independence from coal

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

i am doing something. i am coming up with ideas and trying them out. i am using all of you as a sounding board to see what is viable and what needs to be scrapped. i need to do a little more work to this one.

You've clearly shown that you are indeed a doer. And, you also do your homework.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,114]

>Having been professionally involved in large scale, highly nonlinear, math modelling
>of real world phenomenon I can say from experience that real world systems are
>very complex. Rational climate scientists (no, I'm not talking about Jim Hansen...) I
>have read consistently point out that there is still a lot we don't know about the
>climate system on the earth. These guys inspire a lot of confidence in me.

There is indeed a lot we don't know. Thus this additional forcing can range from none to a lot. However this is above and beyond the forcing caused by our anthropogenic emissions, which will continue. So it will either hew to predictions or be worse.

>There are far more important things that our politicians need to solve now, >before squandering scarce resources on this issue.

Yeah, we need more of those $7 billion destroyers we're building now. They're destroyers and they have the radar cross section of a fishing boat! So until our enemies figure out that they just have to blow up all the fishing-boat returns they will be invulnerable. They will also have a really cool railgun, but currently it doesn't work.

(The above was intended to demonstrate that we waste a lot of money now, and thus I don't really buy the "far more important" thing. We do, however, have to reduce spending, and spending say $7 billion less by buying just one unnecessary destroyer and spending $1 billion on power transmission research would both save money and help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.)

>I watched Pandora's Promise this morning, and thought it was well done. What do
>you think of IFR technology, and why did Congress kill it?

IFR is a nice reactor but I am highly suspicious of any reactor moderated/cooled with sodium. If it hits air it burns. If it hits water it explodes. Imagine being faced with a fire driven by the stuff.

There are a lot of other technologies out there. The AP600 and AP1100 are ready to go right now and they are considerably safer than conventional reactors. They can burn MOX and we have decades of that stuff once we decide to make it. Thorium reactors would last centuries but have some logistics problems. PBMR's are promising and would allow us to do thermal dissociation of water, which is the missing step in making synthetic fuel from water and air. I'd pursue all of them then, 20 years from now, choose the one with the best track record.

>Are you equating the costs that this adminstration's radical EPA is trying to
>impose on our society with this? I don't see the comparison as being valid.

In the 1970's the administration (specifically the Surgeon General) attacked the tobacco industry, since the surgeon general felt that tobacco smoking was a risk to public healt. Big tobacco fought back by hiring spin doctors to sow seeds of doubt in the science, claim it wasn't settled. This worked and their sales recovered for about a decade before mounting evidence finally overcame their well-funded distraction efforts.

Today the administration (specifically the EPA) is attacking the fossil fuel industry, because they feel that our emissions are harming the environment and will do so more and more as time goes on. Big oil is fighting back by hiring spin doctors (often the exact same spin doctors) to sow seeds of doubt in the science, claim it isn't settled. This worked to some degree but not as well as it worked with tobacco, since again evidence is mounting AND the other measures we have taken (efficiency standards) are working.

So yes I see a very strong comparison. In fact in some cases the very same deniers worked on both campaigns, and used the same methods and strategies. They were paid very well for this; they've had a lot of practice.

[sfzombie13 324]

i don't recall naybody blaming anybody, except that it is "all our fault", we are all humans and are who is causing the mess. it really does not matter one bit how bad it is and how bad it's going to get, the fact is that it is not good and it needs to be stopped. there is no sense in putting a time limit on it, that will just encourage us to wait until the time is almost up. we need to rethink the way things are done and just come up with a plan. what happened to the mindset that allowed our industry to be turned into the greatest war machine ever during ww2? i don't recall hearing about the government "asking" manufacturers to produce military items, but i could be wrong. and they were not doing it for free, either. if it could be done then to fight a war, it could be done now to save the planet. it just takes someone with enough balls to do it.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[billvon 3,114]

> The science of fossil fuels being bad for the environment is already proven. It's
>this 'we're changing the climate of the planet' mindset that is not.

It is as proven as "smoking is bad for you" is. (Which is to say that it's not entirely deterministic, but on average is a true statement.)

> Look at China and what is going on there. We would be choking on the more
>immediate impacts of pollution (i.e. smog) long before we had a significant impact
>on the global climate.

?? We HAVE choked on the impacts of pollution. Google Donora, PA and the London killer fogs.

Wait - surely you don't mean that the two are causally related? CO2 increases can (and do) happen in places where every combustion source is clean and the skies are clear and blue, and deadly smogs can happen with low CO2 levels.

>The question is 'how bad' and 'what can we do to mitigate the impact?'

OK, that sounds more reasonable. Yes, there's no question that we are raising CO2 levels and that that will contribute to warming. How bad will it get and what can we do to mitigate the impact are both very good questions with a lot of people working on solutions.

>The USA already has some of the toughest emission standards in the world. But,
>for some reason, all this fossil fuel pollution is all OUR fault.

No, only our contribution to it is our fault.

[StreetScooby 5]

Interesting article from the WSJ this week. I'm going to see if I can find the various opinion polls and petitions referred to in this article.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
Joseph Bast And
Roy Spencer
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Yeah, we need more of those $7 billion destroyers we're building now. They're destroyers and they have the radar cross section of a fishing boat! So until our enemies figure out that they just have to blow up all the fishing-boat returns they will be invulnerable. They will also have a really cool railgun, but currently it doesn't work.

We're in agreement here. I think it's time for all the other Western Democracies to start funding their own defense. We cannot continue being the policeman of the world.

Quote

There are a lot of other technologies out there. The AP600 and AP1100 are ready to go right now and they are considerably safer than conventional reactors. They can burn MOX and we have decades of that stuff once we decide to make it. Thorium reactors would last centuries but have some logistics problems. PBMR's are promising and would allow us to do thermal dissociation of water, which is the missing step in making synthetic fuel from water and air. I'd pursue all of them then, 20 years from now, choose the one with the best track record.

Nuclear is really the only way forward at this point in time, if this issue is truly as serious as it's being sold. I also agree with your phrase "it's a good mid-term solution". There has to be other means of for providing our energy needs that will actually meet them, for the entire planet, as we go forward. Current "renewable" projects are not going to do, IMO.

Quote

Today the administration (specifically the EPA) is attacking the fossil fuel industry, because they feel that our emissions are harming the environment and will do so more and more as time goes on. Big oil is fighting back by hiring spin doctors (often the exact same spin doctors) to sow seeds of doubt in the science, claim it isn't settled. This worked to some degree but not as well as it worked with tobacco, since again evidence is mounting AND the other measures we have taken (efficiency standards) are working.

The EPA is out of control, and even the federal courts are telling them that now.

We are all engines of karma

[Amazon 7]

WSJ...... hmmm ..........who owns that "newspaper" again???


How long do you think that whole Jedi mind trick will keep fooling all the mentally weak?

[richravizza 28]

O announced tighter standards Today.

We will allways have the coal in the ground,just in case we need to warm the Plant back Up.LOL
His plan is to use US natural gas as a substitute.
Seeing we are the Saudi Arabia of the worlds Nat Gas supply Why not?
This is One of very Few of his policies, I see as a Good Thing.

[sfzombie13 324]

if you see it as a good thing, i suggest you research just a bit on fracking for natural gas. nasty business that makes mountaintop removal coal extraction look good.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[richravizza 28]

Cut off your nose in spite of your face?

I Think your full of Shit..

Your Witch hunt means Nothing in the Big Scheme of things.

I'm sure you'r a graduate of "Frack Land the Documentary". LOL

They tried to shove that shit Down my H.S. daughters Throat.

Go to the nat gas .org website and educate yourself. On Methane emission reduction.
I know there have be accidents.They're going to happen in the Future.
But nothing Changes the FACT.
The USA is the Saudi of Natural Gas..and WE Will Build IT.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

nasty business that makes mountaintop removal coal extraction look good.

Can you share some web links (aka, URLS) with us?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,114]

> . . . research just a bit on fracking for natural gas. nasty business that makes
>mountaintop removal coal extraction look good.

No it doesn't. As it stands now:

Habitat destruction - coal is worse
Total pollution end to end - coal is worse
Water resource depletion - about the same

And that's primarily because fracking is in its infancy. As it improves water resource usage will go down as well. It's not an ideal source of energy by any means but it is far better than coal (and a bit better than oil.)

[richravizza 28]

and that's a 40 yr old infant

[billvon 3,114]

>and that's a 40 yr old infant

Well, fracking itself has been around for over 60s. But it's only been since the late 1990's that the price of oil, and the switchover to NG electrical generation, have made fracking the problem it is now. Before then (for example) the amount of water used was so miniscule that it didn't show up on anyone's radar. Now it does - and that problem will drive changes.

[richravizza 28]

and already has..
The Technology and improved Fracking fluids aka types of sands used,and 3D seismic imaging,has contributed the most to SAFE and Profitable exploration and production operations.
I needed to edit;
ALL aspect of these operations are the Safest they have ever been.
BUT MOST IMPORTANT:the part of the pipe that may pollute our Water. the well head i think its called.
The WELL HEAD Construction standards are NOW,incredible!! 3 or 4 pipes within a Pipe. Monitoring ect...

But,
the Methane issue has Opened our eyes to new technology.Huge Dumps are now collecting Methane to make electricity out of THIN AIR.
Damn this is a great country!!

[billvon 3,114]

>The Technology and improved Fracking fluids aka types of sands used,and 3D
>seismic imaging,has contributed the most to SAFE and Profitable exploration and
>production operations.

Profitable? Definitely.

Safe? Not yet but it's headed in the right direction.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>The Technology and improved Fracking fluids aka types of sands used,and 3D
>seismic imaging,has contributed the most to SAFE and Profitable exploration and
>production operations.

Profitable? Definitely.

Safe? Not yet but it's headed in the right direction.

How cool would it be if you could turn on the tap of your sink and get natural gas from your water well as well... hell I bet you could devise a way to compress it for use to heat the house. that would help to get you and your neighbors off the grid.

[richravizza 28]

When you drill your own water well into a nat gas pocket then try and collect on the bogus claim. Your creditiblity goes out the window.
Frackland mania here we come.

[Amazon 7]

richravizza

When you drill your own water well into a nat gas pocket then try and collect on the bogus claim. Your creditiblity goes out the window.
Frackland mania here we come.

How do you explain wells with good clean water that are decades old that all of a sudden.. develop the interesting ability to light up right there in your house.

Do you have lots of stock in Hersheys???

[richravizza 28]

NO,i don't why?
The hill of western PA. have been leaching nat gas for 1000's of years .Coal bed methane,natural decompostion..are all natual to the geology.
"Frack Land"and Garbage reporting only hurt the real issue.
When bone heads run around making up stories, twisting the fact,and then call it a Documenary.
Anything you say will be taken with a grain of salt.
As my daughter said Dad just youtube it "truthland".

[Amazon 7]

richravizza

NO,i don't why?
The hill of western PA. have been leaching nat gas for 1000's of years .Coal bed methane,natural decompostion..are all natual to the geology.
"Frack Land"and Garbage reporting only hurt the real issue.
When bone heads run around making up stories, twisting the fact,and then call it a Documenary.
Anything you say will be taken with a grain of salt.
As my daughter said Dad just youtube it "truthland".

So how much are you invested in the energy sector??? There has to be a REST of the STORY when there is so much evidence to the story and yet you are trying so hard to get all of us to swallow an alternate reality.

Please do not get me wrong... develop the resource but everyone involved has to do it the right way.. do not cut corners and protect people and the environment. That has not been the way the energy sector has ever been in the past.. hire small companies with crews that you can blame to avoid liability. Save money to produce max profit by cutting any corner or safety you can get away with.

[richravizza 28]

I think you got me all wrong.
You bet I Think the U.S.should develop these resources it only makes us stronger as a nation.
But I do not think they should be developed to destroy our water supply, no brainer.
But our media with hollywood has made an Alternate Reality you speak of.
"Please do not get me wrong... develop the resource but everyone involved has to do it the right way.. do not cut corners and protect people and the environment."
I think we AGREE?

[Amazon 7]

richravizza

I think you got me all wrong.
You bet I Think the U.S.should develop these resources it only makes us stronger as a nation.
But I do not think they should be developed to destroy our water supply, no brainer.
But our media with hollywood has made an Alternate Reality you speak of.
"Please do not get me wrong... develop the resource but everyone involved has to do it the right way.. do not cut corners and protect people and the environment."
I think we AGREE?

These are some of the wrong ways...

http://www.drillingahead.com/forum/topics/cutting-corners-don-t

http://pagasdrilling.com/tag/petroleum-engineer/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/05/28/14812/texas-fracking-verdict-puts-industry-notice-about-toxic-air-emissions

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/02/11/crews-respond-to-greene-county-gas-well-fire/

Yes I have worked rigs doing well logging... on gas wells as a summer gig while in college making some of my long hours of geology pay some of the bills. I have seen some of the stupid shit some crews will try to get away with. Lawsuits cost a lot of money.. but I guess some of the companies are willing to roll the dice.

[richravizza 28]

It will take time and $ but NG will substitute coal.
NG is being use as a Transportation Fuel.
Clean energy fuels for the last 6 yrs . has been the tip of the sword.
First is the nat gas highway, 75 filing stations a yearfor the last 5 yrs. all @ major junctions.(I-5@ the I-10,20,40 ect..)

Garbage trucks(nastybastards)local stop and go, house to house,belching Particulates, sulfer diox.and heavy metals.
U.S.Trash fleet of Nat Gas trucks was 6-8% of the entire US fleet some 6 yrs ago.
Now,
they make up some 86% of new trash truck fleet sales.
City Busses run all over town(Valencia, CA.) and I swear they have electric motors they're that clean burning.

LAX and most International airports entire fleet is running NG.
and FED Ex, and UPS are now in the testing phase.

I agree: A Nat gas Honda Civic produces Less G.G. emission than a PRIUS,Fact.
The cost is some $5,000 less than a highbred, and because of the price differance in fuel is cheaper cleaner to operate.

OUR TRUTH WILL BE TOLD, but Now it's rests on deaf ears.

[billvon 3,114]

>I agree: A Nat gas Honda Civic produces Less G.G. emission than a PRIUS,Fact.

Agreed! Now go with a PHEV with a natural gas engine and you'd see an even bigger reduction.