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]

CajunCenturion: excellent post. Very well argued.

you said: "Action out of ignorance, even with the best of intentions, usually results is making things worse."

We agree. However, replacing the word "action" with the word "inaction" or "inertia", your statement is no less true.

Take the analogy of driving along a country road on a moonless night. Suddenly you lose your headlights. Swerving into the ditch to avoid an imagined pedestrian "just in case" is insane, but so is driving on in the assumption that the road ahead is as free of obstacles as it was when you lost the lights. The only prudent option is to stop, let your eyes adjust to the new light level and then make an assessment whether or not it's safe to drive on at greatly reduced speed or simply to park the car and proceed on foot, or wait in the car until morning.

The system we're talking about here is enormously complex. And it's a system we all depend on for our very survival. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to understand it better, but it's likely that knowledge in the depth that we would need to make a truly informed decision will elude us permanently- too many butterflies flapping their wings for us to ever really "know"! But we need not have certainty before taking restraining actions on our own behaviour- especially when that same behaviour is known, rather than merely suspected, to cause other harms. I'd argue that this is definitely the case with fossil fuel consumption.

We do this in other areas of engineering: we mitigate causes of potential harm by design, and put the reverse onus on the designer: proove to us that this cause of harm is a fiction or is demonstrably improbable, or else we will force you to take mitigating action to protect against the potential harm. I still haven't heard a compelling argument to the contrary: all I've heard is a re-statement of the uncertainty of the issue (which nobody can credibly argue with) and a reluctance to do stuff which will cost us money.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> and a reluctance to do stuff which will cost us money.
The reluctance is not to do stuff which will cost us money, but a reluctance to do stuff that only costs us money, such as Kyoto compliance.

Things are being done. Considerable funds are being expended into research not only to learn more about the environment so that we can act smartly rather than hastily, but also into the development of alternative fuels. For example, the US Air Force has been involved over the last five years, and at a cost of millions of dollars, in the development of a synthetic clean-buring aviation fuel refined from coal. Syntroleum has already begun limited flight tests.

With respect to you analogy, we haven't lost our headlights. And to put it in perspective, it's fair to saw that they aren't as bright as they were 100 years ago, but they're, on average, still brighter than they have been for past 600 million years. It's hardly an emergency situation where we need to stop the car. It's time to act responsibly and prudently.

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

 

[ewh]

Doesn't that Syntroleum cost around $100/g (at the present time)?

 

[VisiGoth]

Cajun, I disagree that Kyoto compliance only costs money. What about the grandmother in Italy who have to suffer through hot muggy summers without air-conditioning because of Kyoto brownouts? There is human suffering that is wasted on a political duping of the world. I think that is worse than sad. Kyoto is bad science. Just think what good could have been done if the same effort went into something real?

 

[CajunCenturion]

I honestly don't know what it costs right now. At this point, as far as I know, it's still in the R&D phase, at least with respect to aviation. If that's true, I'm not sure how relavent today's cost would be with typical costs once it's in full production. It's also very likely that aviation fuel costs would be somewhat higher than automobile fuel because of different quality standards.

What it does do, I hope, is address the sentiment that, "all I've heard is a re-statement of the uncertainty of the issue (which nobody can credibly argue with) and a reluctance to do stuff which will cost us money.".

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

 

[ewh]

You are right there, Cajun. I just happened upon an article recently about this fuel, and the current price in no way reflects the price it would sell at if mass produced.

 

[owg]

I would be willing to bet that the USAF interest in syntroleum is about having a secure fuel source than about cleaning the air or reducing greenhouse gases. The fuel is clean burning, not because it is made from coal, but because it is highly refined. But not as highly refined as the associated PR.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

Cajun: we agree that there's no point in panic. A twenty-plus year program to begin to reduce our emissions is hardly a panic action in my view. Stupid, ill-considered actions often do have unintended, unpleasant consequences.

We can argue about the merits of various sorts of burden-sharing amongst the various emitters (a la Kyoto etc.), but one thing is clear: any program associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions which ignores the developing world is doomed to failure. Merely dealing with our own emissions, even agressively, will be insufficient. Since the US, China and Australia etc. are not signatories to Kyoto, and countries like my own (Canada) pay mere lip service to the treaty, Kyoto is by definition a failure anyway.

As to Fischer-Tropsch fuels from coal-source syngas: we've been doing this since the '30s whenever there was a need for it. Ultimately FT will be our source of liquid hydrocarbons, because you can use any carbonaceous material to make the source syngas- including biomass. But while we still have lots of crude oil around, FT processes like Syntroleum's are just a means to make liquid fuels from coal, wasting a good part of the coal's energy in the process. The USAF interest is related to US "security" needs, to keep the military functioning if the supply of foreign oil is shut off by terrorism or other means. Yes, they're ultra-low in sulphur because they are synthesized by a sulphur-intolerant process rather than distilled from muck that we pump up out of the ground. But in greenhouse gas emissions or fossil fuel use-efficiency terms, they're worse than merely burning the coal in the first place to satisfy a stationary energy need, displacing liquid hydrocarbons for portable power uses like USAF jets etc.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Since the US, China and Australia etc. are not signatories to Kyoto, and countries like my own (Canada) pay mere lip service to the treaty, Kyoto is by definition a failure anyway.
I think you have the cause and effect backwards. The treaty is not a failure because those countries didn't sign it, those countries didn't sign it because the treaty was totally ineffectual with respect to aiding the environment.

==> The USAF interest is related to US "security" needs, to keep the military functioning if the supply of foreign oil is shut off by terrorism or other means.
Sure that's part of it, as it damn well should be. That's their job. But they are also concerned about costs and environmental damage. They're not mutually exclusive goals. Further, as is often the case, military R&D flows into the civilian sector and this will be no exception. A clean-burning aviation fuel is just as clean burning in military jets as it commercial airliners.

==> But in greenhouse gas emissions or fossil fuel use-efficiency terms, they're worse than merely burning the coal in the first place to satisfy a stationary energy need,
Given that aviation is not a stationary energy need, this statement is a complete mis-direction. I will grant that it's a nice sound bite. But the statement is out-of-context and on top of that, very misleading.

The burning of CTL syntroleum produces considerably less greenhouse gases than the burning of conventional oil produced fuels, which is a very real and tangible benefit with respect to portable energy consumption.

That being said, and to be honest, on the flip side, the production of syntroleum does carry a definitely higher CO₂ emmision profile then current refining processes. However, since refining is done is confined locations, additional efforts are being made to capture those emissions and not allow them to enter the atmosphere. The net effect is considerably less atmoshperic emissions.

With respect to the captured production emissions, they are in turn fed into biomass production process where the CO₂ is combined with algea to produce a biofuel.

Yes, there is a lot more work to be done, but progress is being made on both sides. I can certainly understand why people would like to dismiss these research efforts because the US DOD is so heavily involved. Or the desire to overlook the total civilian benefit because there are definite military uses, but that doesn't change the fact that it is happening and is in my opinion, good for everyone.

You may despise the messenger, but that doesn't invalidate the message.

Further, in FY 2006, the US Department of Energy spent over 450 million dollars in other biomass research, in addition to R&D in geothermal technolgies, photovoltaics, some hydrogen based technologies, and other aspects of the total energy equation.

You can sit back and dismiss what is being done, and continue to believe, "all I've heard is a re-statement of the uncertainty of the issue (which nobody can credibly argue with) and a reluctance to do stuff which will cost us money.", but that's not a very accurate perception of reality.

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

 

[moltenmetal]

How do you figure that "burning CTL syntroleum produces considerably less greenhouse gases than the burning of conventional oil-derived fuels"? I sincerely doubt that, since the fuels consist of the same basic molecules! They differ only in source- one is naphtha derived from oil distillates and heavy oil cracking, the other is the same naphtha produced by cracking FT wax. Minor differences in combustion efficiency at best can be expected- though the emissions of smog-causing compounds and sulphur particulates will of course be way down using the synfuel.

But considering the refining operation, CO2 emissions per derived watt of power will be way up going the synfuel route- unless you sequester the CO2, which you could do if you simply BURNED the coal for energy! So what have you gained, really, relative to simply converting an oil-fired electrical plant to a coal-fired one and re-directing the saved heating oil within the refinery back to the cracker to make avgas or diesel? The latter is far more energy efficient, and produces emissions no less centralized than if you built the coal gasifier and FT plant!

Hey, I don't blame the USAF or the DOE etc. doing this research- bully for them. As I said, it will ultimately be of benefit once we've burnt up all the good stuff. If I were living in the US, I'd want my government to research whatever means they could find to get the foreign oil monkey off my back. And I'm not shooting the messenger or worrying about the military focus- I'm just pointing out that the primary interest of this work isn't energy efficiency. In my view, slapping a huge road tax on SUVs and other wasteful abuses of liquid fossil fuels would be of far more immediate benefit to the "national security" of the US than all these research projects combined.

Ultimately, most of these "technological fixes" are fossil-fuel re-configuration exercises- dressing coal up in a low-cut number and some high heels to make it sexier etc. They're re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, rather than tackling the real problem.

Fossil fuels continue to be artificially cheap because we currently do not charge a "tipping fee" for dumping CO2 and smog contaminants into the atmosphere. Until such time as there is such a tipping fee, there will be no financial incentive to do anything ELSE with these emissions, whether that be growing algae or even re-injecting the CO2 back into the subsurface to squeeze out a few more barrels of oil. Without a payback, there's no investment likely and little progress possible aside from these few billions of your (income) tax dollars. Provide a payback by means of a tax, and industry and the market will find a myriad of ways to solve the new economic equation for our mutual benefit.

 

[COEngineeer]

Maybe you should tell them to start using unleaded gasoline. I grew up there until I was about 18yo and move to the the US. Indonesians litter everywhere even if there is a trash can 10 ft away.

 

[LCruiser]

I was going to stay out of this thread but a lot of thoughtful discussion is going on here. First, I agree that Kyoto is effective as a wealth redistribution scheme, but not in addressing Anthropological Global Warming (AGW). Just because it's effective, though, doesn't mean it's efficient (leaving as an entirely different subject addressing the costs vs. benefits of a global welfare state).

Also remember Kyoto was developed as a scheme by the same people who brought us the Oil for Food scam.

It would be much cheaper and cost effective in my opinion for the U.S. to, for example, buy China scrubbers for its new coal plants. They are bringing a new one online every week. The black carbon from them is decreasing Arctic albedo and creating warming up there. Also, increased CO2 (the base of the food chain, by the way) is causing flora to grow up out of the snow more. In other parts of the world that's called "reclamation."

As far as CO2 "causing" global warming, we know that warming increases CO2 purging from the ocean (the warm coke effect) but we don't really know CO2 doesn't just increase convection (vs. temperature), which increases cloudiness (and rain).

I fully agree we should be addressing pollution, but CO2 is not pollution. In terms of burning fossil fuels, pollution is a byproduct. CO2 is the *product* of the exothermic reaction. Considering that we are carbon based life forms, it can be said that by bringing fossil fuels to the surface and burning them we are returning carbon to the biosphere. CO2 is the closest thing we have to Manna.

If you're thinking a warmer world is bad, consider how many people live on the 10% of the land closest to the equator vs. on the 10% of the land closest to the poles. It's pretty obvious that warmer is not bad - colder is bad.

 

[tgmcg]

From the above, we can probably conclude that there is, in fact, NO consensus on the matter of catastrophic global warming.

Crichton's novel "State of Fear" presents some of the most factual information I've seen in a single source on the subject, plus an extensive bibliography. In my opinion, he is not cherry-picking data to present a distorted view on behalf of Exxon, but rather is presenting a body of evidence that stands in stark contrast to the story being hyped (yes, hyped) in the media...a strong opposing argument that would not otherwise receive the light of day.

 

[LCruiser]

Even the BBC is turning around:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

 

[jmw]

Or this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf

in which:

The official case depends crucially on a series of assumptions whose truth has not been demonstrated,
some of which are not easily testable.

I believe point 10 is one that has been debated here.

“…hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact
of poor mathematics.”

Note the Antarctic temperature comments on page 19. This suggests that ice cores taken in the future to reveal what happened now would conclude that global temperatures had rapidly dropped in the latter half of the 20th cent.

Sadly, in a survey published by the Daily Telegraph, the media and the alarmists have done their job too well. Something like 80% of the UK population believe the abrupt climate change/global warming scenario. Interestingly enough nearly half think that carbon tax will do no good and is just a money grab....


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Sorry, forgot the original reference to an article in response to the Stern Report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Oh yes, and in this article is the promise that next week:

I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Searching the BBC website using "Global Warming" as the search term, consider this quote which features high on the page (reactions to the Stern Report):
PROF BILL MCGUIRE, BENFIELD UCL HAZARD RESEARCH CENTRE

The scariest thing about the Stern report is that it may not be scary enough.

If we lose the Greenland ice sheet in the next few centuries, leading to a 7 metre rise in sea level - as well we might - then Stern's £3.68 trillion will be a drop in the ocean compared to the ultimate cost of climate change.

(Where does he get a 7 meter sea levelo rise from?)
But apart from just one comment all else quoted are arch global warming capmaigners who think they have, in the stern report, the last nail in the coffin of their oponents.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

The Guradian website, on the otherhand, contains this quote:

"We've been told that it will cost too much to do something," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace. "Stern gives us the evidence that it will cost too much not to do something. It really is a knockout blow."

"[Sceptics] have long exposed themselves as being scientifically illiterate. It is quite interesting that people on the extreme right are economically illiterate as well," he added. "They are inconsequential. The debate has moved on so far."

Does he mean me?

OK, enough from me for now...

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Dinosaur]

Yea, you see if we disagree with them, we're just stupid. Their argument is simply, those guys are stupid, so they don't get to participate in the debate.

And they call us economically illiterate? Ask them to refute Walter Williams and then come talk to me.