Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[moltenmetal]

LCruiser: if electricity is cheaper than natural gas per joule delivered, your electricity consumption is subsidized- either in terms of the capital expenditure to build a nuclear plant or otherwise. Your peaking electricity probably already comes from natural gas...

Reducing carbon emissions by 30% would reduce the amount of expenditure on fossil fuels by 30%- each and every year. Bet the average person pays way more than $2000 per year in terms of the fossil fuel energy content in everything they consume every year- and the cost of THAT would be going down by 30%. If the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions was only $600 per person, that's a break-even position!

Let's not forget about how much cheaper fossil fuels will become when their demand drops by 30%! We can continue to use them where their properties make them the energy source of choice, such as for the transportation needs we can't meet with transit and rail etc..

The only way it will cost more is if we keep growing our consumption rates while switching to more expensive sources of energy. If that's the only approach taken, then we agree- stuff will get more expensive. The good news about that is that people conserve what they find to be expensive, and waste what they find to be cheap. If what's making things more expensive is government taxation, we also have access to at least some of those taxes to spend on other things we value, like hospitals and schools etc.

If the real target is energy efficiency rather than switching to alternative sources of energy and continuing our "waste as normal", it's a straight "capital now for ongoing savings" proposition. That will hardly wreck our economies- it will merely spur investment and increase the workload of people who build energy-efficient equipment. Chief amongst those people are we engineers.

Your "wrecking the economy" argument is no more a slam dunk than the argument over the nature and causes of global warming. You don't want to take the risk with the economy, and I don't want to take the risk with the world's climate.

 

[2dye4]

Lets find a way to stop heating with electricity. This is enormously wasteful because we start with heat convert that to mechanical then electrical then transport and of course electrical to heat is 100% effecient.
How effecient is this in terms of BTUs burned at the station then delivered via electricity.
We should burn carbon fuel directly at the home or in small neighborhood heat plants.

 

[GregLocock]

I'd love to see a true efficiency comparison for heating via gas delivered via road-tanker, vs electricity.

For that matter, what is the direct efficiency of a gas fire? How much heat goes up the chimney? How much cold air is brought into the room to burn the gas? How much less efficient is it to heat the whole room rather than putting a fan heater near your chair?

"if electricity is cheaper than natural gas per joule delivered, your electricity consumption is subsidized- either in terms of the capital expenditure to build a nuclear plant or otherwise. "

Sorry, that is incorrect . Here are some other explanations - taxes/profit taking on gas, or electricity generated via PV or hydro or wind, where the instantaneous cost might be zero.




Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[jmw]

Re the last few posts about domestic heating:
Of course, when we heat our houses we do heat all the air passing through them the structure and ourselves.
But our sensation of comfort is governed by skin temperature.
It was suggested we could use microwave heating with the microwaves tuned to heat just our skin surface. Far more efficient!
Of course, most people are familiar with microwave ovens and one supposes there would be a problem persuading people they won't end up like the TV dinner (or taste as bad).
How good an idea this was, I couldn't say.

Global dimming: not to be confused with the Global cooling or new ice age theory, this suggests that over a 30 year period the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth's surface has dropped by around 10% (or was that 22% in Israel?). The data seems quite solid and the cause is attributed to pollution. It's effect is on cloud formation (wrong sized drops among other things) and it is said to have had a serious impact on the rainfall patterns, particularly the monsoons.

Now this is yet another bit of research which appears not to address solar activity variation. In fact the program (yes, Horizon in a less blatantly dumbed down version of its former self than is usually the case) assumed that solar activity was constant.

Apparently, during the 3 day lack of air activity in the US following 9/11, the lack of aircraft contrails resulted in an increase in temperature difference (between highest and lowest daily temperatures) of 1degC. and once air travel resumed, back down it went again.

Global Dimming in our Global Warming world?
What do they say this means?
That if global dimming can have such a profound affect and that if it has been masking global warming, just how much worse is global warming than they thought it was?

Which leaves us nowhere.

Global Dimming wasn't dismissed but it was aligned to the global warming theme by declaring that if Global dimming has as dramatic an effect as this then global warming must be so much worse than they've been telling us; i.e. we are seeing of global warming is the net effect between global dimming and global warming.
Thus, it seems to me, if we eliminate pollution we'll all see the true effects of global warming. An irony? only if global warming is exclusively or predominantly due to anthropogenic causes.

Or did I miss something here?

I didn't miss the use of those same temperature sensors all over the planet being used to demonstrate global dimming, you know, the ones used to show global warming... heat island effects et al. but no bristle cone pines and no ice cores.
By the way, how does IPCC factor in the Global Dimming argument into its models?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

There was a suggestion that the SO2 released by coal fired power stations increased the albedo of the Earth, hence compensating (by >100%) for their CO2 emissions.

Given that CO2 is fairly small contributor to the greenhouse effect, that doesn't seem unfeasible, and it sure is an inconvenient truth for the consensus boys.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[controlnovice]

There are other costs associated with 'saving the earth', other than the cost of gas vs electricity.

In the US, the government is pushing ethanol from corn. So now, the price of corn has doubled in the last year (much of it subsidized).

So cattle farmers (just one example) have to pay double for their feed, if they can get it. This increase in price is passed on to the butcher/dairy farmer, and this price increase is passed on to the consumer.

Another example: In one of the Northern Europe countries, they had/have a huge push for, I believe, bio diesel generators. So, with all of these new generators, they needed fuel. A SE Asian country was providing the fuel base, I believe palm oil. In order to provide enough palm oil for the demand, this SE Asian country started to clear cut and burn existing fields/forests/rain forests, etc, to get the land to grow more palms. This, in effect, created more CO from the burning of the area than the N Europe country would have saved by burning the bio diesel (instead of standard dielsel) AND started a whole economy on deforestation.

The above stories are from a poor memory....

By creating a panic, something worse can, and is, happening.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

 

[ewh]

I'm still curious as to why industrial hemp isn't even being seriously considered. High cellulose content, high seed oil content, and little effort to grow (after all it is a "weed"). High quality rope and fabric are also products. This doesn't have to be a drug quality plant, but can contain very little THC (street dealers will still have their market).
Why is this plant being kept in the shadows?

 

[FACS]

Good point on industrial hemp; it's been argued over and over, and no one gives a good answer.

Clothing, Oils, rope, energy source... god gives us a useful plant and we shun it.

Charlie

http://www.facsco.com

 

[epoisses]

@GregLocock
What you mentioned about SO2 is true according to the IPCC. Maybe not >100% since the contribution of SO2 on global warming has not been very well quantified yet (like CO2's!).

Global warming is becoming a BIG issue in France, now that there's the conference in Paris this week. Yesterday between 19:55 and 20:00 many people switched off all the lights as a gesture. I refused this nonsense and came to work by bike this morning. While pedaling I calculated that my car emits 300 times as much CO2 as my two light bulbs and my tv that were on yesterday evening. Not counting the fact that 80% of France's electricity comes from zero-CO2 emitting nuclear plants. But it's not politically correct to inform Joe Public to well because it spoils people's good intentions to change things :-(

 

[dcasto]

There are protests in Mexico because of corn being exported to the US. BIO SCHMIO!! Get the weight off to save fuel and convert to nuke power.

 

[SnTMan]

I just read a newspaper article about the latest announcements by the IPCC. I guess it doesn't matter what we do, we're toast (in the future).

"..unstoppable for centuries..", "..no matter how much humans control their pollution."

No need to worry any longer.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070202_Ne_A2_Direc40584

Regards,

Mike

 

[SnTMan]

Well, that's interesting. The online version is a little tamed from my print version. See the PDF.

It's that old memory hole again...

 

[tgmcg]

Global Warming Hysteria....It's all about money and politics. The latest proclamation that the next 10 years are critical is transparently political. Hmmm...let's see....2 more years of Bush plus 8 years of Gore (or Hillary?) = 10. What an amazing coincidence!

They can't model what has happened or accurately predict what will happen, but they're certain about the next 10 years.

They're already lining up at the government trough. The socialists and their proxy, the environmental movement, want to play kingmaker again, as they always do. In return for which the money will flow once again.

Some interesting information about our would be world savior, Al Gore;

GORE & MOLTEN METAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Inventors of a new process to convert campaign contributions into government contracts.

Timeline

1989 Molten Metal Technology, Inc. (MMT) founded by William Haney. The company seeks to develop a process by which hazardous and nuclear wastes can be melted down and recycled into useful products. (The Village Voice, 4/1/97)

1993 MMT was one of 18 firms to obtain research grants to find ways to rid the nation of nuclear waste. The grant was $1.2 million. "Department of Energy (DOE) consultants warned that Haney’s process offered ‘no significant advantage’ to ‘justify its preferred development’ over rivals’." (Time, 6/9/97)

February 1993 Molten becomes a publicly-traded company. (Forbes, 1/22/96)

September 1993 MMT opens its Fall River, Mass. plant. Peter Knight arranged for Assistant Energy Secretary Thomas Grumbly to be a guest speaker at the plant’s opening. "Grumbly suggested that the firm could receive as much as $200 million in federal work, which sent the stock soaring." (Time, 6/9/97)

January 1994 The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reports that Molten’s new process was probably inappropriate for the kind of waste at most nuclear weapons sites. (Time, 6/9/97)

March 1994 The General Accounting Office states that Molten’s technology was at least 13 years from full development. (Forbes, 1/22/96)

March 24, 1994 Molten contributes $15,000 to the Democrat National Committee (DNC). (Federal Election Commission [FEC] reports)
The same day, Molten receives a $9 million federal contract extension from the DOE. (Time, 6/9/97)

August 1994 MMT forms a limited partnership with Lockheed Martin Corporation, M4 Environmental L.P. (MMT press release, 10/23/95)

April 1995 Al Gore travels to the Molten plant in Fall River, Mass., calling Haney a "shining example of American ingenuity." (Time, 6/9/97)

June 14, 1995 Molten executives and employees contribute $10,000 to the Clinton/Gore ’96 campaign. (Time, 6/9/97)

The same day, Molten receives a $10 million federal contract extension from DOE. (Time, 6/9/97)

Late 1995 A technical peer-review panel says the DOE should cease funding Molten at the end of the fiscal year (November 1995). (Time, 6/9/97)

May 7, 1996 Molten contributes $10,000 to the DNC. (Time, 6/9/97)

May 10, 1996 Molten receives an $8 million contract extension from DOE. (Time, 6/9/97)

June 27, 1996 Lockheed Martin contributes $100,000 to the DNC. (Time, 6/9/97)

September 25, 1996 The Molten/Lockheed partnership receives a $27 million federal contract. (Time, 6/9/97)

October 1996 DOE announces it would grant Molten an $8 million research contract through March 1997, $12 million less than investors expected. Within a day, Molten’s stock sinks 49 percent in value. (Forbes, 4/21/97)

October 23, 1996 DOE issues statement expressing enthusiasm for Molten’s process. (MMT press release, 10/24/96)

December 1996 A DOE panel concludes that Molten’s technology poses environmental and safety risks and might not be cost-effective. (Time, 6/9/97)

February 12, 1997 San Diego-based law firm Milberg Weiss files class action suit in U.S. District Court (Mass.). (The Village Voice, 4/1/97) The stockholder’s class action suit charged that Haney and other company officials gave unrealistically rosy projections about Molten’s prospects to investors in 1995 and 1996. (Forbes, 4/21/97)

The Players

Peter Knight is "the hub of Gore’s political circle. He ran Gore’s House and Senate office for years, helped finance his campaigns and chaired the Clinton-Gore re-election effort in 1996. … From where he stood between Haney and Grumbly, Knight came up with a fruitful arrangement: he began lobbying the Gore appointee [Grumbly] on behalf of the businessman he was soliciting for Gore campaign cash." (Time, 6/9/97)

William Haney is a "former Gore campaign staffer," according to The Washington Times, 5/31/97, and a former fundraiser for Gore, according to Forbes, 1/22/96. Haney founded MMT in 1989 and sought to mine lucrative government contracts for environmental clean-up.

Thomas Grumbly is a "Gore protégé." (Time, 6/9/97) He "was staff director of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee from 1981 to 1982." (PR Newswire, 7/22/87) Until recently, he was the Clinton/Gore-appointed Assistant Energy Secretary in charge of the government’s nuclear waste clean-up program.

Eugene Berman, who was MMT’s Vice President of Governmental and External Affairs, has had a long relationship with Grumbly. They both worked together at Clean Sites Inc. "NONPROFIT Clean Sites Inc. appointed Thomas P. Grumbly president and Eugene Berman executive vice president. Clean Sites is a nonprofit organization that encourages the cleanup of hazardous waste sites." (The Washington Post, 8/17/87)

The Quid-Pro-Quo

All told, MMT, its employees and Lockheed Martin contributed just over $218,000 to Clinton/Gore and the Democrats and received over $60 million in government contracts over a four-year span. If the $218,000 were a business investment, and the $60 million worth of contracts the payoff, it would be the equivalent of a 27,423 percent return. The booming Dow Jones Industrial Average, by comparison, only grew by 69 percent between March 1994, when MMT made its first contribution, and December 1996.
MMT, its officers and employees contributed a total of over $118,000 to the Clinton/Gore campaign, the Democrat Party and other Democrat candidates for office between 1993 and 1996. (FEC reports)

"Knight arranged extraordinary access for a small contractor like Haney. He got him or his top executives into 10 meetings with Grumbly over two years. Haney and Grumbly dined together three times at such Washington haunts as Sam and Harry’s and the Prime Rib. Haney also accompanied Knight to a select dinner party at the Vice President’s residence." (Time, 6/9/97)
The DOE office which oversaw the awarding of government nuclear waste clean-up contracts, until recently headed by Grumbly, "has awarded Haney’s Molten Metal Technology $33 million to test its process on the poisoned remains of nuclear-weapons proving grounds – more money than 17 other companies have received collectively to do the same job." (Time, 6/9/97)
On three occasions, MMT’s quid fell within three days of the DOE’s quo. On March 24, 1994, MMT gave the DNC $15,000 and received a $9 million contract extension on the same day. On June 14, 1995, MMT executives gave Clinton/Gore ’96 $10,000 and received a $10 million extension the same day. On May 7, 1996, MMT gave $10,000 to the Democrat Party and got an $8 million extension three days later.

Haney formed a partnership with another lobbying client of Knight’s, the Lockheed Martin corporation. Lockheed’s $100,000 donation to the DNC on June 27, 1996 netted a $27 million contract on Sept. 25, 1996, to develop a clean-up plan for a site in Richland, Wash. (Time, 6/9/97)

 

[2dye4]

Hey Just because there are some people trying to make a buck off of this does not mean it is a real problem. A problem like this with the work required to rectify or arrest it is going to bring the cretins from the woodwork at an enormous rate. All of them salivating for political or monetary gain.
However the presence of those pushing the issue for their own agenda does not mean a real problem doesn't exist.
This problem of climate change is going to be a litmus test of our society ability to move beyond blatent self interest. The current trends in motion are the other way. Self suffeciency and social darwinism are the present path. You can see this issue gaining steam even in the intensity of this thread. People are picking sides. Every man for himself or a heavy handed government crackdown.
People the main issue really being debated is one of government. In an ever increasingly dense population higher regulation of behavior is necessary. I don't want any more big brother watching my every move but in some of the problems that society will be facing decisions will have to be made that cause allmost everyone some pain immediatly.
I am nearly 98% percent sure we will not pass this test in a significant way and there is some trouble ahead.

 

[LCruiser]

There is indeed trouble ahead. There always has been. Crying that the sky is falling has not been the answer. The answer, throughout history, is that warming has been good for civilization. Cold has always been the biggest problem for Homo sapiens. Increasing the base of the food chain may, just may, give us time to get a handle on our population explosion.

We are more closely related to the lemming than we will admit.

 

[tgmcg]

The whole global warming thing is a load of hogwash. When was the last time a pack of celebrities, the UN and Al Gore were right about anything????

The scientific case supporting their THEORY has been hopelessly contaminated by bad science, and outright misrepresentation (hockey sticks, conspiring to erase the Medieval warm period, etc.). Thus they turn to populist propaganda, demonizing "deniers", advocating pulling credentials from those who won't promote the party line, and falsely claiming the debate is over.

I'm sorry, but any cause that resorts to such sleazy totalitarian bullying tactics is TOTALLY full of it. They've done a better job at demolishing their own credibility than anyone on the other side of this argument.

I have a hard time undersanding how anyone who considers themselves an objective person of science can stand in 100% agreement with the Global Warming crowd. Yet they do...they just write off the lies and bullying tactics as another case of "the ends justifying the means". So much for open and honest debate.

If the truth were behind them, an honest person would welcome any opportunity to debate the facts in the open. People can smell BS a mile away and would decide for themselves which side to believe. But noooo, the global warming crowd knows they're standing on very shaky ground, which is why they run away from every challenge. Not once will you see them promoting an open debate. They are so arrogant that they want folks to think they can't be wrong.

How can you trust someone as arogant as that? How can WE trust anyone as arrogant as that?

Now...you wanna talk about self-sufficiency, population growth, and all that, fine. So long as you respect my right to disagree with the whole lot of it and not try to browbeat me into accepting your worldview.

 

[LCruiser]

The problem is not in convincing us. We are preaching to the choir here. The problem is only in convincing the typical voter. They will vote reality out of existence, and more taxes into play, further increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. They just don't know they're cutting their own throats. We need to make our voices, and sanity, clear to the rest of the world.

 

[tgmcg]

The MSM media has a big bullhorn. Perhaps their totalitarian and overreaching ways will be their own undoing.

Most of Europe is pretty much off the deep end. There's a ton of anti-Americanism, anti-Capitalism and anti-Big Oil emotions tied up in this. A real trifecta of leftist causes.

Kinda like Bird Flu in some ways...yet another hoax being foisted on us by the global government crowd. Anyone remember SARS? I guess if you root for a global pandemic every year, then one day you're bound to be correct. But it's hard to get excited about 1 or 2 possible cases of Bird Flu when something like 30,000 Americans die each year from the regular old flu....but we don't hear about that. Maybe it's just skeptical ol' me, but it seems like suddenly the media is filled with breathless prognostications of doom on all these "global" issues....only France and the UN can save us.

 

[jmw]

Al Gore's film and book.... the film is on at the local cinema and I thought it would be worth a look but they were charging the full rate for it. I looked for a free download on the net and didn't find it..... his message is only for those prepared to pay for it....isn't his message important enough that he'd not want people to miss reading bit for the lack of a buck or two?
Perhaps if we can't afford the ticket we aren't important enough.
Yes, then there is that company of his (or that he is a director of) well placed to make money of of the global warming scam/scare.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[owg]

tgmcg - I think the IPCC quietly put the hockey stick away for another season. It was front and center in 2001 but has been shown to be fiction. Maybe in the details to be released, we will see some mention of it. However I think the reference to 1000 years has given us a big out.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca