Global warming or not so much

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Would someone please check my calculations:
The current US consumption of marketed energy is 100 Quads/year = 1.1 x 10to 13 BTU/hr = 3.2 x 10 to 3 gigawatts.</p>

<p>I had a tough time finding PV efficiency. The number I found seems high at 50 watts for a 40x100 cm panel with a 0.3 year round efficiency for a sunny location. I calculated 0.09 gigawatts/sq mile.</p>

<p>The final requirement would be 36000 sq miles of photovoltaics to meet the current US marketed energy consumption. I guess if we diverted the majority of our resources to this endeavor for the next century or so, we could meet today’s energy demands.</p>

<p>I come to the same conclusion. We are just fooling ourselves and losing track of the magnitude of the problem if we think wind or solar or other minor steps will have an impact.</p>

62

<p>Edad: “I do think we have no choice but to consider alternate energy sources immediately. The world energy consumption is increasing rapidly and some of these increases are essential to improve the standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. There just is not enough petroleum left to continue to waste this resource by burning it to heat homes and to make steam for the generation of electricity.”</p>

<p>As you point out, it’s not just about global warming. It’s about national security (oil dependency= not good, being OPEC’s hostage= not good, financing Islamic fundamentalism= not good). It’s about the problems of competing for oil with China. It’s about the fact that we will eventually run out of the stuff anyway. But climate scientists believe that we have a ten year window- starting now- to make meaningful changes before we will create conditions that will cause a threshold to be crossed. At this threshold, CO2 levels will reach a point where they replicate a climate where mankind has never lived. </p>

<p>Since my kids will be living well into the era that climate scientists predict will be impacted, I have no interest in ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus stating that global warming is a real threat. I can’t take a chance. I don’t want my sons to have to fight in global conflicts engendered by competition over a scarce resource- oil. I think all citizens must seriously think about steps big and small. It’s true that the solution can not come from citizens alone. Governmental policy is HUGE. Government can provide incentives for energy efficiency, funding for research and development, along with the carrot and stick of policy. Like it or not, government often has to step in to craft solutions to major issues that citizens can not solve individually. SO REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU VOTE. </p>

<p>If we accept that steps need to be taken, which you seem to agree with, edad, the question becomes what. You seem to favor nuclear power. Would you support reviving the scuttled nuclear power plant in Shoreham to provide Long Island with electricity? </p>

<p>You make points that wind and solar can not solve the nation’s energy needs on their own. Are you against promoting/funding/incentivizing wind and solar? My question is: what would you propose as solutions to this problem? </p>

<p>And speaking of Long Island transportation, it amazes me that since my childhood, forty years ago, a country that put a man on the moon has still not managed to electrify the LIRR line between Huntington and Port Jefferson.</p>

63

<p>Before someone pulls the fire alarm in a theater it is a good idea to be sure there really is a fire and not just the smell of overcooked popcorn. I don’t buy the alarmists theories about environmental catastrophies, but it is time we started to deal with the depletion of petroleum. If there really is a 10 year window, we are way too late. Industrial expansion in China alone will guarantee we will exceed our current limits regardless of any immediate and drastic corrective actions.</p>

<p>It seems to me that we are very good at PRETENDING to do something when if fact we are accomplishing next to nothing. Politicians are real good at this and I also have little respect for the do-good environmentalists who don’t seem to want to look at the realities of the problems we face. Yesterday, I hauled out the sorted, recycled trash as I have every Wednesday for the past 15 years. For most areas of Long Island, recycling lasted about 6 months. No one wants our old newspapers, cans, bottles and plastic. We had to pay to have the stuff removed and with our broken transportation system there was no way feasible way to get rid of it. It all goes into the same landfills along with the unrecycled waste. For 14+ years we have pretended to recycle. Almost everyone believes they are recycling. The HOV lane is another example of pretending. I work at a facility where 250 people drive to work. Two people carpool - sometimes. For the rest of us, no one lives nearby and has the same work hours. I fail to understand any improvement that would come from electrifing the LIRR. Does it matter if we operate a diesel train or burn the petroleum to generate steam to generate electricity to run the train?</p>

<p>I am not against using wind or solar. There are certainly some applications where it will help. Unfortunately, it will be literally less than a drop in the bucket. Worse than that, we will argue about incentives, pass some laws, and PRETEND that we actually accomplished something important. Maybe we should just forget about the drop and concentrate on the bucket full of water.</p>

<p>I am less than happy of nuclear energy. I just see no other alternative with the potential to substitute for our use of fossil fuels. I don’t want a nuclear plant in my backyard either. I doubt the Shoreham plant can be revived. The design is totally out of date by now and would need to be completed rebuilt.</p>

64

<p>

A viable calculation should not include incentives that are subsidized by others (usually taxpayers or utility users) since it can’t be sustained on a grand scale and isn’t fair to the calc of the true cost. It’s fine to use it at a moment in time to see what an individual can afford but not to see if the technology is economically viable in the longer term since that incentive money needs to come from somewhere and is a real cost of the technology.</p>

<p>If I could place an aesthetically pleasing PV array in a small enough area to be practical that could break even on electricity purchases after condidering initial and maintenance costs within a reasonable period of time I’d probably purchase one. I think many people would.</p>

<p>Kluge - just wondering if you’ve installed a PV system on your house and if so, how’s it working out? Also, do you have an url to a company that you believe offers what you think is a viable system?</p>

65

<p>UCUCDad - no, I haven’t. My south facing roof has a chimney blocking the sun towards the southeast, a mature tree to the southwest, and various vents and pipes randomly scattered throughout - all problems which would not exist had solar been designed in, all of which pose significant problems in terms of a retrofit. Not that it’s not doable, but it makes it a bigger and more complicated project than necessary. That’s part of the reason I find it frustrating that new construction is being designed and built today with no consideration for this technology. Left to my own devices, my wood-burning fireplace and chimney would be gone and I’d have 2 to 3 KW worth of PV on my roof right now. My wife likes the fireplace, though, and I don’t have the only vote in the house… </p>

<p>Solar is a vary diversified industry. Powerlight Corp. is a big player in the industrial/subdivision level of PV; Old Country Roofing is a major retail outfit in Northern California. But no one company has a major national presence to my knowledge.</p>

<p>Edad, I think you’re off by an order of magnitude somewhere, but try this: run your calculation on a per capita basis. As I’ve mentioned before, if you limit your vision to massive, centrally-located arrays, you will get a daunting prospect. Think about it: under your form of analysis, treating the nation’s sewage effluent doesn’t seem feasible either - but we do it, don’t we? As for PV, if you recognize the fact that the non-polluting, scalable nature of the technology allows for massively paralleled and massively dispersed siting virtually anywhere there’s sun, you would realize that the problem can be divided up into individual pieces of a solution which are easily manageable on a local basis with low level technology. Using local sun standards (which are probably optimistic for the nation as a whole) I calculate that supplying the entire electric needs of the nation solely through PV using current technology would require the installation of about 660 square feet of panels per person – 22’ by 30’.* When you look at it that way it’s really not that overwhelming, is it? And I’m not actually suggesting that we try to provide 100% of our needs through that one energy source. Scale back to a more realistic part of the overall energy picture and the amount of PV required on a per capita basis, in both mass and expense, is actually pretty manageable if it were actually embraced as a national priority. But again - leadership.</p>

<ul>
<li>3.7 Trillion KWH / 300M people = 12,400 KWH/person per year (corresponds with other data sources); a 6.6 KW nominal system system will produce about 12,500 KWH in a year; rule of thumb is 10 w per square foot nominal = 660 sq. feet per person.</li>
</ul>

66

<p>I would agree that it makes sense to look at PVs in relation to electric energy consumption and not total energy consumption. Your numbers appear reasonable, but I still can’t help but look at the total which calculates out at over 7000 square miles. If we could cut costs down to about $5k/KV, the costs would still be several times that of the entire Federal budget. I would agree that there might be some justification for use of PVs especially for those of you in California and the southwest. I kinda doubt that PVs would have done much for running my A/C when I lived in Arizona. I did have solar hot water, but that was one of those poorly engineered and poorly built systems from the 70’s. It did not last long.</p>

67

<p>Leading senior weather scientist a doubter. No axe to grind or funding that I know about.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1[/url]”>http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

68

<p>Except weather science and climate science are two entirely different areas.</p>

69

<p>“Leading scientist”? The guy’s been retired for 21 years! Most of the global warming research (including a lot which deals with the “objections” referred to in the energy company’s newsletter you link to) has been done after the guy hung it up. I’m sure he was a respected scientist in his day, but don’t you think they could have dragged someone out who had actually done some research in the last decade or two?<br>
By the way, here’s an earlier bulletin from the WECN:

These are the guys who are bringing you the “leading scientist”.</p>

70

<p>How do you know he has hung it up? Many academics are active well into their older years. They just don’t have to worry about the classroom thing anymore and have more time to read, think and write. Weather–climate–potato- potatoe. I wrote weather cause it shorter.</p>

<p>Some bio on him</p>

<p><a href=“Colorado School of Mines | A Premier Engineering University”>Colorado School of Mines | A Premier Engineering University;

71

<p>Barrons - I recognize that the people who don’t want to do anything in response to the scientific consensus regarding climate change are pulling out all the stops, but - seriously - this guy is 86 years old. I’m still waiting for a peer-reviewed scientific article which casts serious, credible doubt on the CO2-warming causation theory. A chatty interview in an electric industry publication with a guy who retired in 1985 isn’t what I’d call a serious grounds for debate at this point. (Incidentally, the whole water vapor vs. CO2 riff that you find in the middle of the article is pretty clearly debunked in a lot of readily available online sources, which makes me wonder how active old Dr. Bryson has been in recent years.)</p>

72

<p>He was making these claims over 40 years ago which cause a major rift between him and the other major star in the dept–Vernor Suomi (the father of weather satellites).</p>

<p><a href=“http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0716FB3E540C778EDDA90994D1484D81&n=Top%2FNews%2FScience%2FTopics%2FGlobal%20Warming[/url]”>http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0716FB3E540C778EDDA90994D1484D81&n=Top%2FNews%2FScience%2FTopics%2FGlobal%20Warming&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

73

<p>Apparently Dr Bryson is still actively leading a major research team and publishing. Life does not end at 65. Ask old Alan Greenspan.</p>

<p><a href=“http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/cpep_web/archaeo.html[/url]”>http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/cpep_web/archaeo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

74

<p>Barrons: That article from the NYT is nearly 20 years old. Why don’t you focus less time on digging up the rare scientist who believes that man-made global warming is not occurring and focus your attention on groups like the Copenhagen Consensus that suggest the response governments are adopting to it is wrong? </p>

<p>Well into the AIDS crisis, you could find scientists who insisted that AIDS wasn’t related to the HIV virus. At least one of these scientists had a (previously) sterling reputation at a fine research university. </p>

<p>I don’t understand why you would ignore the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, unless you just can’t face what is basically considered fact? Your only defense against the argument that this is fact is your common sense (and I assume you are not a climate scientist) or the opinions of scientists well out of the mainstream or of dubious motivation. Why would you believe them, unless you are driven by politics or fear?</p>

<p>Would you take a similarly questioned stance against the notion that HIV leads to AIDS? That was a position adopted by the South African President Thabo Mbeke and it cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. He too used his common sense – or political motivation to avoid having to pick up the cost – no one is exactly sure which.</p>

<p>Where you are absolutely within the bounds of reasonableness, in my opinion, is to question whether the warming would be an unmitigated disaster for humanity as a whole or that it should demand a multilateral response.</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In citing the comments of the MIT professor that started out this thread, you apparently misread his comments and thought he was suggesting man-made global warming was not happening. In fact, he concedes it is happening, but thinks it’s much ado about nothing. Since this position isn’t what you in your heart believe to be the truth, you have resorted to trying to unearth dinosaurs – or just opinion whores.</p>

<p>If you can’t live with the fact that global warming could spell devastation for our planet, why not adopt the subtler and less assailable position that even if it is happening, it’s overrated as a crisis? Or is not a crisis at all.</p>

<p>It’s amazing to me we are even having the discussion.</p>

75

<p>I have seen several scientific “theories” get blown up over my lifetime. Many had better supporting data than this one. I am just a skeptic. And WTH does Aids have to do with the climate? Dragging some other much better studied medical problem into the discussion is ridiculous.</p>

<p>The reason I posted the 20 year old article was that Kluge said the original article was the rambling of some old man. In fact he has held the view for many years and has been studying climate since before most here were born–and still is at it. I also think there are many political groups looking for a way to slow growth and go back to some period that never really existed. If they were spending one-quarter of the money studying alternative theories I might be more convinced.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>Over your lifetime there was a time when AIDS was much less studied than it is now, if you are more than about 25 years old. And it is a valid example of how consensus was achieved in the face of questioning and skepticism.</p>

<p>Name several scientific “theories” you have seen blown up over your lifetime that had more supporting data than this one. Or that had as many scientists in consensus about it. If you can do this, I might be more open-minded about your skepticism.</p>

<p>And even with the consensus which you accept so readily in the case of AIDS, and a growing amount of data, there were skeptics about HIV being the cause for AIDS. That was my point.</p>

77

<p>

Okay, Barrons, since we’re being candid – I think that your political bias, exemplified by this quote, is driving your “scientific” opinion. You’re ascribing negative motivations for those you disagree with (and quite inaccurately, I might add) while ignoring the fact that you yourself are electing to believe that which supports your economic/political agenda and straining mightily to find fault with that which doesn’t.

Bluntly: No, you haven’t. You’re not qualified to assess the quality of the supporting data or the scientific analysis based on it - you’re just supporting the position which is aligned with your political views.</p>

78

<p>Never let concerns about climate change get in the way of a good war.</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Your claim has been challenged. What is your response? I will take no response as substantiating what Kluge said – i.e., that you can’t make a distinction between science and politics in your analysis.</p>

<p>The very professor you quoted to start this thread made the distinction between science and politics. He said the science (as defined by scientific consensus) shows that man-made global warming is occurring. But he said that “the sky is falling” predictions of what it would mean for us are politics. Why don’t you adopt this position, since it would make your position seem less ridiculous?</p>

80

<p>I’ll bite on this one. </p>

<p>There are very few current issues where science and politics conflict to such an extent and have generated such publicity. Some of the other recent conflicts have been issues like stem cell research or cloning. These do not really involve scientific theory. The conflict arises due to ethical/religious concerns. </p>

<p>Over my lifetime there have been many, many advances in science. These advances were very often met with fierce opposition from the consensus. Proponents often had difficulty getting published and advancing their careers. Research funding is very much at risk since funding is often dependent on peer review. If you have ever been around academia, you cannot help but notice the infighting, politics and rivalries. </p>

<p>For most of my life it was thought that peptic ulcers were caused by irritations to the gut. It was necessary to avoid alcohol, coffee, spices and it was best to coat the gut with soothing things like milk. We now know that ulcers are caused by H pylori infections. That was a long hard sell against a very resistant consensus. Maybe that does not qualify as a big theory. In which case, consider the theory of plate tectonics. That is entirely a 20th century theory and a big one. The theory was proposed early in the century and of course the scientific consensus knew that there was no merit. The proponent got no where and had no support in trying to bring together the facts and details to support the theory. It took 40 or 50 years to be accepted and now we talk about plate tectonics as an obvious fact.</p>

<p>Whether on a big scale or on a small scale involving only a few interested experts, scientific consensus is often just plain wrong. It often takes a long time and a lot of facts to change the consensus. </p>

<p>Scientific fact is not dependent on a vote or consensus. Too bad we can’t define the endpoint of the global warming debate and takes bets. In spite of the consensus, I think I would be willing to taken even money. There seems to be just too many holes, too little science, and too much unexplained.</p>