Kyoto 2 17

[QCE]

OK the last thread was too long!

This isn't really a question but:

Talk among yourselves about emissions and global warming and Kyoto.

To get started:

Emissions: bad - The world should try to form a world wide treaty that includes the USA.

Global Warming: Noone knows so why argue.

Kyoto: We can guess how it will turn out but won't truely know until 2012.

 

[samv]

I was thinking...

We can't agree on global warming.

We can't agree on whether or not Kyoto makes sense.

However, there is something that is happening right now as a consequence of our lifestyles that no one can deny. SMOG.

In this season of smog warnings that has gross, -and more importantly, unhealthy - haze lying in even pristine wilderness areas I can't help but think that society is way overdue for a major change in the way it consumes. We are taking baby steps in the right direction but our mind shift, in my opinion, is happening at much too slow a rate.

 

[moltenmetal]

The change won't happen until it hits people in the pocketbook and businesses squarely on the bottom line. $60/barrel crude is helping but that isn't enough. Even $100 crude won't do the job. We North Americans particularly need a carbon tax NOW, with the funds segregated to benefit initiatives to systematically reduce consumption.

It's the "problem of the commons", people. The air is a common resource, as is the climate- as is the entire planet. Individuals feel that it's their right to take resources from and dump waste to the commons at whatever rate they can afford (economically) to do so, maximizing individual benefit- and maximizing collective HARM because there is no cost or an inadequately assessed cost associated with it. Unless you enter this economic equation to correct the imbalance, you have no hope. Shaming people into "moral behaviour" out of compassion and fellow-feeling doesn't work, but taxing them DOES WORK. Even if 100% of the tax money is wasted, the mere fact of the tax deters wasteful consumption to some degree. And the fact of the matter is, even if the money is spent inappropriately on schools and hospitals or even the salaries of bureaucrats, it's still not wasted- at least it enters the local economy rather than lining the pockets of some Saudi prince!

The problem is that even amongst the educated, knowledgeable crowd of engineers on this board, you still see the entitlement mentality. It's a feeling of entitlement that has these otherwise knowledgeable people denying the risk of global warming and sticking their collective heads in the sand about the rest of the effects of the wanton squandering of fossil fuels which is the NORM in North America at the moment. Far easier to deny reality and do nothing, I guess, than it is to advocate for change. That lets people have what they want- for now. But we enginers have a responsibility to be LEADERS in this charge. We're the ones who know how to make our societies give people the benefits they deserve without wasting so much of our finite resources. We're the ones who know how to make our society work without dumping huge waste burdens on the "commons", or on our kids or grandkids. With knowledge comes responsibility, and we're failing in that responsibility in a major way.

 

[owg]

Moltenmetal - well said.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[BobPE]

moltenmetal:

you should see the world on the other side of the sand I have my head stuck in...it is a world where population is not growing exponentially...where the needs of people come first, then the environment....

I too see the world you see, where science is manipulated to the point that it causes harm to people...where the real problems are ignored....where feel good thoughts and ideas are mainstream....taxes fix the worlds ailments....

I think as engineers we need to get somewhere between the two worlds....Kyoto is not that common ground though....

Bob

 

[samv]

Moltenmetal - I like your thinking

Please elaborate on how engineers can be the leaders of this change.

Many of us are not in positions of leadership at work - and are not involved in politics.

 

[zdas04]

Moltenmetal,
I was with you until the last paragraph. Unavoidable waste is bad (and an incredible amount of waste is avoidable). Government policy should work to right that wrong.

Failure to agree with Koyoto should not imply someone has their head in the sand. It just isn't ipso facto. Engineers do need to lead on getting rid of waste, but that doesn't necessarily mean blindly following politicians and news media over the cliff.

I'm working on a big project right now where I'm trying to find beneficial use of every erg of energy that would typically be wasted. Some of the steps are pretty marginal in the short term but they have ok cost/benefit in the long term. This approach will reduce emissions by a few hundred tons and heat rejected by a few billion BTU's a year.

If each of us approaches projects with a conservation mindset it will make a significanly better impact on the planet than "sticking our heads into the sand" and agreeing to the flawed tenets and "Dan Rather Science" of Koyoto.

David

 

[GregLocock]

You do realise that a carbon tax encourages burning hydrocarbons (oil) at the expense of carbons (coal) ?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[zdas04]

The politicians (theoretically) get paid to find responsible ways to set and implement public policy. Hopefully, they would behave rationally and not build a tax structure that forces movement towards dirtier fuels--wait a mainute, we're talking about politicians. GregLocock, you're probably spot on.

I don't know of many politicians that have the stomach for any consumer tax that the economists will label as "regressive". We'll just move forward with very cheep hydrocarbons and stew in our own wastes.

David

 

[moltenmetal]

Yes, I realize that carbon taxes actually tax CARBON. They discourage the burning of all carbon sources that are not renewable by making them all cost more. They do NOT encourage the consumption of hydrocarbons- they merely discourage their consumption less so than they discourage the consumption of coal. They discourage the burning of coal most of all. Coal as currently consumed is by far the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, whether you consider CO2 to induce global warming or not.

How can engineers be leaders in the push toward energy efficiency? We can do this in many ways. Here are a few suggestions:

- stop debating the human causes of global warming for one thing. There are enough known, proven harms resulting from the production and consumption of fossil fuels that global warming is essentially irrelevant

- focus on energy efficiency in our designs. Clients won't spend capital to save on operating costs unless someone sells them on the benefit

- keep this issue in mind when choosing your job. Work for firms who are committed to a better future. That doesn't mean that you should stop working for hydrocarbon companies or car companies- quite the opposite in fact. It's in these very businesses that we can be of most benefit.

- advocate with politicians at all levels, both directly as citizens AND through our learned bodies and professional organizations and advocacy groups. Insist that at least an EQUAL number of dollars be spent on conservation initiatives to the number of dollars spent on new resource exploration and new energy generation and distribution infrastructure. It should be ten times the value, given that every dollar spent on consumption reduction actually IMPROVES the lives of people and the health of the environment

- stop selling the "technological fix", and fight it whenever it's presented, in whatever form it's presented. There IS no technological fix, and until everyone knows that, nobody will be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get the job done

These are just a few. Living what you believe is of course the most important. Hypocrites aren't listened to for long...

 

[jmw]

As Cajun says, "all it takes is time and money", and I would add, a little joined up thinking by politicians.

Take atmospheric sulphur; about a third comes from fossil fuels. Land based regulation is well advanced and now its the turn of the marine industry; the first legislation came into force in May this year.

The legislation proposes to reduce atmspheric sulphur by limiting the sulphur in fuels.

LSFO (Low Sulphur Fuel Oil) includes diesel, Marine Gas Oil and some of the distillates.
The definition according to MARPOL which established its first sulphur emission control area as the Baltic, is fuel with less than 1.5% sulphur, the global limit is 4.5%.

Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) is widely used.
A couple of years back it was $180 a ton and the industry was wondering if they would get back to $135 a ton of a year or two before that. Today it is $260 a ton, for any HFO.
With MARPOL we now need both 4.5% HFO and LSHFO i.e. 1.5% HFO.

We currently have around 6.5MT of LSHFO and need 17-20MT by 2007.

So far so good but HFO is produced from refinery "waste" the residue blended with distillates so how do you increase production?

The two sources of LSHFO are residue from low sulphur crude refining or residue desulphurisation (RDS). Whatever the source, they are going to sell at the same price.

SO: to be effective the legislators need the refiners to invest in RDS but the high sulphur crude refiners are saying "why invest in RDS and compete at a lower margin with the low sulphur crude refiners who have no added costs? If we have to do something with 4.5% residue we'd rather invest in crackers and convert it all to distillate fuel, its more profitable"

Fine, so now the marine fuel instead of jumping $65 a ton (the expected premium for LSHFO) will probably climb much more due to the competion for the continuing supply of 6.5Mt in a 17-20MT market(assuming the low sulphur crude refiners don't also convert to distillates) and the losers in the marine industry will compete with land users for the diesels and distillates at a price somewhat above the current $519 a ton for MGO.

Now since HFO at $135 a ton represented 70-80% of the operating costs of a ship, what do you think a $520 (plus) a ton fuel cost is going to do to freight rates?

It is important that we have low sulphur targets but what price will we pay, rather, what price will we pay more than we ought to pay? According to one major oil company they don't think the legislators have even thought about how to ensure the supply of LSHFO that they need to achieve their legislative objectives.

Incidentally, most HFO is already below 4.5% so the global cap will make no change.
Most fuel in the Baltic is already below 0.5% sulphur but, because of the supply problem and making the LSHFO go further, 0.5% LSHFO will be blended with 4.5% HFO to make 1.5% HFO .... are you with that? it means that in the first declared low sulphur region the atmospheric sulphur will actually increase significantly.

Of course the legislation will change and the limit will reduce to 0.75% or even 0.5% and more low sulphur regions will be declared but legislating the targets isn't going to secure the necessary fuel supplies.

Any one got a solution?

By the way, in my paper today the French want to start work on the first Fusion reactor and Greenpeace is opposed.

Are we in the twilight zone or what?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[corus]

Greenpeace are not opposed to the idea of fusion reactors per se but argue that it will be 50 years before any benefit might be forthocoming at a time when it is necessary to reduce emmissions now. Given the high cost and unproven technology they argue the money could be better spent elsewhere. Seems a reasonable point of view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ke29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/29/ixworld.html

corus

 

[jmw]

When do they want the 50 years to start then?
What sort of guarantees do they want?

How will the design problems be solved without spending the money and getting stuck in?

6 billion is a lot of money, to you and me, chump change for Bill Gates and, in a multi national consortium deal probably a whole lot less than is being consumed in subsidies for wind turbines.

Most governments can waste that sort of money on beurocracy without even missing it, they can always get more... from you and me.

Besides when was it ever a case of government funding being either spent on this or spent on that? If the money isn't spent on this do they think it will be wisely spent on what they want? That argument hasn't worked with politicians since the dawn of time.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Sorry Corus,
I'm going to repost my answer in the new thread on the International Thermonuclar Reactor where it now belongs.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Slugger926]

I thought we were heading towards an Ice Age per another thread. Whats all of this Global Warming stuff? Why have we been having such mild summers compared to 20 years ago?

http://www.iceagenow.com

 

[SacreBleu]

Slugger,
The perception that the summers are mild is just a normal variation of climate.
The important point stressed in one of the pro-environmental essays is that normally "mean" temperature changes by 1 degree in 1000 years, but when the "mean" temperature changes by 1 degree in 10 years, the results are drastic (for causing extreme weather, and upsetting the ecology). I don't recall the exact criteria ( degrees change per time elapsed).

 

[corus]

A graph on this site :

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

shows how global temperatures are increasing. Because Utah has had a mild summer doesn't relate to the rest of the wrold. In fact in europe (a land mass off the coast of america) had the highest recorded temperatures in the 1990s. In 2003 (or was it 2004) there numerous deaths caused by a recod heatwave in europe. The BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/global_change.shtml

say that more extreme weather conditions will occur with greater maximum and mininum temperatrur variations. I look forward to hearing the lone voice of GWB at the G8 conference explain his denial of global warming.

corus

 

[GregLocock]

Oh well, I guess I don't get an invite.

let's just reiterate the Kyoto fairytale, again

1) the world is getting warmer (cynic remarks except for the bits that are getting colder)

2) the world getting warmer is a bad thing (apart from those places that benefit)

3) the world is getting warmer because we are burning more stuff (as opposed to the sun getting hotter, or other natural causes)

4) if we reduce emissions of some gases it will actually make a worthwhile difference



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[QCE]

Well GWB now says that he believes that global warming exists but he believes that it will be a slow process and it should be handled by investing in technology and not reducing carbon emissions.

I thought the new technologies were meant to reduce carbon emissions? Wow!

 

[jmw]

As I understand the situation, Kyoto is a failure if:
(1) it required the US co-operation and didn't get it; therefore continuing to commit to this plan is futile as it is guaranteed not to succeed.
(2) it didn't require the US comitment, in which case where is the problem?

As it is, Kyoto is in the "just a bit pregnant" category.

It may have been that Kyoto evolved based on an assumption (perhaps from the position of the previous administration) that the US would sign on the dotted line like everyone else.

My understanding (probably flawed) is that GWB didn't say "there is no such thing as global warming", though to jduge by many of the contributors here there is a division of opinion that might justify some doubt (though when the fire alarm rings you respond whether it might be a hoax or not) but that Kyoto unfairly affected the US economy more than any other.... for whatever reason.

At that point both parties should have worked to find an alternative that did satsify the US position and which everyone else could agree to. The old saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat"; there is more than one way to reach the objective.

However, there may have been some for whom seeing GWB and the US embarassed was worth more politically than solving the problem.

This is a problem with any legislation and perhaps especially with global legislation: the need to find a mechanism to achieve the objectives that doesn't unfairly advantage or disadvantage one or other party.
The secret of any good deal? both parties are happy.

The EU constitution is a case in point. Surprise, surprise, France and Holland rejected it, for different reasons, but a rejection none the less. Yet some politicians will not face the reality of the situation and move on.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[QCE]

Actually the European countries wanted stronger targets but the USA wanted lower targets during the Kyoto summit. The USA got its way and targets were lowered to get the USA on board. Then the USA said hey these targets are too low they will not work so we are out of here.

The USA could solve the problem by saying that we will reduce emissions by using new technology. Instead of saying we will fight global warming by using new technologies but we will not reduce carbon emissions.