The Emerging Carbon Market

07.09.08Kim Padilla, President, Valencia

Article Viewed 375 Times
39 Comments

Email This Author

About The Author

We know you have something to say!

There is an immediate need for articles on the hot topics in the Power Industry! EnergyPulse, like no other publication, also provides a means for our readers to immediately interact with experts like you.

Contribute Today!

Please view our Author Guidelines and send submissions to the editor.

Contact The Author
Email the author
Phone:972-961-3019

Click Here For More Articles By Kim Padilla

Click Here For More Articles on Carbon Markets

Reader's Comments

Date	Comment
Len Gould 7.9.08	Inseresting. "Those who would benefit the most include companies who primary fuel is coal, such as coal-based generation plants. Those who would benefit the least include companies who have been progressive in reducing emissions, since they won’t be getting credits for the already reduced emissions. " As usual, lobbiests dream up "Cap-And-Trade" as a means to reward most those who do least. What's to stop a state from getting worried about limited emission allocations causing local hardship for their state economy, and so far over-allocating credits, resulting in near zero actual reductions in emissions? (See experience in EU). A simple carbon tax on fuels at source is the only logical and fair system.
Len Gould 7.9.08	And as far as "where should the collected tax be spent?" goes, I hear that there is this huge government debt problem which is causing a serious devaluation.......
Edward Reid, Jr. 7.9.08	Kim, http://www.pewclimate.org/facts-and-figures/international/annual-emissions Where did you get you US=30% number? IEA data says you're 50% high. Len, Is the intent to raise revenues or reduce GLOBAL CO2 emissions? US cap & trade or carbon tax will do the first, but certainly not do the second. Ed
Len Gould 7.10.08	Ed: 1) Carbon tax will do a better and fairer job of CO2 reductions than cap & trade. 2) A carbon tax at source has an excellent potential to replace current taxes on motor fuels as a long-term government source of revenue as future electrification of transport proceeds to replace inported petroleum. According to the stickers on local gasoline pumps, presently governments here collect 37% of the total selling price as taxes. Crude costs 46%, refiners and retailers 17%. According to EarthTrends - Energy and Resources — Transportation: Motor gasoline consumption per capita Units: Liters per person , per capita gasoline consumption in Canada is 1,203.7 litres / person yr. US is 1,635.2 l / py. At current typical $1.35 / litre that's a revenue stream of $20 billion / yr which will need replacing in Canada as gasoline use drops off. (assuming 25% on $1.05 / liter for 300 million in US, that's $95 billion / yr) A carbon tax at source should be used to a) replace this revenue as it drops off. b) balance the US budget. (in re: your GLOBAL comment, it's not clear to me why the emphasis? I would note however, than the gasoline consumption for China is 44.6 liters / py, India 9.6 l / py)
Edward Reid, Jr. 7.10.08	Len, AGW issue is: broader than gasoline; global in scope; and, if the AGW "affirmers" are correct, pushing all of the globe towards the brink of catastrophe. China is the #1 emitter at ~22%; and, growing at ~10% per year. India is now arguably #3; and, also growing, though somewhat more slowly. Reducing global annual emissions without their participation would require reducing developed country emissions faster than China, India and other non-participants in the "suicide pact" are increasing theirs. You may see that happening in your crystal ball, but I don't see it in mine.
Len Gould 7.10.08	Point is Ed, demanding that China and India reduce their fuel consumption by any ratio relative to population before you do anything is simply a fixed formula to not do anything, given eg. India's PY average currently 0.059% cosumption compared to US, and that country's growing wealth. So, since it appears US govt. is adamant on that position, I guess our grandchildren are about to find out who's correct in the debate, eh?
Edward Reid, Jr. 7.10.08	Len, The point is rather that, if China has any intention of ever reducing its carbon emissions, it would be wise to stop adding 90 GW per year of coal-fired generation and switch to nuclear/wind/solar/geothermal/OTEC instead. The increased emissions rates occurring now will be around for 40-60 years otherwise. If the problem is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then a "you go first" policy which results in net increases in annual CO2 emissions for the forseeable future ain't gonna cut it. That may conflict with your concept of fairness, but effectiveness seems to me to be far more important if we are careening toward a catastrophe.
Ferdinand E. Banks 7.15.08	Len Gould was correct in his first comment above. Cap and trade is inferior to a simple carbon tax, although unfortunately I can't mobilize the enthusiasm to prove this. Of course, maybe no proof is necessary, since it obviously hasn't worked in Europe. And by the way, it was introduced by the know nothings at Kyoto because they knew that the US would not accept a 'tax'. Fred
Len Gould 7.15.08	Thanks Fred. Politics being what they are, likely the OECD negotiators at initial Kyoto simply flatly refused even to consider anything but Cap-and-Trade. Gotta keep the campaign contributers onside and all that.
Ian McQueen 7.15.08	I feel like someone standing on a hill overlooking a valley overlooking a train track that leads to a ravine. The bridge across the ravine has collapsed, and a train is rushing toward where it should be. The onlooker is helpless to warn the train engineer. In my case I can see frantic activity being taken to defeat a "climate crisis" that does not exist. I have read extensively about climate. I have been overwhelmingly convinced that it has NEVER been shown that carbon dioxide has more than a very minor effect on climate. The IPCC process has been a sham, yet governments place their faith in it because it has the UN cachet and halo. The main greenhouse gas is water. As vapor and cloud, water is responsible for up to 95% of the so-called greenhouse effect. Yet vast schemes are being drawn up to lead to legislation limiting carbon dioxide emissions one way or another. Those promoting these schemes have skipped the vital stage of proving the need for restrictions and have jumped immediately to the "we must do something" stage. This is "everybody knows" pseudo-science, with a bit of Chicken Little thrown in. Some time in the future someone will add a chapter on this misguided activity in "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". Because carbon dioxide does not have more than a very minor effect on climate, there is no justification for ANY restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, whether in the form of taxes or cap-and-trade. None. Ian L. McQueen Glenwood, NB [Canada]
Jack Ellis 7.15.08	To Mr. McQueen's point, the whole debate over climate change is a grand science experiment no matter what mankind does (or does not). There's plenty of evidence that temperatures in many parts of the globe are rising but whether it's due to the effects of massive use of fossil fuels is a question we will probably never settle. I remain skeptical of the computer models but clean air and water are justification enough for developing alternatives to fossil fuels. Two questions for Mr. Gould. First, if the tax on carbon works as it is supposed to, it will eventually lead to reductions in the tax revenues it is partially designed to raise. Does this mean the tax rate will have to increase over time as carbon use falls? Second, the level of a carbon tax or a carbon price that would motivate shifts away from carbon-based fuels for power production in California are on the order of $100/ton at current prices for natural gas. Do you think the public will accept that level of taxation? If the tax is lower, will it be effective or will it simply be a way to raise government revenue?
Ferdinand E. Banks 7.16.08	Seems to me like Hobson's choice, Mr Ellis. On the one hand a cap-and-trade farce, and on the other an increase in the tax burden. The question for me is how much of a burden, and what will be done with the tax revenue. If the burden turns out to be $100/ton as you suggest, then maybe I should start thinking about accepting the farce. Fred
david austin 7.16.08	The question that continually looms in my mind is how many of the cap and trade proponents care about the environment. If the intent is to financially encourage companies to adopt renewable sources and cut emissions, embedded in that formula is the obvious fact that organizations will only do so at a savings. Then there are the renewables industry - surely this is very much in their interest. In both cases it seems cap and trade is more attractive to them than a carbon tax, especially if the proceed of said tax would not go to the building of a carbon-free infrastructure, and if there's anything we can agree upon it is the insatiable thirst of any and all governments to use all proceeds to fund the pet projects of all politicians. My point being, whenever markets are messaged (cap and trade) to bring about a change that few of the industrial leaders really care about (the environment), the desired result seldom occurs. Such policies merely enable money making niche opportunities for a select few at the expense of taxpayers. Carbon tax is more direct and more effective, and unlike cap & trade, doesn't involve a bunch of hand waving to hide the fact that it's really individual citizens, many who should not be punished for industrial environmental sins, who are funding all the incentives.
david austin 7.16.08	Jack Ellis may indeed be correct, but if there exists a reason besides AGW to reduce our dependence on CO2 producing technologies, should it also not be considered? The rise of oil-funded terrorism seems reason enough to me, and if we are going to change the energy infrastructure it only seems prudent to do with with a recognition that we've only one planet to live on and it's recent weather phenomena has been trending out of norm. For the sole purposes of anti-terrorism and for the liberation from nations who can hold the world hostage our energy sources need massive restructuring, and if nuclear/csp/wind/geothermal/carbon-sequestered plants is only a little more expensive than new coal fired plants for this restructuring, consideration of the most plausible explanation for bizarre (and costly) weather is only prudent.
Len Gould 7.16.08	Ian McQueen: Despite your obviously deeply-held faith in your analytical abilities, I think I'll prefer to side with the scientists on this one. Societal progress has long been strongly co-related with moves away from faith-based toward science-based decisions on technical issues. Jack: 1) One thing I do have faith in is government's abiliy to identify transactions to tax. I expect in the long-term, if/as carbon tax revenue fails to replace motor fuel revenue, the tax will shift onto electricity, perhaps even ony that electricity used to fuel auto's if the grid ever gets smart enough. 2) If $100/T carbon tax is what it takes to stop humanity from digging up and burning all the coal under the 100's of thousands of sq. km of western N America, then so be it. If your argument is that same tax shouldn't also apply to N Gas, I fail to see the reasoning. Very commonly, producing N Gas involves separating and venting huge quantities of CO2 co-mingled with the methane right at the wellhead, in Indonesia at least, up to 50% of all gases extracted is CO2. How much of California's N Gas is planned to be imported as LNG from Indonesia? A ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2, and there should be a cost for adding it to the atmosphere in present circumstances. What I can see as logical is that the tax rate should / could (?questionably?) vary according to accurately measured atmospheric CO2 levels.
Len Gould 7.16.08	And Ian, and other IPCC critics. Please get it straight. IPCC does not do science. It is simply a qualified scientific review board which analyses the publications of all reputable scientists worldwide and arrives at a defendable conclusion, which is published (after the faith-based political bosses, most influential being the anti-GW bush admin, get a shot at massaging it). Even with the massaging (which mostly simply alters emphasis and wording, not conclusions) however, there is pretty much zero evidence of valid findings of specific errors in published IPCC conclusions. Much hand and fan waving and self-promotion, but very little or nothing of merit.
Chris Headrick 7.16.08	I believe you all have forgotten one important fact, global warming or climate change have not been proven. What you have all been discussing is nothing more than conjecture, the simple fact of the matter is that our representatives in congress have found a way to get the masses to support the largest tax increase in our countries history!
Ian McQueen 7.16.08	To Len Gould Doubtlessly you are sincere in your belief that the IPCC results are entirely reliable. And what you say about their working with publications of reputable scientists is true. But what you, and so many others, are obviously unaware of is the tremendous amount of manipulation and censorship that has been performed subsequently by the editors. Google "IPCC errors" and you will get 281,000 hits! Anything by John McLean is excellent, as are many other references. Simply, the IPCC results are not to be trusted. Their goal, from the beginning, was to show that global warming (now "climate change") is the fault of man. The reality is that carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas. The most important, by far, is water, as vapor and clouds. If you have read as much as I have on the subject of climate you would realize that this carbon dioxide tale may be the biggest shell game in human history. Any restrictions on carbon dioxide go against sound science. Ian L. McQueen Glenwood, NB
Len Gould 7.16.08	Ian: "The reality is that carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas. The reality is that carbon dioxide is only a minor greenhouse gas. " -- If you could reason scientifically you'd immediately realize some simple facts. 1) The greenhouse effect is almost entirely responsible for the difference in average temperatures of Earth vs. it's moon, about 37 degC. (Earth, 14 degC, Moon -23 degC many various ref.) 2) The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere (termed relative humidity) is almost entirely a function of the atmosphere's temperature. 3) The ONLY way to significantly change the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is to CHANGE IT'S TEMPERATURE. Logically therefore, we can conclude that changes in greenhouse gas levels OTHER THAN water vapour must be entirely responsible for that proportion of past changes in climate atributable to changes in GHG levels. 4) From artic ice cores covering the past four to five ice ages, (480,000 yrs+) atmospheric levels of GHG's esp CO2 and methane, occur in tight synchronization with onsets of significant climate changes. Similar arguments can be made for effects of albedo though significantly more complex. Is the sun a stable generator of energy? We have little or no reason in the historical record to say it is not, beyond it's well-known 11 yr sunspot cycle caused by it's reversals of magnetic field, and an obvious extremely gradual reduction in output as it uses up it's fuel, a time frame of zero significance to this discussion. References for all above immediately available eg. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html, or http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/01/earth-moon.html Without some short statement from you of the basis for your position, which should indicate a clear comprehension of issues, and reputable references, I'm not prepared to pursue this further.
Len Gould 7.16.08	SB 4) From antartic and Greenland ice cores
Jerry Toman 7.17.08	Lest we forget...all these arguments supporting or opposing the AGW thesis are moot, at least as far as Electricity production is concerned. Starting with waste heat from existing power plants as an initial source, it is projected that investement costs for an Atmospheric Vortex Engine would be less than 15% of a new nuke, or a coal plant with carbon capture, 25% of a coal plant with sophisticated supression of pollution, and less than 35% of a combined cycle plant based on methane fuel. And, did I mention the fuel is free?? Waste heat is available in any populated area. Geothermal energy is available in many parts of the northwest US and in Australia. Heat from seawater is plentiful in tropical areas such as the Philippines or northern Australia or central America. This constant bickering over the validity of AGW is getting tiresome. Can't we move in a new direction?
Jim Beyer 7.21.08	OK, let's assume AGW is a fantasy. But oil and natural gas depletion is real. We are running out of them, just as the world is both getting much more populous and development per capita (energy use) is increasing. This suggests a push towards greater efficiency in use of resources to keep up with all these people. Is digging coal (the main remaining source of CO2 after oil and gas are gone) out of the ground, hauled to a plant and burned at 35% efficiency (and spraying mercury about) the best way to get our energy? Most AGW opposers also agree that the climate DOES change. Is crowding the planet so much that thousands or hundreds of thousands of people die due to singular events (Katrina, Christmas Tsunami) really the best way of doing things? Is crowding our planet to the exent that we wipe out most of our diversity of biospheres including ones of great benefit to us (North Atlantic Cod) really a good idea? How many people can this planet really sustain? If it is not overpopulated now, when will it be? 12 Billion? 24 Billion? If even the latter, our numbers alone at that point would overwhelm even coal use. We have to find another energy source, be it nuclear, fusion, solar, wind or something else. The AGW opposers are focusing on the motivation for change, when the reality is, by any reasonable criteria, we need to change anyway. If greatly increased population is "OK", then coal will be overwhelmed anyway, probably much sooner than we realize. And if our population needs to be kept at a more sustainable number, we need to organize humanity to accomplish maintaining a sustainable number (albiet focusing on improving quality of life for the fixed number of individuals). This also involves huge social changes, as the bases of capitalism and most organized religions is unbounded growth. So I agree that the constant bickering over the validity of AGW is indeed getting tiresome. It boils down to how much coal we should burn in the next 30 years or so, when by most measures, coal is of short term value anyway, given the longer term and indisputably valid concerns of population increase or population stability. People who bitch about the validity of AGW simply don't get (or don't want to get) the larger picture, so they focus of minutae of ice core sample assessments or climate models as a mechanism of avoidance.
Jeff Presley 7.22.08	Jim, My feelings on the scam known as AGW are well known. IF it were science I'd be happy, but it has devolved into hype, innuendo and pseudo-religion instead. Len bothers me, because he constantly claims that he needs to see contrary evidence, yet he refuses to READ anything that opposes his preconceived view. Since he mimics the monkeys that see no evidence, hear no evidence and speak no evidence, he can continue to claim there IS no evidence, all evidence to the contrary. He gagged on this link for obvious reasons. You and I had a lengthy debate about Greenland ice sheets and I pointed out THEN that the AGW "scientists" had begun by claiming that the INCREASE in the ice sheets was proof of global warming, and then reversed course once the GRACE satellites were inveigled to produce the opposite "evidence", which has been corroborated by nothing. But of course I have all the faith in the world in the ability of NASA to place two objects the size of cars thousands of miles apart and resolve a measurement down to the sub micron level. And of course Len can't bring himself to click on this link either, but it has an opposing view to Greenland ice melt. And before folks jump on the source, newscientist is blatantly pro AGW. I have other sources that talk about Greenland's melt being far less than supposed, but this is one from a leaning source, leaning the AGW direction. See I'm bending over backwards to utilize sources that predominantly lean the wrong way, but which still support my view, when they accidentally report on real science. Len's example of the moon shows..., because he has neglected a little item called GRAVITY, which is why the moon can't sustain an ATMOSPHERE, which is why it can't heat up. The causal relationship between global warming and CO2 still hasn't been established by experiment, which IF true would be trivial. Instead it remains an unproven hypothesis, with attempts to support by inference. The computer models are so flawed as to be absolutely useless. I've beaten that horse to death. But I appreciate the pragmatism of Fred Banks and others who at least have been intellectually honest enough to say they don't really know about AGW but support it to the extent it helps their real agendas. Except for your Malthusian arguments above, I begin to see the same thing from you now. If you believe the "big picture" is that we need to move to alternative energy sources, just say so and don't hide behind the skirts of AGW. I could respect you for that. I have a hard time respecting anyone who genuflects at the altar of Al Gore.
Jim Beyer 7.23.08	Jeff, Once again, you are twisting around Len's point. Yes, the moon has no atmosphere. That's why it is so much colder than the earth, even though it is the same distance from the sun. He's pointing out we are not heated simply by the (possibly varying) intensity of the sun, but the atmosphere plays a big role in retaining this heat. The presence or absence of atmospheres (and their thicknesses) affect the temperatures of venus, earth, the moon, and mars more than their distance from the sun. The simple reality is that CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 600,000 years. Much higher. The entire debate about AGW could be characterized by which side needs the burden of proof that this is or is not a concern. It might be fair to say the burden of proof is on both sides, in which case, I'd say both sides (Gore and Hansen vs. the Idsos) have failed us. I think it is an important question that is not being addressed well scientifically on either side. That being said, Gore/Hansen are doing better than the Idsos. For every slip up on Gulf Stream current reversal; the other side has such gems as "But plants NEED CO2; so more CO2 will HELP US". Ridiculous, populous, tripe. I also appreciate the pragmatism of Fred Banks, and I do believe that other issues, including oil depletion, are sufficient motivation for changing some of our way of doing things regardless of the validity of AGW. In the end, the debate about AGW is a debate about coal. I've said this many times before. So build more nuclear power plants, and stop building coal-fired plants. That's the net implication of AGW. That's what everyone is bitching about. And eventually, we are all Malthusians. Just ask the microbe that has eaten the last morsel of agar in its petri dish.
Jeff Presley 7.23.08	Jim, you missed my point about Len's point. GRAVITY is the issue with the moon, start from first principles and you'll do alright, get wrapped around mistaken logic and you're out in the tumbleweeds. Earth's atmosphere sticks around because it has mass and is attracted by the Earth's mass. If the planet were less dense, it would support less atmosphere, less ability to hold temperature, etc. You BELIEVE that CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 600K years. SOME scientist have POSTULATED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by methods which MAY OR MAY NOT be accurate. Also, the MECHANISM by which CO2 works in the atmosphere is UNKNOWN but HYPOTHESIZED to cause or affect heating. For 1/1000th of the expense of GRACE and other experiments a REAL experiment with CO2 could be constructed and the EFFECT (if any) definitively determined. Why hasn't this been done? Are they afraid because of the results of the simple experiments already done? Isn't that why they rush to models, so they can program the computer's "reality" to conform to rules that perhaps this reality doesn't? Is this perhaps why the computer models are so unable to predict the past when the supposedly known constraints are programmed in making their ability to project the future highly suspect? Let's also not forget that all of man's ability to influence the atmosphere compared to nature's is on the order of 3% TOTAL! Man cannot compete with volcanoes, deep ocean hydrates and vast swaths of desert and ice fields. Their effects dwarf our contributions. The HYPOTHESIS used by the AGW crowd is that Earth was / is in some sort of MAGICAL equilibrium (which geologic history shows us NEVER ONCE EXISTED!!!) and mankind has tipped the scale perhaps irretrievably. That's an interesting theory, but falls apart in several areas, not the least of which is the fact that equilibrium is a fantasy. You'll notice that the highly compensated Public Relations firms have stopped calling it Global Warming, and have opted instead for Climate Change, since the cooling trend of the past decade has not gone unnoticed by the great unwashed. Climate Change, now THERE'S something we can all fight against. HAH! Life IS change, or would you rather "live" in a photograph? As to Malthus, not only have his predictions not met their timeline, but another element of the evolutionary record is that every major catastrophe this planet has experienced has prodded evolution forward, to new and better species. Is mankind the ultimate, or penultimate species? My vote is for the latter.
Jim Beyer 7.23.08	Jeff (I shouldn't really do this....sigh) Addressing your 5 paragraphs. #1 (moon): You are drifting into some kind of willful ignorance mode on this one. Yes, gravity is why the moon does not hold an atmosphere. But the lack of atmosphere is why the moon is cold. Venus is a little closer to the sun (67 million miles) than the earth (93 million miles) but it is MUCH warmer, ave. temp is 460 C. This is due to its very thick CO2 atmosphere. And venus is about the same size as earth. #2 (CO2 levels) Lots of blather, but no one really disputes the findings that CO2 levels have not gone much above 300 ppm in the last 600-800K years (and several ice age cycles), until now. I made no comment on mechanisms/meaning of this, other than it is a notable change from past history. #3 (man's puny effects) Yes, except for apparently moving up CO2 levels to values not seen in 600,000 years. #4 (Life is change) Whatever. #5 (Malthus is wrong, Catastrophe is good) So, if I understand you correctly, then a catastrophic change to our world is in the long run, GOOD for us? Hmm. Maybe. But if everything goes to hell, I don't see us advancing our space program anytime soon, which means we are stuck in this petri dish at the bottom of our gravity well. On the other hand, if we CAN solve these problems (fusion power, sustainable living, etc.) then we might just be able to learn to expand beyond our petri dish. Expand our biosphere of existence. Something the microbes in the petri dish can't seem to do. I think that would be an evolutionary step forward.
Jeff Presley 7.23.08	Jim, I'M in willful ignorance mode? I can go sentence by sentence here to make things easier for you: 1) Yes gravity... Yes (not but)... why it is cold. Thank you, you've completely supported my contention. Yes Venus has a largely CO2 atmosphere, and Uranus is largely methane. The mechanism of whether CO2 is WHY Venus is hot has never been established. If Venus were largely water vapor it would be even hotter no? <-- warning this is a trick question. Obviously there has to be enough gravity to support atmosphere, again you're "educating" me by repeating my own contention. Thanks again. :) 2) Actually lots of people are refuting the CO2 findings, but they can't get an honest hearing. Nature and other rags are unwilling to upset the apple cart and real scientists are unable to get published if they don't toe the party line on AGW, the party being the Gestapo party running the propaganda mills. It is good you aren't painting yourself into a corner on the mechanisms/meaning, because that is a slippery slope indeed. 3) Again, you assume Man is the cause. Narcissistic hubris. Since it is a matter of faith, why not just say God is doing it? 4) Yes, live with it. 5) Actually I don't find anything to disagree with your statements here. There are disasters and there are catastrophic disasters. At present we are only heading for disaster, and unfortunately a lot of it is human caused, and by human I mean political. Where that turns to catastrophe is where the wrong moves are taken (or the right moves are not taken) in time to do any good, because of political maneuvering and posturing. Then something really big happens that in legal contracts is called force majeure and in the vernacular is called an act of God. Then that big experimenter up in the sky gets to see how his microbes are doing, and if they fail, well. He's always got more petri dishes...
Malcolm Rawlingson 7.24.08	Of course the AGW theory is garbage and anyone with at least two operating brain cells knows it....lots of politics...not very good "science" like so much of what we are fed as truth these days. But I like Fred's approach. If all the hype over global climate changes causes us to change over from using fossil fuels to other sources of energy (nuclear power) then the result will be the right one. The global rennaissance in building nuclear power plants is largely occurring because of it so if politicians want to believe in it and build lots of nuclear plants as a result - why should I object to that. But the engineer in me keeps nagging my conscience that science should always be based on observed results supporting the proposed theory....apparently IPCC does not subscribe to that concept preferring to doctor the results so that the political end is achieved. It will be rather sad if after all the expense in some futile attempt to avert a catastrophe of increasing temperatures the world enters a new ice age - the more likely climate change result based on the most important climate driver which is the Sun. But right now global warming = more nuclear plants so give IPCC a large pat on the back for getting it completely wrong and producing completey the right result. Malcolm
Len Gould 7.24.08	Jeff: "You BELIEVE that CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 600K years. SOME scientist have POSTULATED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by methods which MAY OR MAY NOT be accurate." And then he accuses me of being unscientific because I refuse to read further hogwash? Incredible.
Jim Beyer 7.24.08	Malcolm and Jeff, Jeff made a point about wrong moves taken, or right moves not taken. I will assume you are like me in that you would very much like to do the right thing, even if it turns out it is contrary to what you might think it is. (Note that I am not attacking your opinion on AGW here.) And it wouldn't it be great if the world had a dictator that believed everything exactly the way you did, so the messiness of implementing change could be avoided. But that's not the case. Unfortunately, large change must be effected with consensus and politics. Malcolm, you are either right or you are wrong. If you are wrong, then it is a good thing that the IPCC has the influence that it has. If you are right (and the IPCC is wrong) then I admit the situation is much more disconcerting. But if the effect is largely similar (build more nuclear power plants) then things could be much worse. You might want to read the short story "Reason", found in Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot". You might find it to be a similar circumstance, in your opinion. In any case, the immediate future is being driven by oil depletion, not AGW.
Jerry Toman 7.24.08	I agree with Len as far as the effect of the varying in the amount of CO2 has on the earth's temperature, as do the vast majority of scientists. "Reading" on the subject does not nearly as convincing as having "done the math". But, I would take issue with those of you thing nuclear energy is the "obvious" solution to minimizing the addition of GHG's to the atmosphere, as do many others: http://candobetter.org/node/672 The truth is that FF's are limited in availability whether we will admit it or not, and we can afford a decade-long hiatus in building more plants based on this resource. Later, if renewables fail, it will be available for the next generation to burn.
Jim Beyer 7.25.08	Jerry, From the candobetter website: "4. There are much better, safer, much less expensive alternatives based on a combination of reducing the need for electricity through conservation and improved efficiency in energy-using-equipment and making the electricity we need from clean renewable sources such as direct solar conversion to electricity, wind power, and hydroelectric power." I wish this were the case! As one of the less conservative contributors to this site, I nevertheless acknowledge the problems of hooking intermittent energy sources such as wind or solar to a grid that was built on the premise of continuous power. Also, think of the number of wind turbines needed to replace just one 1200 MW nuclear power plant. A 6 Megawatt wind generator (nameplate) at 20% capacity produces 1.2 MW on average. So 1,000 of them would be needed. That's a lot of cost (too) and a lot of land. And they still would need back-up sources of electricity, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow.
Jeff Presley 7.25.08	Jim, you are a reasonable human being. So reason should tell you that there is a logical solution to the problem here. You talked to Malcolm and I as if it was a fait accompli that more nuclear would be built. But of course that is only ONE possible outcome and the patron saint of AGW, Mr. Albert Einstein Gore is vehemently AGAINST nuclear, and he's got LOTS of company. If the lemmings who follow the IPCC also follow Gore, then we're heading off a cliff, and since stupid people vastly outnumber smart people, even in a democracy there is virtually no chance of the intelligent outcome being followed. It quite literally becomes a a matter of dumb luck. Len, don't panic, this isn't a link to something contrarian that will get your dissonance in a bind. This is just a short IQ test that measures your logical abilities. It won't even take much time, there's only 10 questions. If you were seriously logical, you should get 100% like I did. If not, don't worry, just means you're part of the majority. Therefore, if you want to argue with me, look at it from MY perspective and imagine what life is like to have to face off against folks who don't really understand... things. Here's the test, best of luck to you. I encourage you all to play, I'll even tell you the right answers if you need them. logic test
Jim Beyer 7.25.08	Jeff, AlGore is not quite so anti-nuclear. Even his 10 years-to-no-emissions plan includes leaving the percentage of electricity generation by nuclear at 20%. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but its a start.
Jeff Presley 7.25.08	Jim, Since everyone with an IQ over 75 is already laughing at Gore over his 10 yrs - no emissions "plan", he HAD to leave in nuclear because he didn't want the real morons below 50 ALSO laughing at him. IMHO of course. I'd believe in Gore's plan, but then I'd have to believe in fairy dust to make it all work, and there just ain't enough fairy dust on the planet to pull off his fantasy. I'm beginning to wonder if this is all just payback to his Daddy for not cutting him into more of the Occidental fortune ? Or perhaps Al Jr. is working for the same masters as Al Sr?
Jerry Toman 7.25.08	Jeff, Your sarcasm doth runneth over. You say folks don't really understand...things...and I suppose that also extends to politicians. Given your antipathy toward the man, I suppose you're quite happy that Gore had the presidency ripped away from him in 2000...in favor of someone who, let's just say, probably would not have done nearly as well as Gore on your "test". And now we again have a choice between another "academic" and another "lame-brain". It seems that again you would have no qualms about supporting the latter, as long as the word "nukuler" is part of his vocabulary, as was the case with his predecessor. But I digress. While you can chortle about Gore's "plan" to replace fossil fuels with 100% renewables in ten years, it doesn't seem so far fetched if his words are interpreted not so much as providing a "plan" as they are to issue a "challenge." After all, its not fleshed out well enough to be considered. What is somewhat closer to a "plan" (but still not there yet) is spelled out by Julian Darley and Richard Heinberg at the Postcarbon Institute. http://www.postcarbon.org/response-gores-call Every complex endeavor is carried out on what is called a "logistics curve". The first phase, which may take 3-4 years, involves studies, heavy planning, decision-making and a ramping up of preparative industries and training. Actual construction (replacement) would probably not reach 10% by the fourth year. But you will still be in exponential growth by the sixth year. After that growth will be linear for about 5 to as many as 10 years. If perchance, the project were only 50-70% complete after 10 years, would you still call it a failure because it wasn't completed in the stipulated ten year time frame? Finally, you are setting up a straw-man argument when it comes to renewable energy, which you are assuming only takes the shape of "horizontal" winds. The site does say "direct solar conversion to electricity, wind power..... The use of the term "wind power" does not logically exclude "vertical winds", and therefore I gave him the benefit of the doubt. The "vertical winds" I have in mind, of course refer to updrafts generated in the Convection Process. At http://vortexengine.ca you can go to the Business Case and see that the projected cost of electric energy investment cost based on waste heat being fed to an AVE is about one one fourth of the investment based on coal. Waste heat from an existing nuclear electricity plant (30% efficient) could be utilized in an AVE, increasing the output to nearly 50%, based on nuclear fuel consumed. Convective Available Potential Energy is available when it is most needed, in the summer and in the afternoon and evening, so the amount of "back-up" is not nearly as high as in the case of horizontal wind energy. It is also very amenable to storage. In colder climes, the waste heat in the winter could come from geothermal energy, or large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes. I am saying it's the "Establishment" whether it be the wing advocating traditional resources, or the wing advocating renewable resources, that is purposely ignoring this huge reservoir of potential energy at the disposal of humanity, which could make the "10 Year Plan" much more feasible than it otherwise would be.
Scott Brooks 7.27.08	Some addition info on the CO2, AGW speculation. The main reason Venus is hot is not primarily due to the CO2 atmosphere but the HCI-H2O cloud blanket. Ref. GEOLOGICAL FORCING OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES ON VENUS. M. A. Bullock and D. H. Grinspoon, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, CB 392, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0392. bullock@sunra.colorado.edu And it has been shown that the IR absorption effect of CO2 is a decreasing logarithmic function vers quantity. Go here to get the details: http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong" Michael Asher (Blog) - March 6, 2008 11:02 AM Since temperatures have been decreasing lately with solar sunspot activity, I doubt the extra CO2 has been responsible for the global warming effect which has been happening since the last ice age. Most of the extra CO2 is probably coming from the oceans heating from the suns past increasing radiance- causing them to outgas.
Jeff Presley 7.27.08	Waddya know Scott, a bona fide scientist backed me up 100% when I said they were wrong on the boundary conditions, and I even said it here on Energy Pulse about 2 years ago. I wonder how I knew that? Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere Jerry, I have no opinion on the atmospheric vortex except to say I'll believe it when I see it. I don't truly believe there's some elaborate conspiracy keeping it offline, people like Boone Pickens would do it instead of committing $10Billion on his own wind project IF he believed it worked. Bad salesmanship or?
Jim Beyer 7.29.08	Check out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080714151525.htm Another reason why coal is bad for us. Add that to the mercury dispersions and the dispersal of radioactive trace elements of uranium and thorium. Also, the likelihood of coal peaking in the not-to-distant future.