• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Green Energy and Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:07 PM


The right does seem to have a lock on the authoritarian personality, which will ignore facts that do not fit their preconceived (or mandated) notions. The left coniders facts, presents a more nuanced view, which appears indecisive and weak to the ideologically indoctrinated.

****I have to laugh at this. The left is good at spin. Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Translation: Use crises to push your agenda.

Solution? When reality becomes too harsh to ignore. Sandy came close, may have convinced a few. When 4 degrees temperature rise before the end of this century obtrudes, reality may break the deadlock. Even so, the psychopaths will still be steering the ship.

****Haven't there been big storms before? What's so special about Sandy? http://www.dailymail...t-prove-it.html



#2 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

****Haven't there been big storms before? What's so special about Sandy? http://www.dailymail...t-prove-it.html

Said link's chart has been disavowed by the office claimed to have released it, it was written and funded by the Koch/Exon et al conspiracy -- the details can be found with a brief search. The article has bee most thoroughly debunked elsewhere. This is however a case in point: the authoritarian right prefers to ignore reality when it conflicts with ideologically held beliefs. Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.

It is also an example of the evil party making the stupid party continue to act stupid, even thought the paper in question is British, it is hewing to the conservative party line.

Don't think I believe liberals should get off scott-free in any free-for-all, either. While authoritarian right personalities prefer belief to evidence, they do have clean bathrooms. Liberals' bathrooms, on the other hand, usually lack cleaning supplies and are not as clean usually filthy, unless belonging to wealthy liberals who hire other to clean for them.

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


Edited by maxwatt, 28 November 2012 - 06:50 PM.


#3 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:13 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


This reminds me of a quote by the great Doctor Sheldon Cooper : "Engineering, where the noble semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello Oompa Loompas of science!"

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:22 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


This reminds me of a quote by the great Doctor Sheldon Cooper : "Engineering, where the noble semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello Oompa Loompas of science!"

:)

You are familiar, aren't you, with the engineer's proof that all odd numbers are prime?

#5 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


This reminds me of a quote by the great Doctor Sheldon Cooper : "Engineering, where the noble semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello Oompa Loompas of science!"


Engineering is where the rubber meets the road. Theory is nice and all, but it ain't real until you can hold it and use it.

#6 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:44 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


This reminds me of a quote by the great Doctor Sheldon Cooper : "Engineering, where the noble semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello Oompa Loompas of science!"


Engineering is where the rubber meets the road. Theory is nice and all, but it ain't real until you can hold it and use it.


Don't be too upset with me, I am an engineer of sorts myself.

#7 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:44 PM

Engineer's proof that all odd numbers are prime:

One, a special case. Three, five and seven are prime. Nine... uh, we'll come back to nine.
11 is prime, 13 is prime.
Obviously all odd numbers are prime. Nine was experimental error.

#8 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


Well, if it's so predictable, then why haven't there been good predictions of the climate? Surely by now, someone would have said "Aha, this model describes climate well!" right? The obvious answer is that we don't understand what's going on.

#9 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:06 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


Well, if it's so predictable, then why haven't there been good predictions of the climate? Surely by now, someone would have said "Aha, this model describes climate well!" right? The obvious answer is that we don't understand what's going on.


Max is correct regarding what would happen if the only influence was CO2 alone. The reason while models cannot predict climate accurately yet is due to all the other factors. For example, if there was a super volcano explosion next month on such a scale that it dropped global temperatures 5c for a decade, any existing model would quickly become inaccurate. I seriously shouldn't have to tell you this though.

#10 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:09 PM

Dammit, if you're an engineer you should have enough scientific knowledge to realize you cannot increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere by over 30% without seeing the predictable consequences of the resulting warming, a physically demonstrable fact of physics. Which we are seeing.


Well, if it's so predictable, then why haven't there been good predictions of the climate? Surely by now, someone would have said "Aha, this model describes climate well!" right? The obvious answer is that we don't understand what's going on.


Max is correct regarding what would happen if the only influence was CO2 alone. The reason while models cannot predict climate accurately yet is due to all the other factors. For example, if there was a super volcano explosion next month on such a scale that it dropped global temperatures 5c for a decade, any existing model would quickly become inaccurate. I seriously shouldn't have to tell you this though.


I'm not aware of any effort to quantify things that would invalidate climate models. If we understand the climate, then surely we must be able to figure out *why* the models are consistently wrong? Or maybe we don't understand it at all.

#11 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:14 PM

The models are not consistently wrong, they are getting better. What is clear is we are having a much greater frequency of extreme weather, as the models predict would happen with a warming world. The behavior of the jet stream has changed, such that its meanderings are more extreme and slower moving, leading to drought and extreme heat in places, and very heavy rain in others which is precisely what the models predict. But we are seriously off-topic. Persist and I'll move us all to another topic.

#12 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:32 PM

As far as the climate goes there's a lot of money riding on decisions made regarding it ("Clean" Coal, Off Shore Drilling, etc.) Republicans seem to promote themselves as being the party of business. It just seems that those supporting increased production at the expense of increased CO2 are getting smarter about how they pledge their support (through commissioning favorable studies or studies that confuse the facts).


My biggest problem is that 'green' or carbon neutral energy sources and business can mix. Over the past couple of years we have seen amazing gains in this area with genetically engineered cyanobacteria. The cool thing about this is that depending on the specific engineering of the bacteria, you can use fresh, salt, or even reclaimed water. Basically it amounts to sunlight + water + Co2 = product. I believe the company in Florida has a small production facility up and running now that is getting 7000 gallons / acre of persistent yield. There is another company about to move out of the lab that is getting upwards of 15,000 gallons / acre of persistent yield and has a much more refined and cheaper collection method. They are expecting to be able to provide product at around $50 a barrel and will not be competing with food crop either directly or for land as they can effectively be grown anywhere with sunlight and warmth.

#13 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:50 AM

My biggest problem is that 'green' or carbon neutral energy sources and business can mix. Over the past couple of years we have seen amazing gains in this area with genetically engineered cyanobacteria. The cool thing about this is that depending on the specific engineering of the bacteria, you can use fresh, salt, or even reclaimed water. Basically it amounts to sunlight + water + Co2 = product. I believe the company in Florida has a small production facility up and running now that is getting 7000 gallons / acre of persistent yield. There is another company about to move out of the lab that is getting upwards of 15,000 gallons / acre of persistent yield and has a much more refined and cheaper collection method. They are expecting to be able to provide product at around $50 a barrel and will not be competing with food crop either directly or for land as they can effectively be grown anywhere with sunlight and warmth.


See this is where I can see things from a conservative side a little bit.

“Coal is mined in 25 U.S. states and is responsible for over 550,000 U.S. jobs.”
http://www.americasp...-550000-us-jobs

“The U.S. oil and natural gas industry supports more than 9 million American jobs and makes significant economic contributions as an employer and purchaser of American goods and services, a new study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found.”
http://www.api.org/n...ent-of-gdp.aspx

These jobs are often focused in a relatively few number of states like Texas and contribute to a huge amount of US employment and GDP.

If the US were to try and switch to Clean Energy and leave it completely to the free market it is a pretty safe bet that many of these jobs and much of this GDP would be shipped offshore. The largest producer of Solar Pannels for example is China and the largest producer of Wind is again China followed by Demark.

Really it’s reasonable to think that a switch to green energy if left to the free market will cause harm to the US economy. That is unless Green Energy producers are motivated through Government intervention though Solyndra may hurt the chances of that being successful.

To bring this to a better conclusion I could theorize that the US Government does work (mostly) it’s just being impeded by challenges such as cheap global labor (I hope that's good enough to keep it mostly on topic). One could also say that cheap labor is a result of poor countries being exploited; the side effect of this is wealth injection which (can) bring those countries out of their impoverished conditions thus eliminating them as a source of cheap labor.

One could conclude that Time is also a possible solution for improving the US Government. It does appear that this is the current solution anyways. Allow for impoverished countries to rise out of poverty until cheap labor cannot be found anymore. This would then allow for more economically favorable business within the US.

Though this then makes me wonder if the increased costs of labor and increased demands of these now wealthier countries will depress economies globally therein not solving the US issues…
.

Edited by Lister, 30 November 2012 - 03:09 AM.


#14 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:05 AM

So if the US were to try and switch to Clean Energy and were to leave it completely to the free market it is a pretty safe bet that many of these jobs and much of this GDP would be shipped offshore. The largest producer of Solar Pannels for example is China and the largest producer of Wind is again China followed by Demark.

So really it’s reasonable to think that a switch to green energy if left to the free market will cause harm to the US economy. That is unless Green Energy producers are motivated through Government intervention though Solyndra may hurt the chances of that being successful.


Additionally, the technology doesn't yet exist to provide base load from renewable energy sources (apart from hydroelectric, but no more dams will be built). So you will be sacrificing some measure of reliability. No nation on earth has yet to switch to a significant portion of energy from renewable sources.

Also, the environmental effects of the renewable sources are currently not that well known. For instance wind turbines may be causing health issues.

Of course, none of these are disqualifiers, but it's something to think about.

#15 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:18 AM

You jumped on it quick rwac; I edited out all those “So”s

Can you imagine a world with relatively equal labor costs globally? In that situation I could almost see the US gaining back a lot of its production due to the exact thing I was targeting earlier; American Pride.

Given stable Global markets US still hold the clout of being a successful western nation. If it were able to easily compete in the Labor markets I have to wonder if it would then be able to draw business back.

It is said that innovation is the key to US success but I have to wonder if that will be enough. Though I’m speculating pretty far into the future and falling off topic. Doh!

#16 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

“The U.S. oil and natural gas industry supports more than 9 million American jobs and makes significant economic contributions as an employer and purchaser of American goods and services, a new study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found.”
http://www.api.org/n...ent-of-gdp.aspx

These jobs are often focused in a relatively few number of states like Texas and contribute to a huge amount of US employment and GDP.

If the US were to try and switch to Clean Energy and leave it completely to the free market it is a pretty safe bet that many of these jobs and much of this GDP would be shipped offshore. The largest producer of Solar Pannels for example is China and the largest producer of Wind is again China followed by Demark.


Well I was really referring to one thing specifically that is quickly (relative of course) becoming feasible and viable for mass production. If we are able to completely be independent of foreign oil via synthetic sources, I would venture to say that much of the void could be filled be the jobs the new technology would create in the country instead of those jobs being over seas. People still need to product the collection panels (note they are not solar panels), repair/clean equipment, manage collection, distribution, etc.

I suspect cheap fuel also would do a lot for the United States across the board in regards to economy....

Regarding the other 'green' initiatives, different discussion all together.

#17 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:20 PM

So if the US were to try and switch to Clean Energy and were to leave it completely to the free market it is a pretty safe bet that many of these jobs and much of this GDP would be shipped offshore. The largest producer of Solar Pannels for example is China and the largest producer of Wind is again China followed by Demark.

So really it’s reasonable to think that a switch to green energy if left to the free market will cause harm to the US economy. That is unless Green Energy producers are motivated through Government intervention though Solyndra may hurt the chances of that being successful.


Additionally, the technology doesn't yet exist to provide base load from renewable energy sources (apart from hydroelectric, but no more dams will be built). So you will be sacrificing some measure of reliability. No nation on earth has yet to switch to a significant portion of energy from renewable sources.(1)

Also, the environmental effects of the renewable sources are currently not that well known. For instance wind turbines may be causing health issues.

Of course, none of these are disqualifiers, but it's something to think about.


1) Not accurate, unless under 25% is considered not significant.
Wind power provided 18.9% of electricity production and 24.1% of generation capacity in Denmark in 2008. In 2012 the Danish government adopted a plan to increase the share of electricity production from wind to 50% by 2020.

In 2010 nearly 17% (more than 100 TWH) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources.

Last year, (2011) Germany's green energy consumption totaled 18.3 percent of total demand.



As far as providing base load, wind and sun complement each other, and there are storage options both extant and under development which would mitigate that problem. Health issues pale compared to the health issues from the pollution produced by a coal plant, seem no worse than living near an elevated train line or a busy highway, and siting at sea moves it away from human habitation, though it might interfere with the Kennedy's ocean view.

Edited by maxwatt, 30 November 2012 - 04:22 PM.


#18 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:41 PM

Also, the environmental effects of the renewable sources are currently not that well known. For instance wind turbines may be causing health issues..


Wind turbines also negatively affect migratory birds. :-(

#19 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

Also, the environmental effects of the renewable sources are currently not that well known. For instance wind turbines may be causing health issues..


Wind turbines also negatively affect migratory birds. :-(

and bats. messes up their sonar and they are drawn to the blades. it is believed that design changes, different siting practices can mitigate such problems.

#20 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:56 PM

Also, the environmental effects of the renewable sources are currently not that well known. For instance wind turbines may be causing health issues..


Wind turbines also negatively affect migratory birds. :-(

and bats. messes up their sonar and they are drawn to the blades. it is believed that design changes, different siting practices can mitigate such problems.


Wind turbines can cause local climate change.

These will become serious problems if we ever get a significant chunk of power from wind. Turbines will have to everywhere since wind is fairly distributed.

#21 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:14 PM

...and Hydro power has already slowed the rotation of the earth by nearly a second. The amount of water held in reservoirs elevates enough of the earth's mass to slow its spin. These problems pale compared to the CO2 elevation we are on track for., North America, north of Mexico and south of Alaska and eastern Canada will have about as much rainfall as the Arabian peninsula It's OK with me, I don't like rain. We'll all have a climate like summer in Los Angeles. I think farming in former tundra can make up for the lost grain crops of the Midwest, reduced acreage compensated for by more sunlight during the summer growing season.

Canada should be able to hold it's Arctic territories with the help of the US military to counter Russia. The warmed Arctic ocean will be a stinking mess full of algal blooms. but they'll be a rich source of feed stock for biofuels, which will be carbon neutral. This is a serious proposal in some quarters; in earlier epochs when the arctic ocean was ice free, it was a soup of algae and diatoms. It will be again.

You should attend one of David Koch's seminars at MIT on how climate change can be managed.

#22 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:16 PM

Well, we could look at fracking. There's something with advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, If it isn't done properly, I stand to have my water supply contaminated with unknown crap, but on the other hand:

Methane is WAY better than coal as an energy source, both in terms of near-term human health and greenhouse gasses of longer term consequence.
America has a TON of methane, so we would reap the benefits of a local source of cheap energy.

Another thing on the negative side of the ledger is that it will suppress R&D and market formation for cleaner more environmentally sound alternatives.

My current take on it is that the benefits are too big not to do it, but I think we should regulate it in order to keep damage to a minimum.

I guess it goes without saying that fracking is already happening at a ferocious pace.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#23 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:22 AM

Wind, Fracking, bio fuels, Hydro Electric… There always seems to be a cost associated with consumption of massive amounts of Energy.

Thinking about it the majority of Energy Consumption is turned into Heat, am I right? Even if that’s not true there is enormous amount of heat being produced completely unrelated to CO2/Greenhouse Gases. Where’s all that heat going? Is it really negligible?

The human body contains a total of E= 25.0 x 105 million kilowatt-hours of energy. I don’t see why we can’t use the remaining Coal, Oil and such to work towards reasonable non-radioactive fusion power.

The lowest costs have got to be energy produced exactly as it is in the heart of the sun. Why keep building “Renewable” energy that’s not really renewable considering the materials costs when Fusion can give us all the power we need? Because it’s not ready yet you say? I think we have enough time if we accept Climate change as an inevitability and plan for the resulting natural disasters onwards.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users