Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

[jmw]

OK, so if you are proposing we use less fuel then to the extent we can and to the extent that we are ot chasing diminishing returns I don't think there is too much argument that we ought not to waste and we ought to care for our environment.
Good so far as it goes but investing in wind farms is pretty disruptive.
In the UK they today claim that it will create 250,000 jobs... yes, 250,000. I guess they learned from the US experience where the jobs claimed were compared with jobs lost in the rest of the power industry and found to be significantly out of balance... the job gains were fewer than the job losses.
Of course, the small print on the UK declaration (by the industry itself so pretty self serving and if we are going to cast a clout at the oil industry we have to remember that the billions pent on these issues go to the proponents of these schemes) we have all sorts of caveats.

But once you've done away with gas, oil and coal fired facilities you can't just put them back overnight. There is a degree of commitment that requires, in my opinion, better and more robust evidence than so far presented.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Better than taxing everyone to pay for the waste of a few-
I completely disagree. Moreover, I think that policy would have the exact reverse effect as intended.

In your post of 2 Jul 09 7:53, you stated that

far too many people feel that they are entitled to consume whatever they can "afford".

The rich, precisely because they're rich, are not likely to curb much on their consumption because despite the additional taxes, they can still afford it. Further, with respect to the poor, they're just as likely to increase consumption because their consumption would now be subsidized by the rich and/or government. The net effect is that overall consumption would probably go up and the only entity to suffer is the environment. That's not the goal, at least I don't think it's the goal.

But even if you put the tax money in a pile and burn it, rather than giving it to the poor (or the landlords of the poor, more properly), we'd still be farther ahead than we are now. Suddenly there'd be a payback on investments to reduce energy consumption and to generate renewable energy.

That doesn't add up. As stated above, consumption by the rich is not likely to go down substantially, so there is very little benefit there. Giving the money to the landlords of the poor is just giving the back to the rich so the only thing you've done is introduce a cost layer of overhead in the collection of taxes and subsequent redistribution. No benefit to the environment there, but the middle man is now making money. And if you don't render those tax receipts back to the poor, then all you've is tax and hurt the poor - the people least able to absorb such a tax policy.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

This discussion is rapidly reaching the exact same point with exactly the same participants that #3 was at when I stopped opening that thread.

I work in the Oil & Gas industry so I guess folks will say that I'm just a "stooge". Oh well. I can't find any evidence that any of my clients are in any way pushing an agenda like

Umm, to me it sounds EXACTLY like the petroleum-industry funded anti-AGW camp

If they're going to fund it, I want to know where to get my share.

In 1996 I worked for BP. I did a project that was both "green" and profitable. When I was writing it up for an SPE HSE conference, the Enviro-weenie on the board insisted on reviewing my paper before submittal. It came back with my phrase "This project reduced the amount of so-called greenhouse gases that some people claim are affecting the global climate" marked out and replaced with "This project reduced greenhouse gas emissions". That was the only change. Also, that same company is the world's largest producer of solar panels. I don't see anyone in Big Oil with an anti AGW agenda. I also don't see space in anyone's budget to fight this battle. Think about it--no matter what happens, the Petroleum industry is going to produce all the oil and gas that is economically recoverable regardless of Kyoto, the UN, or us gnats buzzing around.

The conspiracy theory of life is a staple of the world's Environ-Weirdos I'm thoroughly sick of it. Companies cannot have an opinion. People have opinions and I can assure you that in every level of every industry, there are people with every imaginable opinion. Let's talk about published data, not about the evil executives that are spinning the data.

David

 

[owg]

moltenmetal stated "Actions such as carbon sequestration, which actually HASTEN our consumption of the source fossil fuels by reducing the overall energy efficiency of the process of obtaining energy from them, should be viewed with a jaundiced eye." While capture, transportation, and sequestration (css) will undoubtedly require more energy than venting CO2 to atmosphere, I am disappointed that he casts css in such a negative light. It seems to me to be the best way a company in the oil sands business can hope to meet CO2 emission standards which are bound to come in the next few years. Even if such a company spent a lot on reducing customers' consumption of oil, the company would be hard pressed to book the credits. As a group of engineers, I would like to see discussion on carbon capture from power plants in particular.


HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[zdas04]

owg,
He's not wrong (about that). I recently looked at a sequestration project that was going to require 130% of the energy output of the plant (really high injection pressure and the client insisted on liquid transport). There's just no justification for adding that much capital, fuel consumption, pollution for a "green" project, but the client is pretty certain that government disincentives to venting CO2 will make it work (a power plant that puts nothing on the grid and has to purchase power over and above its capacity to run back end processes can't be smart).

The "carbon tax", "cap and trade", and whatever voodoo follows those potential disasters will cause some good projects to become uneconomical, and will spin off many very bad projects that the artificial nonsense will make locally and temporarily profitable. When politicians are relying on Kate Couric for technical data, the outcome has to suck.

David

 

[hokie66]

I could not agree more, David. Carbon trading and carbon sequestration are the most illogical ideas to come down the track. Politically motivated in the main to be seen to be doing something. Then the opportunist money grabbers got involved when they saw a chance to make a buck. Neither scheme helps, and they take attention away from things that would.

 

[moltenmetal]

Cajuncenturian: if a carbon tax behaved the way you described, I wouldn’t be in favour of it either.

First off, rich or poor, I don’t think people relish the idea of spending a large fraction of their money on electricity and fuel. What they want is the convenience and comfort that these sources of energy offer them. Some of that comfort and convenience is going to be gone forever, but most of it can be achieved for far less energy input than we’re using now with only modest investment. The trouble is, energy is SO cheap at present that those investments are foolhardy.

A carbon tax would need to be implemented as only one of a series of initiatives all related to the same goal: weaning people from their fossil fuels addiction.

The biggest problem in your argument is that you assume that governments would fund the energy consumption of the poor, such that there would be no impetus for them to reduce their consumption. That would be an idiotic program indeed. Rather, the carbon tax money would be used to fund energy efficiency programs, public transit etc.

Here, the landlords of the poor are often public housing organizations, funded by the taxpayer. Public housing units are some of the most energy-inefficient (and uncomfortable) places in Canadian cities, yet no capital funding is forthcoming to upgrade them- even though the public is also on the hook for the utility bills. A carbon tax with a grant program for energy efficiency upgrades would make a world of difference.

You are probably correct that for the very rich, nothing you might do on the tax and credit level will be effective in reducing their consumption. That’s where regulation and other public policy measures would be needed. Energy efficiency standards can be improved in building codes, regulations for new vehicles, appliances etc.

Will any of this matter given China and India’s development? Probably not. On the other hand, China and India’s development will eventually do for fossil carbon pricing what a carbon tax would- without the benefit of the tax money to fund the efficiency upgrades.

 

[owg]

David,
Thanks for that information on the very inefficient capture, ship, and sequester project. Is there anything in the public domain on it?

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[CajunCenturion]

The biggest problem in your argument is that you assume that governments would fund the energy consumption of the poor, such that there would be no impetus for them to reduce their consumption.

No, I am making no such assumption; I'm responding to what you proposed. You proposed the subsidy, which is why I don't think it's a good idea.

In your post of 2 Jul 09 7:53, and I quote,

We need to tax fossil fuels to provide both a disincentive against unnecessary, wasteful consumption AND to provide assistance to those who want to reduce their consumption but can't afford the capital to do so.

Those are your words, not mine. You are explicitly suggesting to provide assistance to those who can't afford the capital to do so. That IS a subsidy. That being said, we agree to the conclusion that providing such assistance removes the impetus to conserve.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

OWG,
No, I did the analysis in February of this year and my report was covered by an NDA, I won't be writing that one up or talking about where it is or what sink they were planning to use. I was pretty discouraged when I saw the magnitude of the negative energy balance. It was interesting that on that project, dense-phase injection used considerably less energy than liquefaction (and less than the total plant output, but not much). Liquefaction required as much refrigeration hp as it did compression/pump hp even with turbo expanders (J-T valves were a non-starter because the energy lost in the dP exceeded the energy required to get the same dT with a refrigeration plant by quite a bit).

I may write up a generic version of the project one day, but I don't have any plans right now.

David

 

[2dye4]

My two cents, that's all its worth.

From a cursory inspection of the temperature charts that have been produced using historical reconstruction and recent actual temperature measurements it appears as though the warming is NOT a natural event as the rate of rise is unprecedented over the measured span.

Independent of anything else, greenhouse gasses do trap heat through a lop sided absorption spectrum. That solar radiation is broadband, and the earth absorbs and re radiates a narrow band of radiation which interacts with the atmosphere is commonly understood.

Thus viewing the Earth as an isolated thermodynamic system it does and always has absorbed more energy than escapes from it.

So greenhouse gasses increase the rate at which the earth captures heat. But whether this heat is "stored " in some form like a very high specific heat medium or it disperses into a very large volume thus minimizing actual temperature rise is THE most important question.

What mechanisms shift thermal energy around the globe and what is the overall specific heat of the planet in a broad sense. It just could be that the added absorption rate is "handled" by natural dispersion mechanisms. On the other hand maybe these thermal energy transfer systems would change their operation due to the excess, and this by product could endanger our existence.

The answer lies in the vast pool of data available and computer modeling and estimation procedures.
In the meantime what is wrong with curtailing the usage of greenhouse gasses until we understand it better.

Like any investment it causes temporary pain but pays off later. We could easily learn to live with less energy usage.

 

[jmw]

From a cursory inspection of the temperature charts that have been produced using historical reconstruction and recent actual temperature measurements it appears as though the warming is NOT a natural event as the rate of rise is unprecedented over the measured span.

Take a look at

http://www.surface

temperature.org (and

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf)

"In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable."

And the killer quote:

The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the
twentieth century.

Then allow that this record has been further manipulated by adjusting the GISS data for various effects including, for example, Urban Heat Island effects... and the corrections also exceed the magnitude of the threatened warming.





JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Laplacian]

There a "clean coal" power plant proposed to be built in Miss. with an 800MW capacity. 500MW will be used for base plant load.

 

[moltenmetal]

Cajun: providing subsidy on the CAPITAL investment required to conserve energy DOES provide an incentive to conserve.

Providing subsidy on the energy CONSUMED by subsidizing fuel or electricity costs we both agree would be wrong-headed and counterproductive.

 

[2dye4]

jmw.

I don't really buy the temperature stations study. It is rife with lack of scientific method.

In the picture the latex station is positioned between the other two control stations. Their proximity would guarantee a bias toward higher reading in the latex station.

Then he enlisted a group of "volunteers" to evaluate the quality of other stations around the country, were they qualified and unbiased ??

Not to say he didn't find some stinkers as the station in Chico which is obviously mis placed.

He misrepresented the meaning of the guidance given by NOAA in placing temperature sensors.

""Changing the technology and locations of temperature stations and a blatant disregard for NOAA’s own rules about
keeping sensors at least 100 feet away from heat sources and radiative surfaces""

Is he speaking of any surface that can reflect radiation.
That is NOT what the NOAA directive means. The NOAA directive means item emitting heat radiation not absorbed first through the atmosphere. Otherwise it would be pretty hard to site a sensor 100 ft from anything, even grass emits infrared radiation.

That's all i need to read of that to know it is partisan motivated.

By the way NOAA has attempted to estimate the biases at stations and adjust them out of the data. Which is not very difficult to do.

If an unbiased study is available i would like to know about it.

 

[owg]

Thanks for the summary of the capture, transport, and sequester study. I see from HSE that supercritical CO2 is not nice if it escapes from the pipeline. "This rapid, violent expansion causes the temperature of escaping CO2 to fall very rapidly, frequently below -80°C. while the particles of solid CO2 formed (dry ice) will result in projectiles expelled at very high velocities."


HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

2dye4
I wish I could be so sanguine and assume that those in charge "know what they are doing."

If anyone knows of the official response to Surface Temperature please let us know.

The condition of some of these stations ought to make it pretty clear that something is at the very least questionable in the data.

If these stations had been intended for the purpose to which their dat is now put then no doubt there would be proper routine audits of the stations and measurements just as you would have your instruments calibrated and certified.

It has to be evident that from the condition of some of these stations that they have been forgotten about.

SO, they have corrected the data, have they? well how do we know that the standard they assume for a particular station is the standard achieved?

If you were going to use the data for a short term comparative means or whether or not to have a cook out, OK.

You can't tell me that you are happy with this set up? Have you visited the sites?
Has their work been audited? Its fine to criticise the volunteers but where is the official audit?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

My mistake,

http://www.Surfacestations.org

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

At

http://www.Surfacestations.org

in the FAQ is this:

Q: Why are you doing this? Isn't all the data discontinuity and urban biases accounted for by all the adjustments made to the climate data sets as described in the USHCN home page?

A: Yes adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the thermometer. To date all such studies conducted have been data analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data inconsistencies.

Published works by Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Dev Nyogi of Purdue University, and Georg Taylor of Oregon State University have demonstrated that a significant number of USHCN and other weather stations used in the climate record have some significant, and in some cases severe measurement biases near the thermometers in these climate stations of record. There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters within inches of the sensor, and sensors being located in the middle of large areas of asphalt/concrete and directly attached to buildings all in violation of standard published NOAA practices for temperature measurement. None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers. See the Odd Sites page for examples of these types of issues with USHCN stations.

This website exists as a repository of such information to compile a list of stations with issues and a list of stations that are issue free. Knowing this will help produce better data and hence better climate predications.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[zdas04]

OWG,
Liquid CO2 has that problem in a big way. A while back, Montmayor posted a description of a failure of liquid C02 that resulted in a nearly isothermal pressure drop to the saturation curve, then following the saturation curve to atmospheric pressure at approx -110F. The vessel wasn't designed for that temp and failed dramatically next time it was pressurized. I'm sure the potential for freezing and launching projectiles during the leak is real.

On the other hand, dense phase (i.e., super critical) CO2 can't exist below 88F and 1070 psia. If (say) you have dense phase CO2 at 90F and 2,000 psia then it is feasible that you could have a rupture that was small enough to cause J-T cooling into the liquid region and then you have the liquid CO2 problems. If you are going to mess with super critical CO2, you really have to make sure the temperature stays well above 90F so a failure drops the pressure below 1070 psia before it drops the temperature below 87.7F and the CO2 stays in vapor form.

David