Global cooling

[isobars]

1. I'm referring to the thoroughly documented plateau in the the atmospheric warming effect of CO2.

2. You're repeating your claim that correlation proves causation. I never see pink elephants while wearing high heels.

3. When those tens of trillionds come from the U.S., as the UN and IPCC want, it will bankrupt the world's major economy. When that happens, most other economies will fall with it.

You guys complain that I type too much. It's because so many people refuse to read between the lines.

4. Pickens is just one example of the comparable experts declaring wind power dead. I'm not playing that game.

5. Then why have the oil gurus here failed to present that, despite being asked many times? The oil industry we all love so much predicates its entire existence on the presumption and claim that oil is limited; it HAS to poo poo abiotic oil or its entire price structure collapses. And I don't know what expectations the abiotic theory expounds regarding finding oil; that's one of the reasons I've inquired so often about it here.

You get full credit for one out of six. The senator's first name is Joe. I'm typing as fast and little as I can to make time for knee rebuild this week.

[coboardhead]

MIT just completed a design of a carbon capturing technology that runs on electricity, not steam, which allows an easier retrofit to existing coal fired power plants. The catch is that it reduces efficiency by 25 %. This is an improvement over the 50 % that the other proposed systems would use. The scrubber would remove 90% of the carbon.

Nuclear is expensive. I worked in nuclear waste isolation analysis. No one wants it in their backyard even if the technology is firm.

We will need fossil fuels in combination with renewables as GT stated. I generate nearly 100% of my lighting and household electricity from solar, but not without the grid. Batteries have problems of their own.

The bottom line is that we will spend more for electricity to reduce carbon output.

Transportation energy is another issue. I do not see me plugging in a Tesla, throwing the boards in the back, and driving to Punta San Carlos. And, those power cords dangling from the jets flying overhead is not very appealing! Fuel cells may work for some applications.

We are stuck with carbon and its problems. I believe we should develop nuclear, renewables, conservation and technology, but it will only go so far. We need to accept the consequences and begin to prepare for them.

[mac]

My dad worked in the nuclear industry most of his life, starting at Hanford where the technology was developed. I have decidedly mixed feelings about nuclear. Other forms of energy--all of them, not just carbon based--entail risks.

But the fundamental problem with nuclear power is economic, and related both to the capital costs and the long-term risk. I have heard it said that you can generate more electrical capacity with similar capital investments in renewables. Obviously that is not true for all places. But the most significant economic problem is the long term liability. No nuclear plant has been built in the United States without the Federal government insuring the operators for accidental releases. With Fukushima, we are just starting to see the magnitude of that risk. It will nearly all be paid by their Federal government. If those costs were reflected in realistic actuarial rates for power, it would be clear that those electricity costs would not be competitive.

There are also substantial hidden long-term costs in waste disposal. Not an impossible problem--except maybe politically--but a long term cost that is not captured in rates, and is again, transferred to the government.

One of the elements that makes nuclear generation in the United States much more expensive than in other countries is the fact that most plants are one-offs, designed for the particular environment. Some of that is understandable and reflects geographic differences, some is the hubris of power companies who think that they can design a superior product--and end up making new mistakes rather than correcting the earlier mistakes of the proven design. We can see this in California as San Onofre, Humboldt, and the Sacramento nukes have all been taken off line having generated much less power, at a much higher cost, than projected. Diablo Canyon remains viable, and the marginal generational cost is pretty low--but the rests have failed to live up to promises.

Long term safety depends on competence by big corporations and governmental regulatory oversight. Fukushima shows us the folly in trusting those institutions blindly. It always amazes me that so called conservatives who back nuclear power without much understanding are willing to trust corporations not the government, and are willing to have the government subsidize this type of power generation rather than let the market do its magic.

[pointster]

[nw30]

[mac]

Unlike NW, I don't need to make up a conservative talking point, assign it, and then disagree with it. Here is a funny link on the psychology of it all:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110322113345AAQqzof

So let's start with Sarah Palin:

[swchandler]

NW30, I'm thinking that you have forgotten, or maybe never realized that the government has been the facilitating source of many important innovations that we take for granted today. Contrary to what you'd like to think, private business often doesn't have the investment capability and the needed stamina to go the long term with research and development. The profit doesn't come fast enough to interest many venture capitalists and others with the financial clout to fund complex projects where it takes many many years to realize marketable products. Also, we all know that private corporations don't always consider protecting the environment to the degree needed. The oil industry is a perfect example of an industry that continually bulks at cleaning up its act. Just think of the technical innovation and improvements that could come out of revitalizing our oil refining infrastructure while at the same time reducing environmental pollution. They have the money to do it, but they always have to be dragged kicking and screaming through government regulations and litigation to do anything productive.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Thanks for your reply Pointster.

I accept that small efficient electric cars could well serve our local rural community (smallish market town with a multitude of villages, hamlets etc, the inhabitants of which daily commute back and forth), but the snag is that practically all of us use our vehicles for frequent far longer journeys, usually (in our depressing climate) with heaters full on, windscreen wipers going mad, and enough lights on to satisfy a landing jumbo jet, for which a battery powered car would be completely inadequate in range.

Since we can't afford to run two vehicles (and most prefer the simplicity of just one anyway) the obvious boils down to a modern, highly fuel efficient, low emission, small petrol driven super mini, with unrestricted range, and which averages between 50 and 60 m.p.g. at normal road speeds.

to us, the freedom and liberating effect of motoring; the ability to go where we wish, in our own personal environment, and only with those we choose for company is something we could not tolerate giving up. After all, the purpose of industry is to enhance our life styles, and it exists to serve us, not vice-versa.

As for the efficiency of windmills, we must agree to differ. In our climatic conditions experience has shown that they fall far short of predicted maximum efficiency. There appears to be no cure for that!

[isobars]

[mac]

News you won't get on the Drudge report, or any Murdoch newspaper:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/folger-text

Just a tidbit to give you an idea of what is at stake: