Spoilers! - Politics of beginings

KNick wrote:Does that three percent figure include roads between cities and towns? How much land is taken up by transportation needs? I am one of those who has a problem with the people screaming about global warming, but my problem is that they have concentrated on one aspect to the exclusion of all others. GW is not a simple problem caused by one factor, nor will it be changed by one solution. One for instance: I have never heard anyone seriously suggest re-forestation of the Sahara as a possible solution. Or providing year-round water to places in the African or Australian interiors. Or reforestation of the Aegean peninsula or Turkey. Improved irrigation for any dry climate to sustain year-round growth of crops and trees. Any of the above measure would, I think, change weather patterns at least locally. Of course, I can't prove that, because we don't know enough about what affects the weather to be sure how conditions in one location react to changes elsewhere. And that is sort of my point. We don't know enough, in spite of what the screamers claim, to say "This is the biggest cause of GW". We simply are guessing at this point.

From the wording of the paper, I dont believe so. And you're right. the media and the public often focus on the symptoms and ignore the work being done to eliminate the causes. CO2 levels are a symptom at the moment, but eventually may become a cause. But people focus on the attempts to remove the cause, as they dont realise to remove the symptoms, people are working on the cause.

Spacekiwi wrote:

KNick wrote:Does that three percent figure include roads between cities and towns? How much land is taken up by transportation needs? I am one of those who has a problem with the people screaming about global warming, but my problem is that they have concentrated on one aspect to the exclusion of all others. GW is not a simple problem caused by one factor, nor will it be changed by one solution. One for instance: I have never heard anyone seriously suggest re-forestation of the Sahara as a possible solution. Or providing year-round water to places in the African or Australian interiors. Or reforestation of the Aegean peninsula or Turkey. Improved irrigation for any dry climate to sustain year-round growth of crops and trees. Any of the above measure would, I think, change weather patterns at least locally. Of course, I can't prove that, because we don't know enough about what affects the weather to be sure how conditions in one location react to changes elsewhere. And that is sort of my point. We don't know enough, in spite of what the screamers claim, to say "This is the biggest cause of GW". We simply are guessing at this point.

Increased CO2 is almost certainly the result of burning fossil fuels. However; the fact that most CO2 emissions do not remain in the atmosphere (The annual increase <<< annual emissions) confirms that the planetary ecosystem sequesters most CO2. We need to understand this ecosystem better and the mechanisms that dictate the equilibrium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

However; we also need to understand that the equilibrium temperature is dictated by three major factors, effective IR emissivity (which is affected but NOT dictated by CO2, water vapor is
predominant), Abaddo (reflectivity) and the so called "Solar Constant" that is anything but constant.

And I agree that we need new energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. Hydraulic fracturing technology (which is not new but definitely improved) combined with horizontal drilling has given the world an extra century or two worth of energy. Natural gas can be burned far cleaner and more efficiently than coal or oil and the Carbon emission per Joule is far lower. This technology should be greeted with enthusiasm by those concerned about Climate Change but it is not.

I was able to observe the AGW propaganda agenda in response to a Natural Gas pipeline a few miles away from my home. Since the proposed pipeline waste connect to an LNG terminal, it was portrayed as an LNG pipeline when it was merely a high pressure gas pipeline. The failure statistics for various transportation options make it a mystery why they would object. A gas pipeline is an extremely safe method to transport energy. Think of running a 50 ton petroleum tanker truck down the highway every minute to put it in perspective. A 100 car tanker train every few hours would be safer than the tanker trucks but the consequences of an accident would be a nearly nuclear event.

And yet, renewable resources wouldnt need the pipeline or trucks at all, reducing the dangers of an accident even further. and while fracking may further extend the use of fossil fuels, its still non renewable, the use of it still emits particulate matter into the air, It still pollutes the air, and its still something as a species we are addicted to. its like switching from normal cigarettes to low tar. still poisonous, just you feel that little bit better. as opposed to quitting.

Spacekiwi wrote:And yet, renewable resources wouldnt need the pipeline or trucks at all, reducing the dangers of an accident even further. and while fracking may further extend the use of fossil fuels, its still non renewable, the use of it still emits particulate matter into the air, It still pollutes the air, and its still something as a species we are addicted to. its like switching from normal cigarettes to low tar. still poisonous, just you feel that little bit better. as opposed to quitting.

Why would you assume that the renewables will not need pipelines or trucks or have other environmental effects? Biodiesel certainly requires pipelines, tankers, trains or trucks. Wind requires huge transmission networks in remote areas or on the coast. What are the environmental effects of building the windmills, solar panels or other green energy.

You want a hint on estimating environmental impact? It is closely related to cost because the costs are based on the energy, capital, material and labor going into the system.

namelessfly wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:And yet, renewable resources wouldnt need the pipeline or trucks at all, reducing the dangers of an accident even further. and while fracking may further extend the use of fossil fuels, its still non renewable, the use of it still emits particulate matter into the air, It still pollutes the air, and its still something as a species we are addicted to. its like switching from normal cigarettes to low tar. still poisonous, just you feel that little bit better. as opposed to quitting.

Why would you assume that the renewables will not need pipelines or trucks or have other environmental effects? Biodiesel certainly requires pipelines, tankers, trains or trucks. Wind requires huge transmission networks in remote areas or on the coast. What are the environmental effects of building the windmills, solar panels or other green energy.

You want a hint on estimating environmental impact? It is closely related to cost because the costs are based on the energy, capital, material and labor going into the system.

But their costs are still less then that of the fossil fuel plants. As someone who lives within 3 km of an (ex) proposed gas fired plant and 10km of a proposed tidal facility, We had access to the environmental effects documents. The gas plant would have required a large percentage of the local river flow, prevented fishing or swimming for a kilometre or more downstream, and due to the location of the site, would have been a major eyesore along the main road of the area, with topography and size of the building preventing concealment. A new gas pipe would have been required, as would have been the new sets of powerlines required. the tidal facility was to have been in a deep part of the harbour, with the power lines buried, due to being multiple small cables from each turbine as opposed to one big one. Yes they may have environmental costs, but the costs are less then building fossil fuel plants, IF done in the right way.

There are always special circumstances where the renewables might be more cost effective. However; you have to be aware of the limitations. The total potential for tidal energy is actually quite small and is feasible only in special circumstances where geography channels tides and increases their magnitude. Tidal power has severe problems with cyclic peaks in production between periods of mi imam power production.

The Natural gas fired power plant you describe seems to have been a particularly bad design. If it needed water cooling, it must have been a combined cycle plant which is good because they are efficient. However; cooling towers eliminate thermal pollution in rivers and severely reduce water requirements.

Your description of a network of small power cables rather than one big transmission line does not sound environmentally benign to me because it would occupy a much larger area.

namelessfly wrote:There are always special circumstances where the renewables might be more cost effective. However; you have to be aware of the limitations. The total potential for tidal energy is actually quite small and is feasible only in special circumstances where geography channels tides and increases their magnitude. Tidal power has severe problems with cyclic peaks in production between periods of mi imam power production.

The Natural gas fired power plant you describe seems to have been a particularly bad design. If it needed water cooling, it must have been a combined cycle plant which is good because they are efficient. However; cooling towers eliminate thermal pollution in rivers and severely reduce water requirements.

Your description of a network of small power cables rather than one big transmission line does not sound environmentally benign to me because it would occupy a much larger area.

agreed on the tidal power thing. the only reason it waas feasible was thanks to having the worlds second largest enclosed style harbour. And the multiple cables was supposed to be buried in multiple trenches for redundancy and to remove large pylons. Over the last 15 we have had about 3 brown outs from incidents occuring at bottleneck points in our electricity grid, due to most of the power going into our city Auckland havinng to come through only 2 relay stations. a few years ago, a d bolt holding the main wire broke, and wiped out power to 30% of the city for three days. the multiple cable idea is to prevent another repeat.


For cost effectiveness, yeah, at the moment over the short term fossil is a lot cheaper per gigawatt, but over the long term, renewables should come out in the lead due to not having to pay for the fuel. I was discussing a project a while back for an island in the canary islands that spent 65 million to turn 60% of the power supply to renewables. this reduced fuel use for the diesel generator by around 2 million a year at current prices, meaning in around 20 years the project will have been paid for in savings from not buying fuel, and the savings thereafter can count as profit. a quick google search shows in 1993 a barrel of oil cost around $27 US, (inflation adjusted), to $87 today. A rise of even half this magnitude, in %age or real terms over the next 20 years would further reduce the payback period of the project, maybe even down towards 10 to 15 years. Its sort of like that parable about cheap versus good shoes. buying a cheap pair of shoes for $40 each year may sound good to you as opposed to buying $130 shoes, but if the $130 shoes last 5 years, you are (effectively) losing money by buying the $40 shoes.....

There isno doubt that there are special circumstances when the logistical problems of getting power or fuel to certain locations makes alternatives more cost effective. However; comparisons to oil are generally inappropriate because oil fired electricity is far more expensive than nuclear, coal or natural gas.

One amusing example is an isolate Alaskan community n the bearing straight. The traditionally get only one annual shipment of gas, diesel and other fuels by barge. Last summer their harbor became frozen over prematurely and the barge couldn't bull it's way through the ice. They had to rig up over a mile of fuel hoses to reach the barge at the ice edge to pump the fuel ashore before the straight froze up.

There are lots of solar power systems in remote Alaskan locations that are occupied only in summer when solar works very well.

Alternative systems that are either not cost effective opexcept for special circumstances or to limited in potential to meet human needs are not a solution.

There is a video of Bill Gates giving a speech that can be construed as suggesting that vaccines should be used to reduce human population by rendering people sterile. I am eager to concede that Gates' comment was misunderstood and that he was simply suggesting that reducing mortality rates in Africa will reduce birth rates (birth rates are either barely above or far below replacement levels in most of the world). However; I don't think that we should commit humanity to alternative energy resources that are so limited that we will be compelled to severely reduce and limit human population. We need a population of Billions to support an advanced technology civilization. Weber alludes to the fact that Honorvese worlds with populations of only a few million people can not sustain the same level of technology as the core worlds with tens of Billions of people. This is why Manticore and Grayson are such a surprise to the SLN.

namelessfly wrote:There isno doubt that there are special circumstances when the logistical problems of getting power or fuel to certain locations makes alternatives more cost effective. However; comparisons to oil are generally inappropriate because oil fired electricity is far more expensive than nuclear, coal or natural gas.

One amusing example is an isolate Alaskan community n the bearing straight. The traditionally get only one annual shipment of gas, diesel and other fuels by barge. Last summer their harbor became frozen over prematurely and the barge couldn't bull it's way through the ice. They had to rig up over a mile of fuel hoses to reach the barge at the ice edge to pump the fuel ashore before the straight froze up.

There are lots of solar power systems in remote Alaskan locations that are occupied only in summer when solar works very well.

Alternative systems that are either not cost effective except for special circumstances or to limited in potential to meet human needs are not a solution.

There is a video of Bill Gates giving a speech that can be construed as suggesting that vaccines should be used to reduce human population by rendering people sterile. I am eager to concede that Gates' comment was misunderstood and that he was simply suggesting that reducing mortality rates in Africa will reduce birth rates (birth rates are either barely above or far below replacement levels in most of the world). However; I don't think that we should commit humanity to alternative energy resources that are so limited that we will be compelled to severely reduce and limit human population. We need a population of Billions to support an advanced technology civilization. Weber alludes to the fact that Honorvese worlds with populations of only a few million people can not sustain the same level of technology as the core worlds with tens of Billions of people. This is why Manticore and Grayson are such a surprise to the SLN.

Yeah, I heard about that alaskan thing.


And agreed that non-viable renewables shouldnt be built just because.


I'm not one of those who thinks we should go straight onto purely renewables. As you noted, at this stage that could cause problems. However, ignoring them is akin to a 2 pack a day smoker who knows he needs to cut down and quit ignoring nicotine patches because he justifies it by claiming he will go straight cold turkey the instant a better solution is found. renewables arent the complete answer, just one step in the right direction.

And agreed that non-viable renewables shouldnt be built just because.


I'm not one of those who thinks we should go straight onto purely renewables. As you noted, at this stage that could cause problems. However, ignoring them is akin to a 2 pack a day smoker who knows he needs to cut down and quit ignoring nicotine patches because he justifies it by claiming he will go straight cold turkey the instant a better solution is found. renewables arent the complete answer, just one step in the right direction.

There are a lot of technical problems that only become apparent when one attempts to scale a technology. So leaping from lab scale to full blown industrial production is flawed from that perspective as well. That said the worst recession since the great depression isn't the best time to experiment with inefficient renewables.