most places. Assuming only 3 hours of operation per day, that comes to a lifetime of 18 years. So if the panel can be made to last 18 years, it will achieve unsubsidized grid parity. Now I realize that 18 years is a long time for a PV panel. But they are talking now about 20 and 25 year PV panels. And there are plenty of places where much more than 3 hours per day of operation can be expected.
Where I think PV panels will start to cost more is when the market penetration starts to produce more power than can be immediately consumed at the time. For small increments of PV, we can simply absorb the extra power and reduce the output of some other power source (like an oil-fired plant). But if substantial PV power is generated beyond the instantaneous demand, that will require either throwing away that extra power, or storing it. Both of these things increase cost. So some equilibrium will be reached between PV and fossil fuel based on when these extra costs exceed the value derived from using PV.
That may be true for individual users. But probably not for large corporate users who can benefit from the economy of scale.
Well, the vast tracts of land business is a bit of a red herring. Wind turbines are often shared with farmland. Crops can grow between the turbines which only consume a few square feet at the base. The biggest problem with wind is that it is not uniformly distributed, necessitating long transmission lines. Nevertheless, I think it is already profitable in some places.
That depends on how clean is clean. I believe clean efficient nuclear can be done right. And I have no objection to that. But we have already seen several incidents that show why the standards need to be set so high for this technology - standards that can be met.
A
alevanpa
Guest
Don’t disagree with anything you have said. What does this mean?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The more costs the government imposes on energy production, naturally the more expensive energy will become. No mystery there.
And the taxpayers pay for cleanup of CO2 in the atmosphere? How? Where are the government CO2 scrubbers? The ones who are really being asked to pay for it are the consumers, through artificially raising the price of energy.
Do you really think the U.S. attacked Iraq to get the oil? How much free oil did the U.S. get out of it?
But you’re right in saying the U.S. was then the world’s largest consumer of oil. And we paid for every last drop of it too. Then, as now, U.S. energy consumption as a percentage of world consumption is almost exactly equal to the U.S. contribution to world production of goods and services. It takes energy to produce. Some of us, certainly, are content to see U.S. productivity plummet relative to that of countries that aren’t ideologically committed to MMGW. But I’m not one of them.
E
Ender
Guest
If it is such a simple issue then why were all of the major climate models unable to solve it? Not a single one of them allowed for the possibility of a 15 year hiatus in warming.
I’ll ask again: if it boils down to such a simple explanation then what explains the fact that for 15 years CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have not? You have presented this as a simple “If A, then B” situation, when in fact we’ve had A (increasing CO2) but not B (increasing temperature). This ought to suggest that things are not quite as clear or simple as you suppose.
This assumes that there is a significant climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 but it is worth noting that the value for that sensitivity (whichever one you choose) is calculated based on the assumption that the warming seen in the last 150 years or so is all due to increased CO2. If circular reasoning is a valid scientific approach then one is justified in believing the climate sensitivity numbers … otherwise, not so much.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your premise that all the costs imposed by government are artificial is refuted by considering China, where the lack of government-imposed costs on energy production have led to some of the worst polluted air in the world, so much so that people have to stay indoors when the winds are not favorable and wear masks at other times. Now I realize that CO2 is not the main problem experienced by the Chinese, but the situation shows that there are costs that are either born by public in terms of health problems or imposed on the industry that is responsible. If we did not have the Clean Air Act, the northeast would look like Beijing on a bad day.
No one expected free oil from that adventure. But being able to buy oil from a friendly country is better than being denied the oil by an unfriendly one. It was out of fear of the later possibility that prompted the war. And the fact that we had to resort to such extremes to ensure our supply of oil should be taken into account when calculating what costs we currently pay for oil. The price at the pump, including the taxes, are only part of the picture.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You said the costs of CO2 in the U.S. are shifted to the taxpayer. Your response indicates your agreement that it isn’t so. And it isn’t. The U.S. government shifts the costs to the consumer, not to the taxpayer. In China, apparently, they don’t do a whole lot of that. But what they do in China has nothing to do with what’s done here.
The U.S. didn’t buy significant amounts of oil from Iraq before the war or after. You are assuming your premise, (that the Iraq war was motivated by U.S. desire for Iraqi oil) and have not proved it or even attempted to prove it.
Now, one could argue that the first phase of the Gulf war was motivated by oil. After all, Saddam Hussein had seized Kuwait. But virtually the whole world joined in that war, and undoubtedly many were motivated by wanting to stop naked aggression. Possibly some of the nations had an interest in keeping Saddam from seizing the entire Middle East becasue of oil, but some undoubtedly didn’t want to be ruled by him.
A
alevanpa
Guest
Leaf, as I recall, we had no real issue with procuring enough oil to run our economy at the start of or during the Iraq war. So long as the import costs of oil were less than that of other, more esoteric sources–located right here in the US–it was cost effective to import the stuff.
There is actually enough oil right here in the US to last an estimated 300 years-give or take 50years, or so: Tar Sands, new fields, off-shore, Alaska–it’s all over the place. The problem we have with these sources is the expense–relative to buying oil from the Middle East and other insecure places–of developing and shipping the stuff. However, that price, and the cost of security for imported oil, have risen to the point where it is now cost effective to harvest the more esoteric sources we have here in the US.
I think that this development promises fantastic consequences for our security and for this nation’s environment and for our national peace of mind:
First, We don’t need to tie ourselves up with protecting the seriously unsavory characters and regimes we have dealt with over the last 50years.
Second, there is no need to worry whether, or not, a Cartel (a stone-cold illegal economic entity here in the US) will decide that it’s members need more income and summarily raise the price of oil.
Third, and what is ironic and worse, having to protect these characters from their own people–or other autocrats–to keep the oil supply lines to us, and our friends (the Europeans) open.
Fourth, it gives us time, and the freedom of action, to develop the ElectronicVoltaic panels (actually the storage capacity their massive use would require)–or, maybe an even better and cheaper energy source.
Think about it: these esoteric sources are only viable because energy production and delivery is so expensive. Why not the Federal government actually do something useful here, like, maybe, offering a $10 Billion dollar prize to the company or individual that develops a cheap and efficient energy source that is reproducible, renewable and doesn’t affect the environment (You know, now that I thought of this prize thingy, it might be a great idea for the Feds to do this right now–and, instead of a $10 Billion dollar prize (which ain’t that big considering the experimental, development and testing costs that will probably be incurred, against the size of annual federal spending (more than $1 Trillion) and the amount of money oil and gas producers currently make, $50 or $60, even $100 Billion is probably a more reasonable prize package.).
The winner would have sole production rights of the product for, say, 7 years. After that, production is opened to companies who produce “generic” copies of the product–like what happens now with drugs: you can still buy the version made by the developing company at 10+ times the cost of a generic version.
This could turn energy production on its head, and, for other than automobiles and trucks and, maybe, users who are outliers to the normal power grids, virtually end the need for oil and gas. We could become completely energy independent.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
A new study from Swedish climate scientists indicates that the earth was likely warmer during the ancient Roman empire and Medieval period than it is today. Leif Kullman, the study’s author, found that tree lines were at higher elevation during those times than they are today, mainly because “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum [Roman and Medieval period] may have been 2.3°C higher than present.”
Something tells me that wasn’t because of all the Roman SUVs.
Certainly, one report doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, but the trend is certainly not going in favor of those who want to blame “global warming” on modern human activity and then clamp down on it with draconian government measures. Despite the alarmism today, temperatures have not increased globally since 1998, leaving warmists scrambling to come up with an explanation. Indeed, just last week saw 2,000 cold and snow records broken in the U.S.
In light of this mounting evidence, some climate scientists are – gasp – becoming skeptics. Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, says, “All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet. However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
That’s worth repeating:** Natural climate variability might have something to do with the climate.**
Something tells me that wasn’t because of all the Roman SUVs.
Certainly, one report doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, but the trend is certainly not going in favor of those who want to blame “global warming” on modern human activity and then clamp down on it with draconian government measures. Despite the alarmism today, temperatures have not increased globally since 1998, leaving warmists scrambling to come up with an explanation. Indeed, just last week saw 2,000 cold and snow records broken in the U.S.
In light of this mounting evidence, some climate scientists are – gasp – becoming skeptics. Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, says, “All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet. However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
That’s worth repeating:** Natural climate variability might have something to do with the climate.**
A
alevanpa
Guest
JB,
An interesting, and probably valid, scientific observation: there’s indication that GW, Climate Change, is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It just may be, but, even if true–without a reasonable doubt–it will not change the mind of the Obama administration or on the UN Panel on Climate Change. The movement is not only toward reduction in CO2 emissions and levels (if that actually means anything), but the actual redistribution of wealth from the Western nations–especially the US–to those nations deemed to have been victimized by the West. That is the ultimate goal of the Global Warming methodologies: bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The energy producers have the freedom to try to pass on whatever costs they incur, if they want to. But when the dirty energy providers have to compete with clean energy providers that do not incur these costs, the free market should create a competitive advantage for the clean energy producers. And that is as it should be. For not to do that would be to allow a greater injustice whereby people who have nothing to do with the energy producers are nevertheless subjected to the degradation of their environment. Note that I am speaking not about CO2 specifically, but about pollution generally. Of course the entire argument - my side or your side - rests or whether or not CO2 is detrimental. So until that is settled, there can be no definitive settlement of the question of regulations relating to CO2.
We need not confine our consideration to Iraqi oil. The presence of Saddam was deemed a threat to stability in the region, as you pointed out, which would have potential effect on oil from a much wider area.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have no objection to “alternative energies” competing with fossil fuels, as long as they’re really competitive. Right now, of course, they aren’t, which is why some of the countries that went all out on them are now retreating from them. Artificially adding to the cost of fossil fuels is not truly making alternatives more competitive in a real sense.
Certainly Saddam posed a threat to stability in the region, and not only to its stability. He flat out conquered another state and absorbed it. That was not deemed acceptable among most nations, if not all, and particularly not to the neighboring states who saw themselves falling into his maw if he was allowed to get away with absorbing Kuwait. Remember, all Arab states other than Jordan (which was more vulnerable to Saddam than any, perhaps, but which has virtually no oil) joined in that fight.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This appears to be a dispute between Santer and Douglass over the statistical methods used to analyze satellite and radiosonde data for comparison with the model. Santer defends his position in this article.
E
Ender
Guest
Santer’s point is not that tropospheric warming should not occur, only that our observations of it in comparison with surface temperatures are giving skewed results. He assuredly does not contest that the troposphere should warm more than the surface; he is countering observations that indicate that the expected warming has not occurred.Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations
His paper is important for the simple reason that the data on tropospheric warming appeared to be different than what the theory predicted; he was not challenging the prediction but attempting to validate it.
Ender
A
alevanpa
Guest
Leaf…
You have that a little backward: There is a lack of environmental controls causing the out of control pollution in China’s cities. But, the out-of-control pollution is exactly what the government of China is willing to accept in order to get the industrial output and exports they need to support their population and government spending. They want heavy industrial output, and they don’t want pollution controls to hamper that output. That’s why pollution is the way it is in Chine; it’s NOT accidental. It’s that simple. Don’t obfuscate that fact.
- Status