NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, here (http://www.climatetechnology.gov/new.htm) it is.

Apparently the result of four years of efforts, it features the following:
- no new funding (the $3 billion a year for research is what they already spend ... and is inadequate)
- no carbon tax, emissions trading system, or any other measure needed to internalize the cost of emissions

Actually, it really doesn't offer anything new, and offers precious little in the way of action. Even Republicans were apparently not impressed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001697.html).

Hardly suprising I guess. This issue is so low down the priority list that the report didn't even warrant a mention on the President's Website. Climate Change is nowhere to be found under the list of "Issues" on the website (although if you look down, way down under "Environment", you just might find some acknowledgement that Climate Change exists.)

So when can we expect to see any meaningful action on this issue?

So when can we expect to see any meaningful action on this issue?
Well, how long has Al Gore's movie been running? :p

No, seriously. I'd suspect that as most Americans are probably convinced of it today, any presidential candidate will have to pay some level of attention to it.

Unfortunately, other issues will still override that though. Real, decisive action would only occur if real and decisive damages were caused by global warming. And establishing that connection is near impossible, leaving the public's mind occupied with other things.

My hope is really that the whole oil price thing recently has caused many people to rethink. So now entrepreneurs working on environment-conscious technologies and projects might get more support. It's a faint hope, I know but I don't expect government to help - unless someone elects a real Greenie, and I don't think we'll see it happen.

Oh, also a good article I read recently about biofuels for cars: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,426736,00.html

So when can we expect to see any meaningful action on this issue?
When Hell freezes over??? :p

When Hell freezes over??? :p

So, in other words, never. Since the globe is warming and all... ;)

Well, here (http://www.climatetechnology.gov/new.htm) it is.

Apparently the result of four years of efforts, it features the following:
- no new funding (the $3 billion a year for research is what they already spend ... and is inadequate)
- no carbon tax, emissions trading system, or any other measure needed to internalize the cost of emissions

Actually, it really doesn't offer anything new, and offers precious little in the way of action. Even Republicans were apparently not impressed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001697.html).

Hardly suprising I guess. This issue is so low down the priority list that the report didn't even warrant a mention on the President's Website. Climate Change is nowhere to be found under the list of "Issues" on the website (although if you look down, way down under "Environment", you just might find some acknowledgement that Climate Change exists.)

So when can we expect to see any meaningful action on this issue?

If I were incredibly cynical, I'd be saying that... with elections in November, the President was making the merest gesture at environmental issues, to salve the consciences of some of the conservative voters who might be wavering a little over his devil-may-care attitude to the legacy we'll leave our children.

But then, I totally expect gas prices to skyrocket in late November, early December, also... once these pesky elections are out of the way...

No, seriously. I'd suspect that as most Americans are probably convinced of it today, any presidential candidate will have to pay some level of attention to it.

The American public has been fed so much misinformation on this issue, I'm not sure they are convinced. And unfortunately, I think that enough of the public will buy the line that this report means Bush is actually "doing something" about it.


Unfortunately, other issues will still override that though. Real, decisive action would only occur if real and decisive damages were caused by global warming. And establishing that connection is near impossible, leaving the public's mind occupied with other things.

I don't think drawing those connections are all that hard, as long as the public has all of the information, which again, they haven't been given.


My hope is really that the whole oil price thing recently has caused many people to rethink. So now entrepreneurs working on environment-conscious technologies and projects might get more support. It's a faint hope, I know but I don't expect government to help - unless someone elects a real Greenie, and I don't think we'll see it happen.

People have short memories unfortunately. The last oil crisis only caused a temporary increase in concern about fuel efficiency. That abated pretty soon, and by 1988, fuel efficiency had fallen to a new low.


Oh, also a good article I read recently about biofuels for cars: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,426736,00.html

Last tim eI read about this in detail (which wa admittedly several months ago), biofuel was still a net energy loss (i.e. it takes more energy to produce one gallon of biofuel than that gallon provides). Basically the only reason it was viable was because of subsidies and/or laws mandating a certain amount of biofuel content in gasoline. It was more of a sop to the farming lobby than a real environmental measure. Does anyone know if that has changed? I am still hoping the technology will improve to the point where it is viable.

So, in other words, never. Since the globe is warming and all... ;)
Who knows ... maybe if the succeed in disrupting the ocean current and triggering a new ice age, hell will freeze over ... and then those of us who survive can take rapid action on the issue! :)

Carbon taxes are a silly idea. The last thing the developed and developing worlds need is a new tax hindering said development. Oh you might say that it'll encourage research of new energy sources. But what are these green energy solutions?
Windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!

More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works!

The consequences of this are dramatic. A good, modern wind turbine only really generates electricity between wind forces 4 and 7/8. Less wind, and the mill will hardly generate any power at all (because of the power curve). Go above it, and the power will get so big, the wind turbine will have to shut down, to prevent damage.

The bottom line is this. On average, a wind mill only generates something like 16 percent of the power it should produce! So when you see a wind mill that has a tag "One megaWatt" on it, it only does so under ideal circumstances. On average, it only produces 160 thousand Watt. (Source: Dutch research, in: J.J. Halkema, "Windmolens, feiten en fictie")
---
Hydrogen is indeed a cheap, clean energy source. But there's a catch: you can't find it anywhere in nature. You will have to make it first, by splitting up water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). And that costs you... yes, energy.

Next, you will have to compress your hydrogen into a high-pressure tank, in order to carry it around. Those tanks are heavy, and the compressing costs you even more energy. So in the end, you're better off using common fuel. Hydrogen costs you more energy than it will save you.
---
nd as for the fuss overhydrogen cars: The basic idea behind that is that you should use wind or solar energy to create the hydrogen. This would give you a clean source of fuel. But as we explained already, that trick doesn't work. The whole process is just NOT energy efficient.

It has been estimated that oil would have to become twice (!) as expensive, before the hydrogen economy would begin to pay off.
---
But hold it, isn't solar energy an option? I really, really wish it were. Right now, it isn't.

Solar cells aren't just good enough. At the moment, you need the area roughly the size of six ping pong tables to power a car. And of course, you need daylight to power up your batteries.

And: what goes for wind mills also goes for solar cells. It costs lots of energy to make them. And energy is oil.
---
You say you've heard of a stuff called 'orimulsion'. There seem to be vast quantities of it. And it's almost the same as oil. Is that going to work?

Orimulsion is another fossil fuel, made of bitumen. And indeed, there's an estimated supply of it of about 1.2 trillion barrels. Even better: you can quite easily turn it into petrol, and use it to generate electricity.

But that was the sunny side. In the 1980s and 1990s, several power plants tried orimulsion. But they were shut down, because refining and burning orimulsion is very, very dirty. Orimulsion contains up to 2.9 percent sulphur. This ends up as sulphuric acid in the atmosphere. That gives you HUGE problems, like global warming, acid rain, dangerous smog and global dimming. No wonder orimulsion has been nicknamed "the world's dirtiest fuel"! You really don't want to use it.
---
But what about coal? Isn't that getting cleaner? And don't we have lots of it?

Indeed, the estimated supply of coal is 2 trillion tons. And yes, you can wrench oil out of coal. In fact, as we speak, about 23 percent of all energy of the world comes from coal.

But the down side to this is that coal will run out eventually, too. Some say it will last 18 years, others say longer. And that's not all. We'd have to adapt all of our factories and power plants and refineries, which would require HUGE investments. And then, coal is another very dirty fossil fuel. It chokes up the atmosphere even more than oil does.
---
How about 'heavy oil', tar sands?

That just won't solve the crisis. Most of the world's oil is 'dirty' - it is mixed up with clay, sand and other stuff you cannot burn. And indeed, you can purify oil out of it. But: out of one truckload full of tar sands, you will get only about half a barrel of oil. That's not exactly what we would call 'making a profit'. In fact, since trucks and drilling machines run on oil too, you'd have to work really hard to actually 'gain' oil. This definitely won't bring back the cheap oil.
So you see, we're pretty much stuck with nuclear as the only option for clean, reliable energy. Now if only you could convince Greenpeace and the like. I'm all for clean and efficient, so long as it's reliable.

And didn't we fight a war to avoid excessive taxes.

It's a conspiracy, man! The oil companies got a grip on the government. They're feeding us a bunch of lies, man!

And didn't we fight a war to avoid excessive taxes.

no

Who knows ... maybe if the succeed in disrupting the ocean current and triggering a new ice age, hell will freeze over ... and then those of us who survive can take rapid action on the issue! :)

Oh, yeah... Guess I should keep my calendar open, then.

It's a conspiracy, man! The oil companies got a grip on the government. They're feeding us a bunch of lies, man!

It's no conspiracy. It's just naked self-interest.

Carbon taxes are a silly idea. The last thing the developed and developing worlds need is a new tax hindering said development.


A carbon tax wouldn't hinder development ... it would just make it cleaner. It would internalize the cost of CO2 emissions so that the users would actually have to pay instead of externalizing the cost onto the rest of us. It levels the field between dirty energy and clean energy so that the cleaner options become relatively cheaper. It is preferable to the alternative way of doing this, which is subsidies (which means keeping your other taxes high).

But if you prefer not to make it a tax, then what is wrong with emissions trading?


Oh you might say that it'll encourage research of new energy sources. But what are these green energy solutions?

As I already pointed out to you before, the property you mention of wind does not make wind energy inefficient, it just makes it's output highly variable. Which is why wind probably won't amount to more than 30% of production. But that would still be a significant reduction in emissions. Your figures for the size of wind farm required are also inaccurate, and ignore the fact that the turbines themselves occupy very little land. The surrounding land can easily be used for farming.

You are correct that hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a way of storing energy. So unless we come up with clean methods of hyrdogen production, it is a bit of a greenwash at this point.

Solar power is still useful for certain household applications (i.e. heating water) and as the technology improves, will hopefully become useful for other applications as well (like producing hydrogen).

It would be more convincing if you didn't use your own posts as a source to support your arguments.


So you see, we're pretty much stuck with nuclear as the only option for clean, reliable energy. Now if only you could convince Greenpeace and the like. [/'QUOTE]

You haven't even convinced me of that yet. Because you dopn't address the issues of the environmental costs of the mining, and how you safely store the waste. There is nothing green about nuclear.

[QUOTE]
And didn't we fight a war to avoid excessive taxes.

Not recently. but you did fight a war for cheap oil.

What waste? That dangerously radioactive muck you call waste is perfectly good fuel! It can be refined and reused. Recylced. Recycling is a good thing. Mining can now be done with bots in sealed mines to avoid human and environmental contamination. Nuclear is clean and always getting safer.

And in case you didn't notice, the stuff is in the ground and still radiating. We can't stop that. We might as well use it. Not mining radioactive elements makes about as much sense as veganism. The animal is already dead. Do you think you're honoring it by throwing it in the garbage?

And not removing deposits could have environmental impacts. These deposits decay. Some turn into Radon gas. That's a radioactive gas.

And all of those energy solutions came from Exit Mundi's Peak Oil page, not from me. That's why put it in quotes. The wind was sourced. You can learn all you want about solar and the technologies current inefficiencies (the best we can do is about 30%) from wikipedia.

And yes, we did fight a war over taxes. Excessive taxation and taxation without representation started the Revolutionary War with the British Empire.

Carbon taxes are a silly idea. The last thing the developed and developing worlds need is a new tax hindering said development. Oh you might say that it'll encourage research of new energy sources. But what are these green energy solutions?

So you see, we're pretty much stuck with nuclear as the only option for clean, reliable energy. Now if only you could convince Greenpeace and the like. I'm all for clean and efficient, so long as it's reliable.

And didn't we fight a war to avoid excessive taxes.

What is your source? If you are going to post two pages of someone else's words, you really need to give them credit.

I'm suspecting you find that little testimony on the Exxon site...

Whoever it was, they missed an important detail... yes wind and water power are inefficient, but - you know what, it doesn't matter! The 'fuel' is entirely renewable, so it doesn't matetr if we 'use' ten percent, two percent or a ninety-nine percent of the energy to pay our inefficiency debt.

It is also worth bearing in mind - this is still a nascent technology. Look at CD players 20 years ago, when we were marvelling at the simple concept of shooting lasers at layered circles... compare it to the standard middle-of-range machine you'd buy today. That is what 20 years of innovation does in demand markets.

When Hell freezes over??? :p

I'd give it about a couple of weeks. (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/weatherInfo.php?locIndex=55275)

So, in other words, never. Since the globe is warming and all... ;)All that heat has to come from somewhere. If Earth heats up, Hell might well freeze over :p

So, in other words, never. Since the globe is warming and all... ;)

actually, the Earth is too far from the Sun to stay hot...

In other words, we'll become a Venus and THEN cool down to a Marsish level.

All that heat has to come from somewhere. If Earth heats up, Hell might well freeze over :p

I'll have to look for it, but I remember seeing somewhere a set of calculations... based on the scripturally stated 'properties'... burning points of sulphur, ambient light, etc... that 'proved' Hell would actually not be as hot as Heaven, if the scripture is taken literally... :)

If that is a "Strategic Plan", I say he doesn't have any idea how strategic planning works - just glad that this is the only thing that requires any kind of strategic plann... Oh. Wait - uh-oh... :(

BTW, Neu Leonstein, thanks for that article (I had read it before but never printed it - might prove interesting for future references as a teacher...). Good read indeed.

actually, the Earth is too far from the Sun to stay hot...

In other words, we'll become a Venus and THEN cool down to a Marsish level.
This will never happen for three reasons:
1. Venus is a lot closer to the sun. It's distance from thesun is 67.2 million miles. Earths is 92.956 million miles. That's a difference of 25.756 million miles.
2. Venus has much thicker atmosphere. About 90 times as thick as Earths.
3. The atmospheric composition is completely different. That super thick atmosphere is dominated by CO2.

Grave_n_idle, windmills are nothing new. They're very old and we've been tinkering with the basic technology since before the Dutch.

And those 'renewables' don't just build themselves. It costs energy to make them and right now most of that comes from oil or something else getting burned. We get less than 10% of our energy from 'renewables' today.

And these things won't last forever. They'll also need regular maintenance. That costs energy, which today comes mostly from burning things. You have to look at the dust-to-dust cost of things. If the construction, maintenance, and disposal costs are higher than or very close to the output of the device, it's not worth it.

Solar could (and I hope will) be an important supplemental source sometime down the road, but the tech needs to improve a lot for that to happen.

Grave_n_idle, windmills are nothing new. They're very old and we've been tinkering with the basic technology since before the Dutch.


Oh, the concept of the windmill is old, yes... in as much as there have been direct application devices of various designs for centuries. But - this technology we use now is new. It is reinventing an older technology, in 20th/21st century terms.

Also - it doesn't matter that the gestation took millenia, the field is still nascent.


And those 'renewables' don't just build themselves. It costs energy to make them and right now most of that comes from oil or something else getting burned. We get less than 10% of our energy from 'renewables' today.


It costs energy to make wind and water? I think you have misunderstood what those big spining blades on hills really are, since you seem to be suggesting they make the wind?

I'm not disputing the small fraction of our current energy demand that is satisfied by renewable sources... but, let's face it, the oil economy is dead or dying. They might keep bumping the corpse for a generation or so yet, but it is flatlining already. So - renewable energy sources are going to become more important, and more prominent.


And these things won't last forever. They'll also need regular maintenance. That costs energy, which today comes mostly from burning things. You have to look at the dust-to-dust cost of things. If the construction, maintenance, and disposal costs are higher than or very close to the output of the device, it's not worth it.


First - petroleum fuel engines are ridiculously inefficient, and that is after sever al generations of tweaking. Once we have seventy years or so devoted to a new technology, you can probably be assured that many of the bugs will have been ironed out.

Second - These things need maintenance.... and what? Oil fuel machinery doesn't? Every machine suffers with time, it's in the nature of the beast.


Solar could (and I hope will) be an important supplemental source sometime down the road, but the tech needs to improve a lot for that to happen.

The tech needs more investment, this is true... but solar can never fix the problem on it's own any more than wind can - they are both too dependent on a narrow band of conditions.

Maybe one day, the big players will realise that interdependency is NOT a bad thing, and that there probably will not BE one single solution to all problems in our near future. Then, just maybe, we'll start playing to the different strengths of different technologies.

And those 'renewables' don't just build themselves. It costs energy to make them and right now most of that comes from oil or something else getting burned. We get less than 10% of our energy from 'renewables' today.


GnI points out the main flaw in this argument above. But insofar as the renewable energy infrastructure requires energy (most of which comes from oil) to put in place, then we'd better get hopping, while there is still oil to use ...

It costs energy to make wind and water? I think you have misunderstood what those big spining blades on hills really are, since you seem to be suggesting they make the wind?
It costs energy to make the collectors, dumbass. That's what I was saying and you know it.

I'm not disputing the small fraction of our current energy demand that is satisfied by renewable sources... but, let's face it, the oil economy is dead or dying. They might keep bumping the corpse for a generation or so yet, but it is flatlining already. So - renewable energy sources are going to become more important, and more prominent.
We're finding new deposits all the time. We'll never run out of oil, we'll just eventually stop pumping it when it's no longer worth it.

First - petroleum fuel engines are ridiculously inefficient, and that is after sever al generations of tweaking. Once we have seventy years or so devoted to a new technology, you can probably be assured that many of the bugs will have been ironed out.
And there have been new designs that are more efficient but never take off because the initial cost is too much for most consumers. There were crappy little compacts that had modified motorcylce engines and got something like 50mpg. Again, few takers, this time for the limits of the car. Even with the best engine, companies will never bother with a car that can go more than 500 miles on a tank, usually settling for 300. It's just an industry standard.

Second - These things need maintenance.... and what? Oil fuel machinery doesn't? Every machine suffers with time, it's in the nature of the beast.
New tech is often notorius for high maintenance costs. Money represents energy and materials. See where I'm going? If the net cost of something, from construction, through life, and death and disposal, is greater than what it put out during its life, it is a drain. Wind is unreliable, sprawling, and unproven. Nuclear is compact, reliable, clean, and proven.

The tech needs more investment, this is true... but solar can never fix the problem on it's own any more than wind can - they are both too dependent on a narrow band of conditions.
YES! It needs investment and R&D before we start building and deploying en masse. Now is not the time for it.

Maybe one day, the big players will realise that interdependency is NOT a bad thing, and that there probably will not BE one single solution to all problems in our near future. Then, just maybe, we'll start playing to the different strengths of different technologies.
Trust me, as an engineer, you always want to be a little conservative, on paper at least. You always want to build redundancy into a system and avoid one thing being primarily dependant on something else. If that something else fails, the dependant fails. Avoid interdependancy whenever possible. It is a bad thing. A very bad thing.

We're finding new deposits all the time. We'll never run out of oil, we'll just eventually stop pumping it when it's no longer worth it.

True, but now that we are past peak oil, as supply continues to fall while demand continues to rise, we are in for a bit of a rough ride.


And there have been new designs that are more efficient but never take off because the initial cost is too much for most consumers.


The reason they never take off is because the price of oil is so low because so many of the costs of oil use are externalities. Until we internalize more of the costs of oil (through carbon taxes or emissions trading or whatever), consumers will not have the proper incentive to adopt more efficient technologies. The time to do this is now, while there is still enough oil to conserve.


New tech is often notorius for high maintenance costs. Money represents energy and materials. See where I'm going? If the net cost of something, from construction, through life, and death and disposal, is greater than what it put out during its life, it is a drain. Wind is unreliable, sprawling, and unproven.


Wind is hardly a new technology, as has already been pointed out. It is reliable and proven. As discussed, it is somewhat variable, which is why it will not be a primary source of power. But it enables other sources of power (namely hydro) to be stored for peak hours. And it is not sprawling, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The windmills occupy very little land, and the surrounding land can be safely used for a wide range of purposes.


Nuclear is compact, reliable, clean, and proven.


Again, proof? Nuclear has a dodgy safety record, and requires huge areas of land for both mining and storage.

It costs energy to make the collectors, dumbass. That's what I was saying and you know it.


If you can't control your baser instincts, I'll ask the Moderators if they can do it for you. I am not a 'dumbass', and your use of such frippery is contrary to the rules of this forum.

Of course it costs energy to make collectors. That has not been denied... but how much maintenance do you really think a solar cell requires? Regardless - what you SAID was "And those 'renewables' don't just build themselves"... not "And those COLELCTORS don't just build themselves".

I can only argue against what you write. If you are not accurate in your arguments, it is not my fault if my rebuttal hits the weakness in your inaccuracy.


We're finding new deposits all the time. We'll never run out of oil, we'll just eventually stop pumping it when it's no longer worth it.


Of course we would run out of oil, eventually. It is a fossil reserve... which makes it, by it's very nature, a pre-determined finite quality.

We will inevitably stop pumping before we LITERALLY run out of it. Once we run out of what is competitively available.


And there have been new designs that are more efficient but never take off because the initial cost is too much for most consumers. There were crappy little compacts that had modified motorcylce engines and got something like 50mpg. Again, few takers, this time for the limits of the car. Even with the best engine, companies will never bother with a car that can go more than 500 miles on a tank, usually settling for 300. It's just an industry standard.


I don't know which market you think you are describing. Americans may be willing to pay for a vehicle that will get 13 miles to the gallon, but most of the civilised world wants considerably better results. So - you are basically arguing that American customers are wasteful spenders. This we already knew.

Is it because of initial cost to the customer? No - not at all. The Citreon 2CV is perfect for city driving, has NEVER been expensive, seats 4, and can get upto 70 mpg. You are applying the wastefulness of the American consumer as though it were some kind of universal law.


New tech is often notorius for high maintenance costs. Money represents energy and materials. See where I'm going? If the net cost of something, from construction, through life, and death and disposal, is greater than what it put out during its life, it is a drain. Wind is unreliable, sprawling, and unproven. Nuclear is compact, reliable, clean, and proven.


But, your formula is rubbish, because the cost of the energy provided is not going to remain constant while the costs of production ramp up. You also seem to be imagining a world where oil fuels are not going to become more expensive.... the higher petroleum costs rise, the more competitive those alternate techs become.

As for the idea that obtaining drive from the wind is 'unproven', I guess you've never visited Holland. Or... reality.


YES! It needs investment and R&D before we start building and deploying en masse. Now is not the time for it.


Now is the PERFECT time to do it, while we still have carbon fuels to fall back on. It would be insanity to start looking for new fuels only AFTER our current fuel is all exhausted.


Trust me, as an engineer, you always want to be a little conservative, on paper at least. You always want to build redundancy into a system and avoid one thing being primarily dependant on something else. If that something else fails, the dependant fails. Avoid interdependancy whenever possible. It is a bad thing. A very bad thing.

So, why are you making this ridiculous argument that we don't need to start finding a backup?

Trust you as an engineer? Why?