Jump to content
KJP

Global Warming

Recommended Posts

The article above makes it sound like the transition away from our current crappy rankings is going to be cheap and painless.  It paints a rosy picture about how we'll be instantly better off.  I like this article better...

 

CARBON DIOXIDE

Emissions fight puts Ohio in tough spot

Wednesday,  April 4, 2007 3:36 AM

By Spencer Hunt

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

could find themselves paying higher electricity bills and more for their cars as the federal government begins to confront global warming.

 

Ohio-based power plants, cars, trucks, factories, businesses and homes spewed an estimated 287.3 million tons of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere in 2003.

 

That ranked Ohio fourth worst among states for the key greenhouse gas.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article above makes it sound like the transition away from our current crappy rankings is going to be cheap and painless.  It paints a rosy picture about how we'll be instantly better off.  I like this article better...

What I get out of the SCOTUS decision(s) is that it is now apparent to the automakers that CO2 pollution laws are forthcoming.  Hence, they should factor this into their business plans.  Actions will include:

1. planning for future regulations

2. investing in appropriate technology

 

The automakers now have "some expectation" that their investments in CO2 control technology will yield *some* benefit for them.  The technology will be necesary for them to participate in the marketplace.  For example, it would have been folly for the automakers to put hundreds of millions into lithium battery technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...we all need cars (sadly) and we all need electricity.  To think those costs to comply with new regulations will be born by the companies is shortsighted at best.  They are passed along to customers. 

 

The Dispatch article is saying that Ohioans are very dependant on cars, and use electricity that is very dependant on the combustion of fossil fuels (relative to other states).  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Ohioans will pay more to comply with CO2 regulations than residents of other states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Ohioans are very dependant on cars, and use electricity that is very dependant on the combustion of fossil fuels (relative to other states).  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Ohioans will pay more to comply with CO2 regulations than residents of other states.

Oh, yes, I agree with you on all points.  I foresee an era when locations that are far from markets or efficient transportation will fail due to high transportation costs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...we all need cars (sadly) and we all need electricity. 

 

We certainly don't need as much car or as much electricity has many of us use now.

 

"By 2009, iSuppli estimates that 71.5% of the North American market will be comprised of flat

panel televisions with screen sizes of 30 inches and above. Overall, many of the large screen, flat

panel televisions being purchased by consumers will consume double or more the active mode

power of the smaller CRT televisions that they are replacing. Much of this differential in power

consumption is simply attributable to the increased size of the products being sold now."

 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/tv_vcr/TV_update_document_Final.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From National Geographic.com

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-second-flood.html

 

London, Tokyo Submerged by Rising Seas -- In "Second Life"

John Roach

for National Geographic News

April 4, 2007

 

 

Tokyo, Amsterdam, and the entire Mediterranean island of Ibiza were inundated with floodwaters today due to rising sea levels brought on by global warming.

 

Or at least, that would have been the headline if events in the virtual world Second Life mirrored reality.

 

A rolling flood temporarily swamped several areas of the online world as part of a campaign to illustrate the potential environmental and financial impacts of climate change.

 

...

 

More at:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-second-flood.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming could pummel Lake Erie economy

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Michael Scott

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Lake Erie could suffer the ravages of global warming in the next century, while also buffering Northeast Ohio from the worst effects.

 

That's the opinion of some in response to dire warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which released its fourth report in Brussels last week.

 

In short, the IPCC report claims that if world temperatures rise even slightly, as projected, there will be increased mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts and 30 percent of the world's species will be at risk of extinction.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1176021066311540.xml&coll=2


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green building and sustainability are becoming such a hot topic with such extreme awareness of global warming as of late. But how does historic preservation fit into this? I haven't really learned much yet about what restrictions are put on historic houses and districts. At a time when we should be conserving as much energy as possible, do you guys see there being a lot of conflict between the preservationists and the people wanting America to go green? Do you get what I'm saying? Like, are there ways to alter the 1860s Italianate rowhouse with 15 foot ceilings to be more energy efficient without guidelines in the way, or are there ways of designing in-fill development that fits the context of historic structures? And at the same time, is it economically feasible or will it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote from Al Gore

“The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,”

You would think that for someone who invented the internet, he could at least google "global warming skeptics"

 

Hurricane forecaster takes aim at Al Gore over global warming

 

05:49 PM CDT on Friday, April 6, 2007

 

Cain Burdeau / Associated Press

Bill Haber / Associated Press

 

Dr. William Gray, the scientist known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, on Friday called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" for making the Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

 

Dr. Gray takes issue with the suggestion that global warming is changing the world's climate and increasing the number of stronger hurricanes.

 

"For someone of his statue (stature), he's a gross alarmist," Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference, where he delivered the closing speech.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.ap.org/

 

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

Stuart Isett for The New York Times

Published: March 13, 2007

 

Al Gore’s film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

 

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

 

Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1176177600&en=a6de09d1be443ae1&ei=5070

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly don't need as much car or as much electricity has many of us use now.

 

"By 2009, iSuppli estimates that 71.5% of the North American market will be comprised of flat

panel televisions with screen sizes of 30 inches and above. Overall, many of the large screen, flat

panel televisions being purchased by consumers will consume double or more the active mode

power of the smaller CRT televisions that they are replacing. Much of this differential in power

consumption is simply attributable to the increased size of the products being sold now."

 

The TV producer in me has to chime in on this one. People are buying larger televisions for one simple reason- HDTV. Truth be told, the larger the television, the greater the difference between perceived resolution of HDTV and SDTV. There's really no point in buying a 20" CRT television if your watching HDTV, because you won't notice the difference between HDTV and standard-definition formats. You should go big or go home. Also, many people with a basement entertainment room (where it's easy to achieve total darkness) are being smarter and buying a digital projector. In the short run, projectors are cheaper and give you much more bang for your buck (screen sizes are ridiculous), but in the long run, they cost about as much as a standard flat panel television (replacement bulbs for projectors are really expensive). A properly calibrated projector looks great too, and it's basically like having a small movie theater inside your house (as long as you have the sound system to back it up). When friends or family come over, they'll be shocked. On top of that, projectors save a lot on energy. They're far more energy efficient than their tube/plasma/LCD counterparts.

 

Basically, if you have a dark room or basement in your house, buy a digital projector and screen. You'll save on energy costs, be helping the enviroment, AND enjoy the largest picture possible. With projectors, you can have your cake and eat it too. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV producer in me has to chime in on this one. People are buying larger televisions for one simple reason- HDTV. Truth be told, the larger the television, the greater the difference between perceived resolution of HDTV and SDTV. There's really no point in buying a 20" CRT television if your watching HDTV, because you won't notice the difference between HDTV and standard-definition formats. You should go big or go home. Also, many people with a basement entertainment room (where it's easy to achieve total darkness) are being smarter and buying a projector. In the short run, projectors are cheaper and give you much more bang for your buck (screen sizes are ridiculous), but in the long run, they cost about as much as a standard flat panel television (replacement bulbs for projectors are really expensive). A properly calibrated projector looks great too, and it's basically like having a small movie theater inside your house. When friends or family come over, they'll be shocked. On top of that, projectors save a lot on energy. They're far more energy efficient than their tube/plasma/LCD counterparts.

 

Basically, if you have a dark room or basement in your house, buy a projector and screen. You'll save on energy costs, be helping the enviorment, AND enjoy the largest picture possible.

 

I am building a media room in my lower level now and I am trying to help save the environment, so I have just one question...where can I get a deal on a projector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have them at Circuit City and Best Buy...they're pretty popular now. I would pay attention to the resolution of the projector. The pixels on my mom's projector are huge. They are fun to watch though, especially with surround sound hooked up to it. Just make sure you turn off the projector after you use it. My mom had to replace the bulb in her projector after less than a year of use because no one knew it would be an issue. I think bulbs are several hundred dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^there are lots of HD options in the $1000 to $2000 range, some damn good ones too. We bought an InFocus package for $1400 with a 120" screen and 25-foot component monster cables. InFocus is not top-of-the-line, but once calibrated in a dark room, it looks great. Make sure to buy a widescreen HD model. SDTV will not look as good blown up, but HD broadcasts, HD-DVD's, and even anamorphic (higher resolution) standard DVD's will look amazing.

 

replacement bulbs are $300, but if you remember turn off your projector, you can get 2-3 years out of them. A normal household would replace a bulb every two years. Besides the initial energy savings of using a DLP projector instead of large screen plasma, you also will be turning off lights more often. The best image on a projector is only achieved in a dark room.

 

We replace a bulb every year, but we're a fraternity annex. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV producer in me has to chime in on this one. People are buying larger televisions for one simple reason- HDTV. Truth be told, the larger the television, the greater the difference between perceived resolution of HDTV and SDTV. There's really no point in buying a 20" CRT television if your watching HDTV, because you won't notice the difference between HDTV and standard-definition formats.

A technical article I read on HDTV said there was no point buying an HDTV with a screen smaller than 35", but I think that there is a lot more to it than that.

 

When I had Dishnetwork-satellite with about a 600 lines (of vertical resolution) video source, it looked fantastic on my 1995 27" Panasonic CRT TV.  Ball games were great.

 

I think that the difference that "someone" is selling us is when you get to the 1280 line sources.  1280 resolution is only two of the specifications in the HDTV lineup.  Most of the material is more like the 600 line, maybe 720.  I think the TV stations only broadcast in the highest resolutions on just a few evenings a week.  The Superbowl, for example.  Most people with these TVs don't get a broadcast off the air and use cable for more selection.  The add-on HDTV tuners are way overpriced with prices up to $800--for a humble tuner with no moving parts (!).  Even the cheapest set top box HDTV tuners are $300, IIRC from when I priced one.

 

Then there is the dearth of HDTV on cable.  Standard cable is just analog TV.   Digital cable is probably about 600 lines like Dish Network.  There are only a few channels on any cable tv system that source HDTV and that would probably be limited to HBO and the exciting Discovery Channel coverage of a cuttlefish opening a clam off Borneo.

 

So, to sum it up you could save a lot of money on the purchase price and a lot of power buying a TV that is smaller than 35".  The other products are oversold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

digital SDTV is generally delivered in the 480i format. It is not 600 lines of resolution. HDTV comes in 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. There is a huge resolution difference (HD is 3-6 times the resolution), but you generally sit far enough away from the screen that it's not terribly noticeable unless you have a massive television or projector. Hence why I say "go big or go home." On my projector (120" screen), the difference between a SD digital TV broadcast and HD digital broadcast (like Discovery HD) is MASSIVE. Now the difference between a progressive scan anamorphic SD DVD and HD broadcasts is not so noticeable, even at 120 inches. The reason for this is because anamorphic DVD's are higher resolution than regular DVD's. A normal 1.85:1 DVD will have a resolution of about 360x720 pixels. An anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD will have a resolution of about 480x854 pixels. That's enough to make a difference. Moral of the story- if you bought anamorphic DVD's, replacing them with HD DVD's might not be worth the money. You can look at the back of your DVD case and it will say "enhanced for 16:9 televisions" if it's anamorphic. Hold onto those.

 

I have yet to try HD DVD's, but I'm sure they will look amazing, perhaps pushing the resolution limits of older 35mm film transfers. HD will set the home standard for likely the next century (possibly for all time). There will never be a need for higher resolution than HD in homes, because there will never be enough space in your home to put in a large enough projector to make a noticeable difference. Beyond HD, modern 35mm film in a movie theater is all that can best it in terms of resolving power.

 

Analog TV usually looks like crap (well, actually, it can vary). Most analog broadcasts are only 300 lines of resolution. A SD digital broadcast will blow that out of the water since it's 500 lines. It's about the difference between analog television and normal DVD's hooked up through component or S-video cables. To tell the truth though, very few broadcasters use full resolution HD even when they advertise themselves as such. Some mix in SD video with HD video all the time (like ESPN HD). Discovery HD and PBS HD are in a league of their own...no one else matces that resolution. You must remember that HD has not fully reached its potential. Many "HD" broadcasts are only half the resolution they lead you to believe, hence why on some networks, the difference between digital SD and digital HD may be hard to notice. In the future though, you can be damn sure the gap between SD and HD will grow larger...potentially up to six times as large one day. That's the difference between those mediocre 6-megapixel DSLR's sold at Circuit City today and the 36-megapixel cameras that could possibly compete with medium format film. Again, all this is still a good amount of time away...

 

The main thing HD will allow is a high quality image at much larger screen sizes. At 25 inches, you probably won't notice any difference...

 

Digital cable is probably about 600 lines like Dish Network.

 

No, it's usually delivered in 480i NTSC which is about 500 lines. Perhaps you're thinking of PAL, which is the European system.

 

So, to sum it up you could save a lot of money on the purchase price and a lot of power buying a TV that is smaller than 35".  The other products are oversold.

 

I'd say if your TV is under 50 inches, just get standard digital cable. You will hardly notice a difference between a SDTV and HD broadcast since you probably sit six feet away from the screen. HD costs a lot more money, and most people don't have the equipment to take full advantage of it. Only massive televisions and projectors really make a big enough difference to justify the expenditure.

 

But back to my original point. If you are looking to upgrade to HD, the DLP projector is the best way to go. It's the most bang for your buck, and you will be saving energy. If everyone buys projectors, the switch to HD will not require more energy consumption. If everyone buys 60 inch plasma TV's, we're in trouble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But back to my original point. If you are looking to upgrade to HD, the DLP projector is the best way to go. It's the most bang for your buck, and you will be saving energy. If everyone buys projectors, the switch to HD will not require more energy consumption. If everyone buys 60 inch plasma TV's, we're in trouble...

I agree with your points and your conclusions.  You know the resolutions and offerings better than I do!

 

Your point about a (modern) projection TV being the energy* and consumer satisfaction "winner" is very insightful.

 

*the global warming tie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the global warming "tie". No one has really talked about specific stats with power reduction. Anyone have any figures on how much power is saved using a digital projector vs. 20" CRT TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy the global warming "tie". No one has really talked about specific stats with power reduction. Anyone have any figures on how much power is saved using a digital projector vs. 20" CRT TV?

I think the real question is, if I buy a larger flat screen, say in the 60'' range, how many trees do I have to plant for a carbon offset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's beside the point. I don't think Johnny Appleseed would buy an SUV because he did his share of offsetting his emissions! We should be planting trees anyway. You're all wasteful! All of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists: Warming will lower Lake Erie water levels

April 9, 2007 | ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

Global warming will lower water levels in Lake Erie, just one of the drastic consequences facing the planet if steps aren't taken to reduce rising temperatures, scientists say.

 

Ohio's climate eventually will become more like Tennessee's, said Donald Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana.

 

But Ohio also is in position to improve the situation. Ohio could help its environment - along with its economy - by promoting industries using alternative energy technology, scientists and environmental advocates say.

 

......

 

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070409/NEWS01/704090370

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^the effect on the Great Lakes could certainly be catastrophic. That's my personal biggest fear. It could destroy what's left of the shipping industry and greatly reduce tourist dollars, especially in already shallow Western Lake Erie. More than half of Ohio's tourist economy is centered there (Port Clinton, the Islands, Marblehead, Sandusky).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We must act now, and we must use our emerging and mainstay industries to prevent the most harmful effects of global warming," said David Celebrezze of the Ohio Environmental Council.

...

The state also could add energy plantations, where farmers grow plants that are converted into ethanol and other biofuels, said Rattan Lal, an agricultural scientist at Ohio State University.

The tragedy of half-information and unqualified science editors at newspapers: OEC is backing a "clean coal" project (unworkable), ethanol won't replace gasoline at any realistic scale, and ethanol from "switchgrass" depends upon creation of a genetically modified microorganism that does not even exist yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming will lower water levels in Lake Erie, just one of the drastic consequences facing the planet if steps aren't taken to reduce rising temperatures, scientists say.

 

I just read a similar article on Lake Superior. Apparently warmer temperatures means the lake doesn't freeze over as much in the winter, which allows for more evaporation.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/superior.warming.ap/index.html

 

And re clean coal: it's still coal.  :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlighten me as to why you think clean coal is "unworkable"?

Any process that starts with ripping up the countryside as the mining industry does is a horror from the start.  That name "clean coal" hints that there are already "clean" methods to exploit coal.  There are not.  CO2 sequestration depends upon a technology to strip CO2 from the flue gases before squirting them underground--surely an energy consuming process itself, but--the technology does not exist.  AEP generating company is only now starting a project to inject CO2 underground; there is no guarantee it will work at any cost and at any amount of energy use.  There is a proposal to gasify coal and use it to fire gas-turbines to generate electricity.  That would be a large increase in generating efficiency (+50%), but the utilities have not done it with a utility-scale generating plant and are certainly not planning on implementing coal gasification in their vast plans for new generating plants.  The utilities can see quantum efficiency improvements on the order of 10% by using super-heated steam (a higher temperature to get more work out of the heat source) and they are saying that they would take the lower financial risk of the super-heated/super-critical plants instead of the big risk of coal gasification with gains of about double. 

 

So, in the end, the coal industry stalls us interminably and then forces the super-heated plants on us with a slight efficiency gain.  We end up at the same place that they wanted us at in the first place.

 

I guess my biggest problem with clean coal is the Orwellian naming convention, like Bush's "Healthy Forests" that means logging, "Clear Skies" that means abridged pollution control, and "War is Peace"...whoops the last one really IS George Orwell.

 

pardon my brusque presentation--I don't want to sound like I am attacking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlighten me as to why you think clean coal is "unworkable"?

Any process that starts with ripping up the countryside as the mining industry does is a horror from the start.  That name "clean coal" hints that there are already "clean" methods to exploit coal.  There are not.

 

I'll point you to Re-Creation land here in Ohio as an example of corporate responsibility when it comes to mining's impact on wildlife.

http://www.aep.com/environmental/recreation/recland/default.htm

 

CO2 sequestration depends upon a technology to strip CO2 from the flue gases before squirting them underground--surely an energy consuming process itself, but--the technology does not exist.  AEP generating company is only now starting a project to inject CO2 underground; there is no guarantee it will work at any cost and at any amount of energy use.

 

The technology exists.  It needs to be applied at larger scales, which AEP is doing, but it certainly exists.  I spent my senior year of undergrad designing such a system.  Ours used Monoethanolamine (MEA), while AEP is currently proposing chilled ammonia due to the energy savings.

 

There is a proposal to gasify coal and use it to fire gas-turbines to generate electricity.  That would be a large increase in generating efficiency (+50%), but the utilities have not done it with a utility-scale generating plant and are certainly not planning on implementing coal gasification in their vast plans for new generating plants.
 

It's been demonstrated in the 250-300 MW range at various sites throughout the world (2 in the US, 1 in the netherlands, 1 in spain, 2 in italy, 1 in japan, etc...).  The efficiency improvement brings efficiencies from the mid-30's to the 40% range.  Utilities, including AEP, Duke, and others are currently proposing to build 600 MW IGCC plants.  One in Meigs County, Ohio (AEP), one in New Haven, WV (AEP), and one in Edwardsport, IN (Duke).  There are others on the table in Minnesota, NY, and other states.  Of course there's also FutureGen, which will either be located in Illinios or Texas.

 

The utilities can see quantum efficiency improvements on the order of 10% by using super-heated steam (a higher temperature to get more work out of the heat source) and they are saying that they would take the lower financial risk of the super-heated/super-critical plants instead of the big risk of coal gasification with gains of about double.

 

Utilities already have a great deal of supercritical steam plants that operate in the 1000-1050°F steam range.  Utilities in Europe, Japan, and China have already proven designs at over 1100°F using advanced metallurgy.  AEP has proposed this design in Arkansas and Oklahoma.  It's heavily dependant on the type of coal, but efficiencies in the range of IGCC can probably be expected.

 

So, in the end, the coal industry stalls us interminably and then forces the super-heated plants on us with a slight efficiency gain.  We end up at the same place that they wanted us at in the first place.

 

Quit being such a negative nancy! ;)  It took coal fired generation technology about 100 years to get the this point, it's going through another round of advancements and the result should be positive for the US (i.e. the saudi arabia of coal).  Like I said earlier, many utilities are taking the lead on this issue and the government is throwing money in as well.

 

pardon my brusque presentation--I don't want to sound like I am attacking

 

Quite alright.  Pardon my lack of completeness when I listed examples above.  There are many more, but I'm just writing off the top of my head here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leftwing rag like Newsweek

 

yeah...right. :roll:

 

It's socially moderate, and somewhat business-oriented, hardly left-wing. Their target market is middle-aged white men, hardly a liberal market. Has Newsweek come out against the Iraq war and Bush administration? Of course, but who hasn't??

 

Newsweek is one of the least biased magazines left, and to an overwhelmingly conservative media market like Middle America, that will always be labeled as "liberal" or "leftist." In most of the world, it's considered moderate. If someone thinks Newsweek is "liberal", they really need to read more media from Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, France, etc., etc....

 

India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly.

 

That doesn't prove anything. Agricultural practices are more efficient, but the weather has had nothing to do with it. Any idiot with an ounce of agricultural background knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i should start a whole thread on mountain top removal, but until then, see:   WWW.ILOVEMOUNTAINS.ORG  All the stories about sludge retention dams letting lose and burying towns are there.  In Southern Ohio, the risk is that "longwall mining" is going to destroy the water table and ruin peoples homes and farms. 

 

Roberts Mountain before and after "Mountain Top Removal Mining":

 

384405596_1dee50c28e.jpg?v=1173385885384405593_c361be442f.jpg?v=1173386829

Enlighten me as to why you think clean coal is "unworkable"?

Any process that starts with ripping up the countryside as the mining industry does is a horror from the start.  That name "clean coal" hints that there are already "clean" methods to exploit coal.  There are not.

I'll point you to Re-Creation land here in Ohio as an example of corporate responsibility when it comes to mining's impact on wildlife.

http://www.aep.com/environmental/recreation/recland/default.htm

CO2 sequestration depends upon a technology to strip CO2 from the flue gases before squirting them underground--surely an energy consuming process itself, but--the technology does not exist.  AEP generating company is only now starting a project to inject CO2 underground; there is no guarantee it will work at any cost and at any amount of energy use.

 

The technology exists.  It needs to be applied at larger scales, which AEP is doing, but it certainly exists.  I spent my senior year of undergrad designing such a system.  Ours used Monoethanolamine (MEA), while AEP is currently proposing chilled ammonia due to the energy savings.

 

There is a proposal to gasify coal and use it to fire gas-turbines to generate electricity.  That would be a large increase in generating efficiency (+50%), but the utilities have not done it with a utility-scale generating plant and are certainly not planning on implementing coal gasification in their vast plans for new generating plants.
 

It's been demonstrated in the 250-300 MW range at various sites throughout the world (2 in the US, 1 in the netherlands, 1 in spain, 2 in italy, 1 in japan, etc...).  The efficiency improvement brings efficiencies from the mid-30's to the 40% range.  Utilities, including AEP, Duke, and others are currently proposing to build 600 MW IGCC plants.  One in Meigs County, Ohio (AEP), one in New Haven, WV (AEP), and one in Edwardsport, IN (Duke).  There are others on the table in Minnesota, NY, and other states.  Of course there's also FutureGen, which will either be located in Illinios or Texas.

Maybe you are right that IGCC is used on a utility scale, but the sum of the power of all those plants you cite is about the size of one coal-steam plant on the Ohio River.

So, in the end, the coal industry stalls us interminably and then forces the super-heated plants on us with a slight efficiency gain.  We end up at the same place that they wanted us at in the first place.

Quit being such a negative nancy! ;) 

 

Peabody Coal Company are the creeps who gave us the long period of "global warming misinformation" before they handed the job off to Exxon Mobil Corporation.  Those people are nobody's friend.  And they don't deserve another long period to stall progress and buy off politicians while they "supposedly" work on "Clean Coal" technology at a foot dragging pace.  Now they have hired failed presidential candidate and former minority leader Richard Gephardt to lobby for them.  What do you suppose a big-money guy like Dick is going to do for them?

 

And you cannot credibly say that AEP already has CO2 sequestration technology.  Whatever they have is only on paper.  AEP has not even completed the site-selection process.  All that they have done is announced two locations where they want to start to work.

 

For a credible citation on sequestration technology, check out this lugubrious forecast from Grist Magazine:

"If you build a new coal plant, you're making a 60-year commitment -- that's how long these plants are generally in use," explains David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "So we really need to avoid building a whole new generation of coal plants that use the old technology."

 

Industry boosters tout the prospect of so-called "clean coal," but right now there is simply no such thing. Zero-carbon coal plants -- ones that will gasify coal, filter carbon dioxide from the vapor, then stow the CO2 underground -- are a long way off from commercial application. A handful of coal-gasification plants are in development, and could eventually be retrofitted with carbon-capture and -sequestration capabilities, but for now this pollution-storage technology is years away from even a working pilot phase.

 

"Until we have that clean coal power plant, we should not be building them," Hansen told his D.C. audience. "It is as clear as a bell."

 

Then the esteemed scientist raised even more eyebrows by declaring that, come mid-century, any old dinosaur coal plants that still aren't sequestering CO2 ought to be "bulldozed."http://www.alternet.org/story/49195/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leftwing rag like Newsweek

 

yeah...right. :roll:

 

It's socially moderate, and somewhat business-oriented, hardly left-wing. Their target market is middle-aged white men, hardly a liberal market. Has Newsweek come out against the Iraq war and Bush adminstration? Of coure, but who hasn't??

 

Newsweek is one of the least biased magazines left, and to an overwhelmingly conservative media market like Middle America, that will always be labeled as "liberal" or "leftist." In most of the world, it's considered moderate. If someone thinks Newsweek is "liberal", they really need to read more media from Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, France, etc., etc....

 

India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly.

 

That doesn't prove anything. Agricultural practices are more efficient, but the weather has had nothing to do with it. Any idiot with an ounce of agricultural background knows that.

 

I don't see a problem with the professor's argument. His analysis of the hurricane season is dead on to what Dr. Gray of Colorado State has said. If we blame every weather anomaly on global warming and ignore the other factors, we aren't really seeing the whole picture.

 

Climate modeling in the short-term is amazingly inaccurate:

 

The climate prediction center short term prediction models didn't predict Alaska's unusally cold winter, or the unusually cold period for the eastern continental US from Jan. 15th-Mar. 1st. Likewise for this current cold spell over the eastern US beginning last week. In fact the CPC only seems to predict above average temps....even though the only period where a majority of the US has been above average was Dec. 15th-Jan. 15th. and the last two weeks of March. So how can anyone trust modeling 40 years out?

 

I believe there is a tie between CO2 and global warming, it's the idea that fireballs, due to methane bubbles in the sky triggered by lightning, will destroy London and Tokyo by 2080 seem a little out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peabody Coal Company are the creeps who gave us the long period of "global warming misinformation" before they handed the job off to Exxon Mobil Corporation.  Those people are nobody's friend.  And they don't deserve another long period to stall progress and buy off politicians while they "supposedly" work on "Clean Coal" technology at a foot dragging pace.  Now they have hired failed presidential candidate and former minority leader Richard Gephardt to lobby for them.  What do you suppose a big-money guy like Dick is going to do for them?

 

And you cannot credibly say that AEP already has CO2 sequestration technology.  Whatever they have is only on paper.  AEP has not even completed the site-selection process.  All that they have done is announced two locations where they want to start to work.

 

Maybe I'm taking this criticism a little personally b/c I've worked on clean coal technology for a few years now and can personally attest that it's moving at a breakneck pace (I even worked alongside some of the "creeps" you mentioned and they are pushing the process just like everyone else).  Many companies and government agencies have a vested interest in getting the problem solved, but to expect results overnight that can only be gathered by putting billions of dollars in equipment on the ground and into operation is irrational.

 

I can credibly say that CO2 capture technology exists (more than just on paper), however many technologies haven't been tested at commercial scales yet.  I'm not sure what you mean about the site selection process.  According to their press release, they will be going through validation/testing on a slipstream at a 1,300 MW plant in WV, then moving to a much larger scale at a plant in Oklahoma.  Doesn't that mean they've gone through "site selection"?  Perhaps you're getting this confused with their Oxyfuel project (another CO2 capture technology).

 

As far as CO2 sequestration goes.  The technology exists for enhanced oil recovery and much of that knowledge should be transferable to saline aquifers.  Again, it's probably a long road of testing, validation, and politics but you've got to start somewhere.  This country can't just waive it's hands in the air and say, "I give up, just leave all of that coal in the ground.  Let's just shut down 50% of our generation capacity worth trillions of dollars and give those rolling blackouts a try."

 

If you have any specific questions that Grist can't answer ;), let me know.  I'll try to point you in the right direction for good, technically-grounded information in the public domain.

 

Again, maybe I'm being too sensitive since this is basically my life's work so far.  So I apologize if I'm coming off as brash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^no surprise given our lack of transportation options, love affair with sprawl, and proximity to coal resources.

 

Plus, we are the seventh largest state in America, though the fact we rank fourth for pollution is pretty disturbing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING

Earth's inhabitants get 2015 deadline

Act fast or face doomsday, panel says

Saturday, May 5, 2007 3:26 AM

By Mike Lafferty

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Install high-efficiency light bulbs, junk the gas guzzler, turn the thermostat up for the air conditioner and down for the furnace.

 

And do it now, because it's almost too late.

 

In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set a deadline: 2015.

 

In a stark assessment of how close the planet is to a disaster, the international panel said yesterday that governments, businesses and inhabitants of Earth must get serious about global warming.

 

"This is a problem that everyone on the planet contributes to. It's easy to say, 'I'm the small guy and I don't count.' But we all count," said Dennis Tirpak, a former climate-change expert with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and one of the authors of the report.

 

.........

 

http://dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/05/05/IPCC.ART_ART_05-05-07_A1_QI6JN7F.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good column.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Green' power lights state buildings in Maine

 

By GLENN ADAMS, Associated Press

 

Monday, May 14, 2007

 

RUMFORD - The Androscoggin River's heavy springtime flow cascades down falls at the side of a brick hydroelectric plant not far from the middle of this western Maine papermaking city.

 

The view from below is more than scenic. You might say it's electrifying, considering the dam's output accounts for much of the power running the lights 50 miles away in the capitol, transportation garages, prisons and other state-owned buildings across Maine.

 

And while the water roars through the falls, Maine quietly is assuming a nation-leading role as the only state in which 100 percent of the electricity used in state-owned buildings comes from renewable sources. Those "green," nonfossil power sources also include wind, solar and geothermal power, and power from municipal waste generators.

 

........

 

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/070514powerlights.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotta beef with a sentence that is in two articles on this thread:

 

Dispatch, May 5th --

 

Later this century, average temperatures in parts of the Midwest could rise 5 to 12 degrees in the summer and 5 to 20 degrees in winter.

 

AP April 9th --

 

Parts of the Midwest could see average temperatures increase 5 degrees to 12 degrees in the summer and 5 degrees to 20 degrees in the winter later this century.

 

I'm not doubting the vaildity of the figures, but just where did thes statements' sources come from? If you look at the April 9th AP story...then read the May 5th Dispatch article it looks like this statement came from two different sources. The fact that the sentence is not sourced and is clearly being copied from article to article really bugs me. That's really awful journalism. Clearly there is a source to these statments, but what is it? And why wasn't it posted in either article? Where is an editor in this type of situation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt there would be that dramatic of an increase due to global warming. Maybe as a part of weather patterns but come on. One thing I've learned about journalists is that most of them don't know anything about anything. Either that or the writing is motivated by special interests. Kinda like stemcell research. Democrats don't give a $h!t about stemcell research! It's ammo, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotta beef with a sentence that is in two articles on this thread:

The fact that the sentence is not sourced and is clearly being copied from article to article really bugs me. That's really awful journalism. Clearly there is a source to these statments, but what is it? And why wasn't it posted in either article? Where is an editor in this type of situation?

I have often wondered to what degree a newspaper should quote and provide sources.  It could get quite extreme.  I am sure this is covered in journalism courses. 

 

Talking about extremes: I have heard +7 degrees in the summer and +10 degrees in the winter.  Summers like Arkansas.  yuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotta beef with a sentence that is in two articles on this thread:

The fact that the sentence is not sourced and is clearly being copied from article to article really bugs me. That's really awful journalism. Clearly there is a source to these statments, but what is it? And why wasn't it posted in either article? Where is an editor in this type of situation?

I have often wondered to what degree a newspaper should quote and provide sources.  It could get quite extreme.  I am sure this is covered in journalism courses. 

 

Talking about extremes: I have heard +7 degrees in the summer and +10 degrees in the winter.  Summers like Arkansas.  yuk

 

You gotta source scientific data, because without the source you can easily question it's validity. Especially if the same numbers are being used over and over again in different articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China overtakes U.S. as top emitter of carbon dioxide

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:06 PM

By AUDRA ANG

 

Associated Press

BEIJINGChina has overtaken the United States as the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions the biggest man-made contributor to global warming based on the latest widely accepted energy consumption data, a Dutch research group says.

 

According to a report released Tuesday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2 by about 7.5 percent in 2006. While China was 2 percent below the United States in 2005, voracious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the group said.

 

"It's an expression of their fast industrial production activities and their fast development," Jos G.J. Olivier, the agency's senior scientist who compiled the figures, said today. The agency is independent but paid by the Dutch government to advise it on environmental policy.

 

........

 

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/national_world/stories/2007/06/20/carbon.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see is a red X


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of those graphics are great!


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey

Samara Kalk Derby 6/18/2007 8:01 am

 

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

 

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

 

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

 

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

 

........

 

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

 

I'd also recommend Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", which presents some solid skepticism about "global warming" from a layman's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read it. Crichton should stick to dinosaurs and andromeda strains. I lost all respect for him when I read that alleged piece of "research." Sad that you think it's "solid" and worth reading, E Rocc. I wouldn't wipe my ass with the paper it's printed on.

 

People can live like pigs inside their homes all they want. But when they shit all over the planet that I must share with them, then I got a problem. Too bad people don't live responsibly, like they're part of a community anymore, especially in the U.S.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...