Global warming, the tool of the West (Page 2)

I agree it's a completely biased article, my point was that even the "consensus" seems to be a debatable item.  If you google on either side of the issue there are a ton of sites supporting both sides of the argument.  So someone like me, who is not a scientist in any stretch of the imagination has no clue who to believe.  So, I tend to fall in line with Powerman's last post and that's where my skepticism is rooted.

If you're saying that the science itself is corrupted by money though (even though you accept the data?) I think you're on much shakier ground, and not only because there hasn't been any evidence of it.  Climate science is funded no differently than any other science, so barring some massive conspiracy among the tens of thousands of climate scientists (and the deniers too) to bake thousands of studies a year you're questioning every science.  If climate scientists are so easily corrupted there's no reason the billions of dollars that go to cancer research or the billions that have gone to the LHC aren't doing the same.  Yes there are opportunities for money to have an influence, it's not like faulty papers never get published, but there are processes in place (not only peer review, but transparency of data and replicability of methods and results for example) that ensure that on the whole the science is sound and one study (doctored or not) is not likely to have much influence unless it's transparent and replicable.

With a few high profile exceptions you'll find very few scientists actually advocating for anything other than a reduction in CO2 emissions because from a scientific perspective, that's all that matters.  The how part matters to the people with the money but not the scientists.  The scientists will tell you what is happening, why it's happening, and what will happen if we keep doing what we're doing (and models are onyl a part of that), but not specifically what policy to enact to do something about it.  I know within my field there has been some debate about advocacy recently but most scientists are VERY wary about any kind of advocacy at all, feeling that it jeopardizes their credibility.  The debate has been because there have been a few who feel that what they're finding is so alarming that they feel they need to do something about it, over and above simply publicizing their findings, but it's by far a small minority.  

I fully understand that skepticism.  The analyses show that doing nothing (allowing market forces to figure it out) is far far costlier (in money, lives, civil unrest, etc) than taking a precautionary, mitigating approach. 

We are on the same page, I'm talking policy, not data. But the discussion today is about policy, not data. As you say, scientists don't really talk about policy. They just observe and port, and yes predict, which is not bad. But now a days, the discussion is policy driven, and they cherry pick the data they want. That does not make the data bad, but it does make motives and policy suspect.

I find the subject really interesting. Our understanding of our environment past present and future. how it all works, all the cycles and interaction.. yes we humans have a pretty poor history of taking care of it. Yes the climate is changing, yes man has a part in it... maybe the trigger that started it in the first place this time around.... but where to funnel trillions of dollars and what to do about it... totally different discussion.

The problem is that I think a lot of people intentionally work backwards - they decide they don't like some policy option like cap & trade or something and then work backwards by saying there's no problem in order to justify their opposition.  And to do that you have to intentionally ignore the scientific consensus.  The option isn't going to be between funneling trillions of dollars into some policy or nothing.  The science tells is unequivocably that there are going to be consequences to experimenting with the atmosphere like we're doing.  We're already seeing them now.  The option is going to be between funneling trillions of dollars into a mitigation strategy of our choosing now, having some control over the situation and hoping that can help lessen future impacts, or funneling many more trillions into recovery and belated adaptation once we realize how screwed up the planet is.  I won't be around to see the worst of it, but my kids are going to have a helluva ride and ethically I have a problem leaving this world to them.  And if you think government is too big and in debt now, just wait until we get hit by some real disasters.  We set a record for the number of billion $ disasters last year and that number has been rising along with avg temperatures and guess where that money and disaster relief comes from...  If you're want to use the science to make informed decisions, the 'it won't cost us anything boat so we don't have to do anything' boat has long since sailed.

Hey Drew, nice posts in this thread for sure.  I am of the opinion we can do more once we get back on our feet economically though.  Yes, mankind is probably responsible for a good portion of the warming...but, if we hamstring ourselves economically by propping up alternative energies despite the fact they aren't as cheap as fossil fuels, we threaten the best long-term strategy in my opinion.  Global warming can be better fought when we are prosperous...and that's hard to do if you are choosing more expensive energy sources (despite the fact they are clean/renewable).

An analogy I just thought of is my consumption of fuel, i.e. food throughout my adult life.  When I was young and didn't have two dimes to scrape together, I ate garbage.  A 12 pack of Swiss Cake Rolls or a 10-pack of Reese's would be a lunch for me.  (it's like relying on fossil fuels, it's cheap, but just not good for you)  At that time, I could have said, wait a minute, this bad food consumption will lead to disaster (a-la greenhouse warming in the analogy) so perhaps I should spend lots more for healthier fare.  I decided that sacrificing nutrition at that time would allow me to save for my future so that I could get into a financial position in which I could afford healthier fare.  Long story short, it worked!  

Not all "left of centers" want to limit fossil fuel consumption...at least immediately.  Fossil fuels are still cheaper.  We need to take advantage of that fact.  (in my opinion of course)

No Drew, it most certainly will cost us... that's my point. Where to put the money. It is certainly possible we sink a bunch of money into mitigation that gets us nowhere, and then we still have to pick up the tab for results.

And carbon tax, don't even get me started on that... not that it isn't a sound mechanism for change, but our cash strapped government in a spending frenzy... why would I want to give them more money to waste?

As far as decision making... yes, that is how every biased decision starts.. .what the end goal is you want, then work backwards to prove your point. Those that want get rid of coal do exactly that. those that want the government to tax and run everything do exactly that. Those that want what ever their idea of utopias is... whether it be no power plants, or smoke stack for as far as the eye can see... do exactly that. That is what "politicizing" does to an issue. When people start fighting over money and ways of life... ya, both sides do a lot of twisting.

I'm not saying do nothing... conservation can go a long way... but not over night. We can most certainly switch to gas. We can close down small old coal plants... we can trade for new supercritical plants. How about pour as much money into sequestration as we do on band aid energies such as wind and solar? Regulate instead of tax. allow utilities to come up with the best economical solution to how they will meet it. There is a lot to do, and it will cost money. And we will pay one way or the other... but as I have said before... there is not one single study out there that says if we spend "x" amount of money will get "Y" as a result, and we can reduce CO2 concentrations "Z" amount and "this" is the most cost effective way to get here.

Do sit on our thumbs... until we can come up with a good solution... then do the above.. pour money into thorium reactor research... I don't know... but I do know subsidizing wind and solar is not the answer because it is merely a band aid. Taxing carbon is not the answer either.

I don't buy it. How much does civil unrest cost? The environmental lobby loves to attach a tag of $100K to each heart attack and that my cola plant causes 200 a year. Ya, my rear end. This country is morbidly obese stuffing their fat faces and ya, my power plant causes 1 billion dollars in health care costs a year. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I don't understand why the Federal Govt. doesn't just ban internal combustion recreational vehicles and large SUV's and Trucks over a 1/2 tone for personal use. People don't need those things.

I also think it would be a good idea to do away with the dependent &/or child care credit since people are the driving factor in the GW or CC problem.

Why isn't there a push for either of those?

You can dismiss them as "deniers", still does not change some fundamental truths. The use of alternatives will work when enough people see the need to. The fact that fossil fuels are cheap is the reason they are still being used. And if you use less of them... guess what, they get cheaper. And another inconvenient fact is that if you are the only country using more expensive energy, then you just made yourself non-competitive with the rest of the manufacturing world... by choice.

And no, solar and wind is not the answer. Yes we can bring more on line to use as peaking power since it is such a very small percentage of power generation... but when those assets are not producing, they have to be replaced with something. So either your solar and wind assets you paid for produce at a less than 50% capacity factor... or they have other base load generation sitting idle in case they need it... that is not an economical, or reliable way to run a utility company.

Since we're talking policy, I've heard a lot of people outline why they think things won't work, which is fine, we need to think carefully abuot any policies we want to implement.  But the science tells us we need to do something, so what are the options that will work?  Like with the deficit, doing nothing might save us money in the short term, but we know in the long term it will result in a bigger gov't and more regulations to respond to increasing disasters and higher taxes to pay for rebuilding and mitigation measures, along with all the moral and ethical implications of screwing up the one habitable planet we know of.  We need to realize that if we keep eating sweet, delicious HoHo's (heh, I said ho) that when we finally do decide to go on that diet it's going to be that much harder and severe. I think we need to look for opportunities.  Are there diets out there that will help our climate weight problem while at the same time helping the economy?  There are many ways to get to a healthy weight, just because you don't like one approach doesn't mean there are no other options, but we need to start on a strategy (or more likely a combination of strategies) now.  IMO of course .

Great points here.  I think too often individuals talk about alternatives in absolutes.  Wind or nothing.  Solar or nothing.  Geothermal or nothing.  Or on the opposite side, gas and coal and nothing else.  Why not both, all, combination thereof.  And, as you said, it won't be widely accepted until they are economically AND operationally reasonable.  There has to be an ROI.

We are essentially still in the early adopter phase with alternative sources.  It is clearly taking longer than many though and hoped.  Are they AN answer? Yes.  Are they THE answer? No. 

I bet you're worried about Storage taking-off.  Then you have the ability to generate when there's resource (sunny day, windy day), store it, and deliver when there's demand.  

Residential/small scale solar will be the big winner with any storage.  

I don't like it any more now that I'm in Transmission, but I can't deny that would change the mix significantly.

Wind is 30+ years old.  It's just starting to compete head-to-head with coal (even without the PTC) in some markets.  

Solar monocrystaline is new (as in last year new).  Real Storage is still a fetus.  

But like Powerman said with renewables, you need peakers.  Peakers are expensive.  For example, in the Texas Public Utilities Commission just approved a $9000/MWh price cap for peakers.  So if you have a summer like last year with 100 days over 100 degrees, no wind, and thermal plants are having to shut-down because of the heat, but you can generate, you get $9000 for every Megawatthour.  That actually paid the full investment for some plants in one short period.  

Hawaii is requiring matched peaker or storage for every MW of installed renewable.  That means you have to double-build your MW.  But they won't have outages.  

They're already paying stupid prices ($400/MWh, US average is around $80) so they can make rules like that and still cut bills down pretty low.

I'm not, it's the only way to make alternatives viable. But that is not silver built either. Compressed air requires HUGE underground caverns that can actually hold the air. You can't just build a tank. Those caverns and sites are not that common. Pumped storage works just fine. no real problem other than finding the space for reservoirs and sites. Take a lot of land. Solar/thermal is really cool. I would have no problem working at one. Still takes a ton of land for the collectors. Environmentalist are already complaining about the "light" and "sound" pollution they create. And birds fly into it and get roasted... so they don't like those either. So you have to build them where they do not bother anyone and now you have to build transmission lines... which need more permitting and people not liking those. Fly wheels are OK... but you are talking a pretty limited scope of production and storage.

Solar panels of roofs can be good. Sounds easy.. but again, individuals have to pay for it and have a return. Clouds come over cities now and impact energy use as it is. You could group your day time peaks pretty low, but then the clouds come and you could have a hard time catching up if your resources are too low. It can be done, and it seems the most logical... if enough people do it. It would solve the problem of farms in remote locations needing transmission.... but the local utility would still have to keep enough reserve capacity sitting idle encase. But with current assets which are paid for... it could stretch thing out a fair amount.

"We" the collective we... may like all these great ideas... but local people oppose them where ever they are proposed for what ever local reasons they have. There is a solar thermal RD plant here in Colorado built in the middle of nowhere... but there are actually people living there and they are a$$ whipping mad and want it gone.

$9000/mw might as well be no cap at all. The records were around a $1000/mw when ENRON cooked the books and stuck it to California. They made a shortage completely on paper... everyone saw $1000/mw and drooled at the profit, installed a bunch of gas turbines to take advantage, gas prices went through the roof and many utilities had new plants sitting idle because they were too expensive to run. Not to mention the fact there was no physical shortage and our first experiment with deregulation was a smashing success.

$400 is very expensive. $80 may be some "average", but that is peak power in the Summer. Coal plants can make power for <$20/mw, and summer time high demands can see power sell for as much as $100/mw.

Oh... and thermal plants do not have to "shut down" in high heat.. their output is just reduced. Summer is when you have the highest demand due to AC, but plants of all types have reduced output. Gas turbine put out less with thin air, all thermal plants have reduced cooling. Transformers have thermal limits and thinner air for cooling, and lines have thermal limits too when they are being asked to carry the most. Bad combination.

Sounds perfect. Getting out for a run.

So what do you guys know about DC high capacity lines (sounds like you'er in that field Gomes?)?  I read recently about some company that's developed a better transformer or technology or something that could actually make them more viable, which is good since they're more efficient, right?

$20 for coal, then $20 for Transmission, then $20 for Distribution, then $XX for a franchise fee.  Average US rate payer in Continental US pays ~$80/MWh for power.  That's what I meant.  Not the wholesale price of power.