another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

Zdas04,

That story about Durango environmentalists suing over the conversion from coal to LNG seemed a little odd, so I looked it up. I couldn’t find anything close to your story (one lawsuit in the Durango area) against Amoco over unpaid royalties, some complaints by local residence over coal emissions from trains idling overnight). I’d like to read about the story if you could remember where you read about it.

 

[zdas04]

Didn't read about it. I was one of the Engineers on the feasibility project working in the back room to support the people negotiating. I saw the protests. I saw the disruption of the council meeting. I've seen the Durango Herald fail to report anti-social behavior by the environmental wackoos. I heard about the lawsuit from one of the negotiators when we shut the effort down.

I must say that if you only found one lawsuit against Amoco in La Plata County, Colorado then you didn't look very hard. I provided technical support to several dozen suits, and we were threatened with lawsuits on a daily basis.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[cranky108]

As I recall, most steam locomotives do exaust there steam through the stack so they can increase the air flow in the fire box. So the steam in the exaust is no new thing.

I would think there is more localism there than enviromentalism.

Most modern power plants, other than steam locomotives, don't produce a visable cloud from the stack. What we see here is complaints of polution from the cooling towers (dumb to think that recycled water evaprated into the air as polution). I don't think the public can notice the difference between coal and gas being burned (except if you want a black cloud).

Why is my car consitered inefficent, and receration activies are not? (by receration I mean the Drango train, RV's, and NASCAR). Would going to the movies in any way other than human powered way be consitered inefficent? What about going to visit family, or giving political speeches?

I think there is just to much hipicratical activity in the whole debate.

 

[rconnor]

Ok, the reason why I asked, zdas04, is because it reminds me of when <insert anecdote>. It’s just another great reason why you can’t trust deniers. Now, of course you won’t be able to find any articles on this because the Big Oil Lobby controls the local media.

(In the event that the satire is lost on anyone, this was satirical in nature)

 

[GregLocock]

It seems to me that one has to have a reputation for writing clearly before satire becomes succesful. Otherwise it just looks like muddled thinking as usual.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

speaking from experience, greg ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

As someone who is often in the misunderstoon catagory, I woulden't worry about it.

 

[cranky108]

It was cold here last night. -14, where is the warming?

 

[rb1957]

was it -20 the previous night ? (any previous night ...)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[SnTMan]

cranky, that's why they quit calling it that

 

[cranky108]

Two years ago we set a record high, yesterday we tied a record low/ high tempeture.

I don't see warming or cooling, just a wider range from the normal.

Seems to me if you want to measure the earth's tempeture, why not measure at some distance below the frost line. It should be a little more constant.

 

[TomDOT]

The Altamont wind farm in CA has less than 1% of the US wind power capacity, yet manages to have more than 80% of the eagle kills.

If CA were really environmentally sensitive, that's the one farm which would be shut down. The turbines are tiny by modern standards, and the placement is horrible from a bird-kill standpoint.

 

[btrueblood]

On the other hand, it goes towards showing how good CA is at keeping eagles alive - that there are enough of them flying around to run afoul of windmills. Places with zero eagle kills might be due to the widespread use of DDT or regular issuing of eagle hunting liscenses?

 

[rb1957]

i didn't think we were still using DDT ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TomDOT]

DDT was banned in the USA in 1972. Try again.

"Overall there has been an 80% decline in golden eagles in Northern California, with no golden eagles nesting near [Altamont Pass Wind Farm], although it is a prime habitat"

Paul Driessen (22 December 2012). "DRIESSEN: Big Wind tax credit exterminates endangered species". Washington Times. Retrieved 29 December 2012.

 

[cranky108]

Has it ever been shown that DDT kills eagles? No don't start that debate again, just send the study that shows the conclusions.

DDT isen't used in the US, but has been shown as an effective method for reducing maleria. And if used correctly it has a much lower side effect than when it was used in the US.
So I can't fault the continued use of it, although in the past it probally was misused here.

Call me a pessimest, but I don't believe everything I hear.

Birds and bats seem to be victoms of wind power, and power companies get fined for the birds flying into statonary power poles. Goverment picks winners and losers, again.

 

[rconnor]

btrueblood, quit trying to look at this issue in more depth! If this newspaper article said there’s been an 80% decline than of course 100% of that is because of the wind farms!

While we are on the subject of banning wind farms to protect avian species, I suggest that we also ban the top three killers of birds: cats, power lines and houses/buildings (or hunting depending on which study you look at) (link)!

Oh by the way, oilfield waste pits/waste water pits kill more birds than wind farms, but you know, whatever (oil pits = 0.5 to 1 million, wind farms = 0.440 million). Some other facts here

This is not to say that 440,000 bird deaths a year is a good thing or that the exemption from killing gold/bald eagles is right but, please, do a bit more research before forming much strong opinions.

 

[zdas04]

The oilfield waste article is dated 2003. In 2003-2008, oil producing states were passing very restrictive legislation that eliminated new pits after 2008 and required all existing pits to be remediated by 2010. Eliminating pits has significantly increased costs and many wells that would have been slightly better than marginal have become sub-marginal when you add the cost of closed loop drilling. The end result is that today it is exceedingly rare for a bird to be injured by oil & gas activities.

I've just spent an hour trying to find more current statistics and have been unsuccessful. Statistics on bird kills seem to be mostly made up. One [undated] article said the "at least 2 million" birds of prey are killed by oil & gas "activities", but doesn't cite any studies, another says "100 million birds are killed by running into windows each year" again without any citation. I think that authors in this field are prone to making stuff up.

I can't remember the last time I personally saw an oily pit, probably it was around 2011 and I noted it because oily pits had gotten rare enough to be remarkable. I've checked with several of my clients and they all report that they have not had to report a dead bird in several years (prior to 2003 it was a monthly occurrence for each of them).

Environmentalists have been reluctant to give any industry credit for improving their act. This is no exception.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[TenPenny]

You don't go to Alberta, I guess.

 

[TomDOT]

rconnor - I'm rather unconcerned about wind power-related bird deaths, except for the apparent single bad area in Altamont, CA.