Will Kyoto cause the US problems? 29

[QCE]

Please read the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4254877.stm

Any comments?

Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect cause the US to change its position on emissions?

I realize that many people don't believe that the US is a major polluter and that the 3rd world is doing all the polluting. Please refrain from dragging that arguement into this thread. The main issue is that other countries are going to be buy/selling/devloping new technologies to reduce emissions. Will the US be majorly involved?

 

[JAE]

BJC - I don't disagree with you in that most, if not all, individuals wrapped up in the environmental debates are biased in some way or another...that doesn't negate any facts or ideas that they present. It just gives you a feel for where they are coming from.

In fact, your sourcewatch link is from the Center for Media and Democracy....not the most unbiased group either. (understatement)

 

[BobPE]

No samv, I am not against sound environmental policy. I am a strong advocate of water and wastewater treatment, Yucca Mountain, reasonable and realistic CAFE standards, sensible logging and oil exploration around the globe, access to US national parks for all, in vehciles...etc...etc...

If you mean living life large to mean living life with improved quality and minimal suffering, yes, that fits my thinking. It sounds like my middle ground is different than your middle ground, and that is ok...The concept of finding middle ground is the key to us all moving forward. A lot of people just don't realize that there is middle ground and that is a big part of the problem.

BobPE

 

[QCE]

My position is very much that of Gregs.

We don't know much about global warming.

I personnelly don't have a great opinion on the Kyoto agreement. I don't ask weather it is good or not. I know that it is active in the world and I wonder how I can work with it and benefit from it.

I have pushed people in this thread that think they have all the answers but it was in an attempt to understand the logic.

My thinking for this thread was that the USA is usually leading the way in cutting edge technology. In the field of green power production I see them following behind other nations. On Feb 16th/05, 55 countries including the one I live in put Kyoto into effect. I belief that these countries are going to make a greater increase to green power production technology. This will likely cause the US to fall farther behind in this area. Of course the US can buy this technology. If you use that logic than the US should stop spending on reasearch and just let other countries do the research and then buy the technology.

Very few have commented on this.

I live in Canada and I am considering taking a masters program in Europe. After that I hope to work in the wind power industry. I was personnelly wondering if people thought that green power production was going to be improving in North America. I will probably end up working for a European company.

Hey maybe I'll be the guy selling the technology to the Americans that didn't want to spend money on research.

Maybe I will benefit from the US not joining Kyoto.

SMS wrote

"I get the feeling that your assumption is that no advancement in emissions reduction technology can happen without government investment, and that it is a problem if the US government does not invest."

I don't think that but I think that development has a better chance of happening with government backing. I think some of the 55 Kyoto countries will choose this route. That is were I may choose to look for my job.

Thanks for the debate. It has been interesting.

 

[MadMango]

Here is a timeline on the science of climate change and the UN's Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

http://www.terradaily.com/2005/050213012006.l9ldzbtd.html

[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[moltenmetal]

Fossil fuel consumption has so many negative consequences for the world that it should hardly matter whether or not global warming is one of them. We should be doing everything we can to minimize it regardless- and the US should be leading this effort. The US is the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so enormously valuable as a feedstock for the manufacture of things we need to make life bearable here on earth. Burning them in the wasteful way we do now isn't good engineering- it's pure idiocy.

Do a simple HazOp on global warming and you'll see why such an enormous number of nations are at least trying Kyoto:

- there's a possibility that the consumption of fossil fuels and other human activities will cause significant, detrimental and irreversible effects on the earth's climate. The vast consensus amongst climactic scientists agrees that although this connection is not ABSOLUTE or CERTAIN, it is credible if not probable

- the same activity creates other enormous harms: massive trade imbalances, wars to control resources, human health effects from smog and toxic combustion byproducts, etc.

- the majority of the behaviour is unnecessary: it's the result of WASTEFUL, unnecessary use of this finite resource for STUPID purposes

What we have here is a credible, even probable, scenario for an enormously detrimental outcome. Countermeasures would be strongly recommended, and mere cost wouldn't be allowed to set this aside...

And you're forgetting the obvious self-interest motivation here. Any idiot can solve a problem by throwing energy or materials at it- but it takes an ENGINEER to produce a safe, optimal solution. Putting an end to the wasteful use of energy could result in another golden age of engineering!

 

[buzzp]

I have been avoiding this thread but decided friday was a good day to review it. I think Kyoto is all political with no real gains.
I would like to comment on the fossil burners; the technology exists to improve the emissions to reasonable levels. Of course, the fine needs to be something that affects these companies. I would be willing to pay more for fuels if this were to really happen. Refineries are another big one that requires close attention. I live in an area with three of them and all of them are in violation of EPA standards. They just pay their little fine and carry on as normal. I looked at the EPAs site and was amazed at the POUNDS (Benzene, toluene? etc) of pollutants coming out of the stacks and in the ground water. It is appalling. People in the area of these refineries are suspect to high asthma rates AND cancer. They claim no link.
I am in the middle concerning the reduction of ozone, however. One of the big concerns I have has already been pointed out; the age of the earth compared to the length of time we have been industrialized. It just does not match. Weather is dynamic and is constantly changing. Let me illustrate; we had an ice age - presumably the ambient temp was very cold for a long time creating HUGE blocks of ice. As the temps slowly increase, the ice melts slowly but their mass is so large that it takes a while. We are merely just now getting back to normal as far as weather goes (ice almost all melted). I mean how can something as large as antartica freeze over thousands of years and then expect it to melt within the same amount of time? Not logical. You can not correlate affects of anything happening on the earth in the fraction of time we have been here.
As far as the US developing green power, we are doing this. Certainly not leading the area yet but I think we will. I see evidence in all the wind turbines up here in my neck of the woods. Also, George W increase the budget this year for green power development (hydrogen), maybe not enough but it was increased. He still wants to cater to big business so I don't expect much to happen with his administration. However, Exxon is providing funding for some green power research (so they told me when I interviewed with them a year ago).
Oh one other thing that I remember reading in this thread is someone supporting an International Court. I am totally opposed to this and am glad Bush is too. No offense but I see the rights of Europeans compared to those in the US and I like it better here, no need to drag their agenda into the US.

 

[JAE]

....wow...

I think I'm going to run for the hills.

 

[GregLocock]

1 Science: the average annual temperature of the Earth's surface varies

2 Unproven hypothesis: it is increasing rather more rapidly than usual, over the last century or so.

3 Unproven hypothesis: increasing average global temperatures is a bad thing.

4 Unproven hypothesis: mankind's contribution is significant

5 Unproven hypothesis: feasible reductions in mankind's contributions will make an improvement, or at least slow the rate of increase, if it is increasing.

OK, now here's a link announcing a paper that should address 2 4 and 5.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

So when it comes out we can test its claims. I'll be interested to see what statistics they've used.

That still leaves point 3 unaddressed, given mankind's inherent conservatism I guess that we'll never see a sensible discussion of that.




Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[zdas04]

Greg,
Good article, it will be interesting to see the data in the unamed "peer reviewed journal". Let's hope that the "journal" is not the "National Inquirer".

David

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

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

The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

 

[BJC]

I was watching Scientifc American Frontiers this week. There are some who believe that the Greeland ice cap may not just melt but slide into the sea. They didn't say how fast.
The oceans could rise 23 ft in a matter of weeks.
Could be lots of engieering opportunities. Lots of opportunities for catographers as well.

 

[sms]

For buzzp and QCE, you will be happy to know that refineries and chemical plants are cleaning up their business. I work for a large chemical company and our capital spending is almost entirely on NOx and VOC emissions reduction projects. In the past 5 years our plants have reduced emissions by 50% and we are not anywhere near done yet. Now granted we probably would not have spent that money and made that effort if it weren't for the Texas air quality board, but the good news is we did it for local reasons, not because of Kyoto. That should give you hope QCE that regardless of Kyoto an effort is being made in the US to make things better.

As for your career in wind power, don't under estimate the potential in the US. Wind may be a small part our our electric supply, but I bet we have more MW in wind generation in the US than Holland does.

 

[BJC]

SMS
The western half of North and South Dakota plus part of Nebraska have the wind energy to supply ALL the power the US requires. When the wind does't blow we'll all have to go home or develope some kind of hydrogen system to store power.
I heard this in a presentation by a Vesta engineer. If and when I find the source I post it.
I like the first option best, kind of the oppostite of "windfall" that developed in midevil times. But a day off is a day off.

 

[BillPSU]

BJC
I used to live in North Dakota and know the revelations about there being enough wind energy there to support the whole United States. The only problem is transporting that energy across a wire. Line losses will make it impossible to transmit the power over the United States. Of course super conducting wire will solve that problem.

 

[GregLocock]

You may enjoy the following. A fairly robust discussion on greenhouse gas advocacy, and so on, from the usually reliable "bad astronomy" website

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18760&highlight=aagw

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Haf]

There has been a lot of talk about wind energy in this thread. With current technology in this area, are wind farms yet efficient? It is my understanding that more energy is put into the production of these farms than can be produced in a reasonable amount of time. I thought the same was true for photovoltaic (solar) technology.

A lot of government money went into these technologies in the 1970's in the US, and wind farms started popping up, as well as solar cells on peoples' houses. Without the government subsidies, however, the technology was not efficient enough to be self-sustaining, and the companies that produced the technology could not stay in business.

Like others have stated in this thread, I believe in the free market. If there is money to be made in the wind and solar business, then companies will get into that business and stay in business. Money can only be made if the technologies are efficient (i.e., you get more energy out than you put in). And if they are not efficient, then they are not "green energies" afterall.

Upon further reflection, let's group hydrogen fuel cells into this as well.

 

[samv]

Haf
Technologies already exist in both sun and wind that pay for themselves in short time spans.
Also, as with any technology, as its popularity grows production costs will go down even further.

 

[sms]

This is the wind farm I have referred to. LCRA is a major utility in Texas.

http://www.lcra.org/energy/windpower.html

 

[zdas04]

samv,
Again, it is necessary to define terms.

There are millions of square feet of PV cells in use in remote locations around the world today. This is a technology that (in full cycle costs) yields power for around $0.80/kWh. When you only need a few dozen kWh/year this price really beats the capital cost of running wires to the ram pasture. If I have to compare $0.10/kWh from a utility for my house, PV technology does not "pay for itself" - ever. Paying 8 times as much for each unit of power does not leave much room for recovering capital.

Wind has similar results. Hydrogen fuel cells only make sense if you can find a source of gas that does not have the power demands of electrolysis and you can find a way to transport/store the stuff. Geothermal projects occasionally make great sense, but often don't.

The "debate" is always that "wind (or solar, or waves) is free, so once you install your equipment you get 'free energy' forever". The reality is that the widget you're installing won't last "forever" (ever try to clean bird droppings or bullet holes from a PV cell?, it is often impossible and the cell has to be replaced).

The power you can recover during the operating period has to be "priced" at a unit price that recovers the capital during the operating period. While doing this analysis, remember that you will have calm/cloudy days, night happens, rain can last for weeks - you have to have backup systems to cover these contingencies (and the environmental impact of heavy-metal storage batteries is huge both in terms of toxic wastes and the fossil fuels used in their manufacture).

I've yet to see the generally-applicable "green" energy source that actually costs less per kWh than a coal-fired power plant can deliver the power. If you want that to happen, you have to provide government-policy incentives that make it painful to pollute or wonderful to avoid pollution. Koyoto just doesn't do that. Too many loopholes, political answers to technical questions, and poor assumptions.


David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

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

The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

 

[corus]

This site quotes figures on wind power that puts the price per kwh at the same level as coal, and cheaper when other health and environmental factors are considered :

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071926/

Given that 2000 miners are killed each year by coal dust then I think they've underestimated the benefit of using the alternative of wind power, to say the least.
The other arguments given by zdas04 just aren't worth the effort, to be frank, though I would recommend not shooting at the turbine blades.

corus

 

[zdas04]

Corus,
I'll choose to ignore that my comments are not worth the effort. Everyone will have their own opinion on that (by the way, the bullet holes actually are a frequent occurence solar panels in the U.S.).

MSNBC is always a fine technical source of information, I mean they even delared John Kerry the winner in the recent presidential elections based on the science of exit polling.

Can anyone figure the amount of generating capacity the boys at Stanford get for their $338 billion up front and $4 billion/year? I got lost in my assumptions.

David