Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 5 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
jmw

jmw

Industrial
Jun 27, 2001
7,435
0
0
GB
A new direction.
We are not here interested in whether Global warming is happening nor even if it is, if it is anthropogenic.

What we are really concerned about is the end of the scientific method, the failure to reveal computer model algorithms, and now, the apparent loss of global temperature data.

This, and similar articles, should cause us to reject any and all spending on AGW and CO2 until we can actually have the data freely available and can let the scientific method back into the game.




JMW
 
I also have serious doubts abut AGW but this train has left the station, is heading down hill, and has no brakes. I suggest that our time would be better spent, assembling and discussing a list of "good", "silly", and "questionable" developments. If the "Good" list could gain traction, then governments could quietly move resources from the silly projects to the good projects. Government subsidies are rendering silly projects economic. This has to stop. Here is a start to the list.

GOOD - insulation, smaller cars, better mass transit, hydro-electricity, oil sands

SILLY - Windmills, hydrogen, tidal, biomass, scrubbing CO2 from coal fired stations

QUESTIONABLE - Nuclear

HAZOP at
 

The National Review and Financial Post (linked to the National Post) are not exactly members of the engineering or scientific community. Heavily politicized, embracing radical nationalism and many times closer to the National Enquirer when it comes to science.

Does anyone actually expect any objectivity from these sources?
 
owg-Why do you think tidal energy is silly? You could also classify wavepower and geothermal and solar thermal and photovoltaic somewhere in your list.

Solar hot water has got to be a gimme for many climates. Last week I read that some new eco-development has banned solar hot water systems because they are ugly. Way to go boys.







Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
Oh dear, so the National Review and Financial Post are bad and I just know that this link isn't gonna be well received:
'cos its climate audit and we know the guys their don't believe in AGW.... no, that's not true, they don't believe in bad science.

So OK, BIffa didn't use just one or two selected trees for his study.... let us see the the reference to the source material with all the raw data exposed and the calculations and algorithms declared...and let's see the same for the CRU data....

Some people are real fussy but seem rarely to post any links.


JMW
 
Thanks for the comments Greglock. I suppose one of my problems is that by subsidizing some sensible applications, like solar for hot water in certain climates, we may render some silly applications economic. Geothermal makes sense where it is available, but drilling down 4 miles may not be an answer to our problems. I suspect tidal is silly in most locations. However there are a few special cases. We have some very high tides in Eastern Canada. Also I have read that a dam is going across the Severn Estuary in the UK. That may be another special case. I question whether these special cases can ever make a strategic contribution. Firstly there are not many of them, and secondly they need special one-off engineering and construction which is always more costly than the generally applicable technologies in which certain firms are able to specialize.

GOOD - insulation, smaller cars, better mass transit, hydro-electricity, oil sands

SILLY - Windmills, hydrogen, tidal, biomass, scrubbing CO2 from coal fired stations, waves

QUESTIONABLE - Nuclear, Photovoltaic

SPECIAL CASES BUT DON'T SUBSIDIZE ACROSS THE BOARD - Tidal, Geothermal,




HAZOP at
 
hasn't "biomass" been providing for the heating needs of most of the world's population since the invention of fire? What has put it suddenly on your "silly" list?
 
If I were to quote specific applications, I could include any of these on any of the three catagorys.
Examples:

Photovoltaic does make sence in many places there currently isen't commertial power, and where a large demand isen't required. Or where fuel costs are high, like space.

And Hydro-electric is just silly in the flats.

Solar hot water makes since when compaired to high fuel costs, like propane.
 
What we are really concerned about is the end of the scientific method, the failure to reveal computer model algorithms, and now, the apparent loss of global temperature data.
Click to expand...

The scientific method (source: Wikipedia)

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

Seems like this is exactly what is being done with AGW. The problem is that if the hypothesis is correct, we cannot debate our course of action much longer. Pascal's wager?

It amazes me that people can stand on one side of a debate and accuse the other side of making grandiose claims while claiming things like "the death of the scientific method".

Like the list idea; but serious questions about your example. Oil sands are "good" and biomass is "silly"? Silly is destroying our enviroment (with much more certainty than AGW) and sending our wealth to hostile nations.
 
Good comment ivymike. The list is intended to provide strategic direction. When there were only a few of us, biomass was good. Now there are almost 7 billion of us, we may be getting ahead of the biomass regeneration rate.

HAZOP at
 
cranky108 - I am hoping the lists will distinguish between strategic replacements for conventional oil and coal, and role players. You have pointed out some niche roles for photovoltaics and solar. But you may be correct that hydro-electric does not belong on the list of strategic replacements for oil and coal. Presumably all the cheap, well located hydro, has been developed. Future hydro will come on when energy costs get and stay high, and populations move to areas where hydro remains to be exploited. What do others think, should hydro move off the good list? How about changing the titles to:

STRATEGIC IMPACTS ON WORLD ENERGY BALANCE
ROLE PLAYERS ONLY
QUESTIONABLE



HAZOP at
 
Maybe a catagory of application specific would be approprate. As I am seeing here applications of small hydro, in water collection pipes (no dams), just to meet some renewable requirment.

If you are looking at a specific power requirment, then a starting point should include all of these. The list should be reduced quite quickly because of general location and quantity of energy.

Don't through out ideas because you don't like them. Who said Nucular is questionable. It works for the navy, and deep space crafts.

With the remaining ideas look at cost.
Electric lines are $1M a mile, gas pipe line costs $, trucking in fuel costs $, Etc.

Also consiter new ideas, and co-usage alternatives.

Energy is almost everywhere, but what type do we need, what is the cost to extract it.

Oil and coal are the standards which most every thing is measured, because it is the most common. But if you can't beat it in price, don't assume it's because they are to cheep, it maybe your idea just isen't that good.
 
cranky: coal and heavy oil will always win unless you put a price on atmospheric emissions.

Stop trying to solve an economic problem with technology! The existing economics PRODUCED our existing energy mix. Want a new energy mix? You need the economics there FIRST.
 
coal and heavy oil will always win unless you put a price on atmospheric emissions.

Two comments:
1. That is wrong for extreme conditions. Usually because of a lack of transportation infistructure.
2. What is the appropiate price to put on atmospheric emissions?

In a recent FORBES article, for a CO2 cost of $20 a ton, it will make natural gas a more cost effective fuel that coal or oil.
But what justification does the goverment have of puting a price of around $1700 a ton, which is the benifit value the goverment put on hibreds?

At $1700 a ton nucular probally would become very popular.
 
You need the economics there FIRST.

are you familiar with the term "negative externality?"
 
ivymike: read my posts on the other four forums. The negative externalities are what we need the taxes to compensate for.

Working against the market is a recipie for failure. A market mechanism is necessary to give the capital a reason to flow in the correct direction.
 
What exactly is the correct direction?

Energy is a big part of our lives, and by making it more expencive will lower our standard of living. Someone should tell the goverments that hurting the golden cow will hurt the recieved income from it.

No one wants to hear more unprovable theorys, but we also don't want taxes leveled based on false assumptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DirtSmuggler
  • Locked
  • Question
Where will Geotech engineers be most valued in 5 years? 6
Replies
10
Views
16
SWComposites
SWComposites
EngineerRam
  • Locked
  • Question
Decoupling of Buyer's and Seller's Agents Fees - Real Estate - Implications on Engineering Industry
Replies
11
Views
16
IRstuff
IRstuff
GregLocock
  • Locked
  • News
Engineers Australia pussyfooting around 50% unemployment in immigrant engineers
Replies
10
Views
11
GregLocock
GregLocock
271828
  • Locked
  • Question
Article on AI implementation in work flows
Replies
8
Views
9
IRstuff
IRstuff
geotechguy1
  • Locked
  • Question
Changes to the iron ring ceremony 4
2
Replies
31
Views
32
Sparweb
Sparweb
Back
Top