I was recently messaged as to whether the recent lack of activity here was because the muse had left me. No, we are not amused 🙂 (OK, I had to do that).
Truth be known I have some 60+ posts in various stages, from merely an idea to almost completed. And that’s without yet having had the time to sit down and work out some sort of coherent plan for this blog; so no, that’s not the problem.
“The problem” is simply time. It is End of Year so work requires budgets, reports, etc. We are coming up on the 1st anniversary of my mother’s death and family are coming to town. It is tax time and I am trying to close the will and do the estate taxes, and so on. There is a lot more, but you get the idea.
And now I am leaving town for a week and will have no access to computers, much less the internet. In less than 20 minutes actually. I have a post that needs at most another 15 to 30 min work and I really thought I would get it up this morning, but packing would also be an idea. So would getting dressed. Just a thought.
So thank you for your patience. Early May also promises to be difficult, but this too will pass and we can get back on track. So thank you all and I will see you in a week 🙂
Greenfyre's 
yeah, the climate can wait.
Greenfyre, have a good trip!
— bi
Here is a url where a bunch of people reply to a NY Times article/blog that ingeniously argues that it’s inherent in growing economies to move toward ecologically sound behavior. Thus we have to do nothing about global warming but go ahead and grow and consume and get richer, and everything including global warming will all work out just fine!
I particularly recommend the comment to that article by one Bob. It was so good I reproduced it on my blog.
I think you’ll enjoy it for the subject matter and the quality of the rhetoric!
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/the-richer-is-greener-curve/?apage=2#comment-140081
(Look toward the end of the series of comments at the above url, or on my blog..)
Top New Zealand climate scientist got the sack:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/face-niwa-sacked-being-too-public-2673255
Link includes a TV news clip.
What a load of lame excuses! : )
re. site maintenance
Vernon has been joined here by Vangel, in the past few weeks.
What’s hilarious is that Vernon and Vangel have cobbled together an ad hoc ‘working’ relationship.
There have been some humorous moments e.g. Vangel, you idiot, Vernon (the other idiot) would not want you to defend him by appealing to Lindzen.
Other than this occasional comic relief, their perpetual presence and spamming has seriously degraded the site and it has been impossible to have a serious conversation about anything, without their harassment.
It appears that there will be no limits placed on their (ab)use of this site as a repository for their repetitive lies and frauds and assorted other b.s.
Vernon and Vangel’s repeated, deliberate violations of research data, reproduced ad nauseum here, should not be tolerated.
Nor should Vangel’s racist posts.
I hope the great quality of the site can resume at some point in future.
Take care, all,
M.
I like your site. I want to environment to improve, which is why I hang around. We need to move away from fossil fuels, which almost everyone should agree with; however, we have to do it smartly. I like those discussions here.
I do take exception to Martha’s misrepresentation of my position. I have disagreed with you on some points and agreed on others. Martha says that I violate research data and perpetuate frauds, however, unlike Martha; I actually have read the studies and provide the links to them. Mostly I ask questions or when I see something that is factually wrong, I point it out and yes, provide the link to my source. Martha has not contributed to any discussion that I have seen. Her typical response on any topic is to provide no information but rather to start applying negative labels to everyone who does not agree with her. She has called me a racist, chauvinist, a retired NASA engineer, and attributed every post by anyone using the name Vernon on the internet to me. Just in order for her to not have to address the topic under discussion yet still say something.
I do not think you want to have a site where every one is a cheerleader, but rather one where full and open discussion of vital topic is welcomed.
Regards,
Vernon
Vernon:
You mean do nothing?
And if global warming isn’t a problem, as you repeatedly claim, then why will we even “need to move away from fossil fuels”?
You know, that’s exactly what the global warming denier skeptic sites are like! Cheerleading for their skeptic Galileo-like masters 24 × 7 × 365, with close to zero original input whatsoever. Then again, apparently you think that
1. The Inquisition = having a little debate over the minutiæ of “green jobs”;
2. Galileo = screaming ‘All Hail Skepticism!’ 24 × 7 × 365.
The logic, it hurts.
— bi
(erratum: the 2nd link should be this.)
bi,
we should move away from fossil fuels because of the pollution. Duh, this is an environmental site and you think the only reason to want to not use fossil fuels is global warming?
I think that being smart is moving from coal to nuclear until another sustained energy technology is developed. Solar and wind are not stable so they will remain marginal only. Solar is only good for half the time and wind is dependent on the wind. Nuclear produces no CO2 and is a stable source of energy. 70 percent of all CO2 in USA is produced at power plants. Remove that 70 percent and USA ceases to be a source of the problem.
So, no bi, I do not mean nothing. I mean quit using fossil fuels.
Frankbi,
Vernon has discussed his views on nuclear energy, here on GreenFyre’s, already. Imposters just pretending to be Vernon have discussed it repetitively on other sites. The rascals.
In Vernon’s inimitable style, the discussion follow the same pattern — for Vernon, and also the imposter Vernons. Man, such coincidences in the Universe, eh?
All of these ‘discussion’s become completely disingenuous. He ‘argues’ that ‘if you think there is a problem with climate change, you must embrace nuclear. If you don’t, it is proof that you don’t think climate change is real.’
So tedious. The usual false statement, false conclusion.
He has a very limited grasp of the dialogue around nuclear energy, but that’s o.k. What’s not o.k. is that the discussion is actually of no real interest to him and he wishes to waste your time. Quelle surprise. I wonder if there are unresolved issues from childhood?
But how cool is it that we might have hundreds of posts by Vernon, here — none of them by Vernon?
Enjoy. 😉
To Martha:
I know little of the history of Vernon and his postings, and so cannot judge the accuracy of your evaluation of either.
On the other hand, that was as fine a put-down — judged simply on style and impact — as I have ever heard.
Kind of reminds me of Bob Dylan’s “Positively 4th Street” in the latter respect.
Martha:
Ah yes, nuclear. As I said over at Climate Progress :
— bi
Martha,
Missed your meds again? Is the Paranoia getting the better of you again? Who am I today? Remember, I’m Vernon, last weed you thought I was a retired NASA engineer? It is ok; everyone understands you want to participate. That’s a really is a good thing, so don’t feel bad that you don’t have anything substantive to offer. May be if you quit Goolging imaged enemies you would have time to read up on some science or look at some studies. Oh, what was I thinking? You just keep taking your meds and Google all you want to.
bi,
wind will not provide enough sustained and stablized power, this ignores the impact of wind turbins on the environment is greater than nuclear.
You may not like nuclear but if you go beyond the hype, there has not be a time when a western nuclear power plant has had an impact on the environment. What are you going to use if you don’t use nuclear? Wind, Solar, tidal? And you think that these do not have a much larger envirnmental foot print than nuclear?
Frank, man, you know I love you, but the prime argument against nukes isn’t the ka-boom factor, but rather the “they cost HOW much?” factor. Waiting ten years for power at 13-14 c/kWh isn’t very satisfying to anyone involved, especially if that power is based on a non-renewable resource. Nuclear maintenance is also a key issue – the plants spend a long time shut down for maintenance, and are hardly active 100% of the time as people think. This doesn’t even touch on subsidies – the nuclear industry is heavily, heavily subsidized and still can’t turn a profit without it. Economics, not meltdowns, are the key argument against nukes. (The nuclear weapons-grade material proliferation and attractiveness of centralized targets to terrorist attacks are good followups.)
The conservative push is for rapid nuclear deployment and cautious research into renewables (if that). I argue the opposite – if the 4th gen breeder reactors happen to be physically and economically possible, go nuts, but until then, make do with what we’ve got.
For the record, Vernon seems willfully ignorant of two key points:
1) Concentrated solar thermal power providing, essentially, baseload energy at very little capital costs even at night; a recent report determined that just 16000 square kilometers of solar thermal plants could provide enough energy for all of Europe.
2) The definitions of “environment” and “impact” (and, if you include Three Mile Island, “western”) do not match up with what he’s using them for, and he evidently is unaware of radioactive decay times.
But then again, we’ve long since given up on Vernon being rational, so why would we expect him to conform to English language patterns?
Brian,
Did you hear what you said? 16000km2 is not a good thing for the environment. I hope we do develop something better than nuclear but right now nuclear may be more expensive but it has less of an impact on the environmnet. Same with wind and tidal power, yes we can do it but how much of the coast do we have to trash and how many ecosystems are going to be ruined?
(Now I am not sure of this, have not taken the time to look it up but I thought that the French system used a mix of convential and breeder reactors for energy production. They process the spent fuel from the convential reactors and feed it back though the breeder reacters to create more fuel. There is some spent fuel that is not good for anything but my reading is that all that has been produced in the last 40 years fits in one building about half the size of a basketball court. I will concede that it has been awhile since I read up on it so I could be remembering it wrong.)
I make no secret that I do not believe CO2 warming is as significant a problem as it is being made out. I see too many holes that the theory does not address. (In case you ask, yes I tried to get most of my questions answered at RC [one of the first site I visited] but most were ignored and never made past moderation. I then started asking questions of Coby, still waiting to see how that will go.) That aside, we need to get off of fossil fuels. Have you ever seen what a forest from above around interstates? You can see strips running beside the roads where the trees are either dieing or not healty. That is not good for people either. 70 percent of fossil fuels are used to generate power.
I think that the environmental cost of wind and solar (16000km2) and the harm to birds by wind turbins, distruction of the shores for tidal power are all bad ideas. Nuclear may be expensive, but not as expensive to the environment as the other options. Oh and bio fuels, turning food in to fuel, anyone else think that starving people for fuel is a good idea?
16000km^2 in the middle of a desert for all of Europe. The same study estimated global demand could be met with a global area the size of Austria, also in the middle of deserts. Compare to the size and impact of world fuel mining operations (yes, including uranium) and ocean dead zones from effluent dumping and tell me which has bigger impact. (I’m not saying it’s minor, unlike you who seem to discount the effectively permanent nature of nuclear waste.)
Nuclear has a bigger impact than your bias seems to let you see. For the record, my stance on nuclear is very similar to Joe Romm’s, except he’s written more on it. Check it out. (And while you’re at it, he’s also got a series of great introductions on climate economics (that is, the economics of switching from fossil fuels, which you seem to agree with) and concentrated solar thermal power available in his sidebar.)
You’re also painfully ignorant on biofuels. There are multiple generations of these in the works, and corn ethanol is acknowledged as a universally bad choice by everyone except the agribusiness lobby and their pet politicians. A nuclear analogy to show you how stupid your complaint was: It’s like dissing a combined-cycle breeder reactor or research into thorium reactors by complaining about a first-generation Chernobyl-esque reactor. Look into second-generation (cellulosic) or, ideally, third-generation (algae-based) biofuels and you’ll see what I mean. More research is needed before these are massively deployed, of course, but that is the same thing holding back the really advanced nukes and you aren’t complaining.
Finally, I was wondering when you’d bring up the birds-in-turbines myth, since it’s patently false. For every 10,000 birds killed by other human activity, less than one dies from wind turbines. Far and away the biggest killer would be collisions with buildings and windows, followed (distantly) by housecats. But of course, that doesn’t jive with the anti-renewable ideological bias of your usual sources (when you care to cite them…), so why would you listen to the US Forest Service?
Brian D:
I agree, but the KA-BOOM!!! factor does seem to be a prime argument for nukes, at least in the right-wing jingosphere.
That’ll explain why these folks keep ascribing miraculous properties to nuclear plants while making up doom-and-gloom scenarios for other types of alternative energies.
— bi
Vernon said: “I hope we do develop something better than nuclear but right now nuclear may be more expensive but it has less of an impact on the environmnet (sic).”
Well Vernon, once again you haven’t done any reading on what you are talking about. Ever heard of Dounreay in Scotland? Estimated cost to clean up the site, aprox 8 billion dollars. Ever heard of Sellafield in Cumbria? Cost to decontaminate the site, aprox 30 billion dollars. These are only two sites in the UK which have caused serious contamination during their life time. These costs are many times the actual cost of construction.
That is why nuclear energy is not cheap or safe. The weakest links are the people operating the facilities who cut corners and take enormous risks. No Chernobyl type disaster but at least one explosion at Dounreay in a waste disposal shaft where they mixed all sorts of very reactive chemicals (sodium for one) and highly radioactive waste.
David,
I was wrong about the bird deaths in general. I was remembering the Altamont Pass problems. The recent studies do indicate that if the wind turbines are placed in ecologically sound sites, there is low risk.
Ian,
Your objection on cost of decommissioning failed to mention that both sites were first generation government facilities where commercial power production was not the main purpose. Both sites failed to follow the law or sound practices and both were own by the government.
This is hardly reflective of modern nuclear power plants. The mess that was created at both sites were not accidental, but rather the decision of the British government, and pretty stupid decisions too.
I hate to break it to you but deserts are not lifeless, but rather fragile ecosystems. I take it that you have no problem trashing the parts of the ecosystem that do not have a value to you.
Bi.
Wind power is not stable; there are times where there is either too much or too little wind. During these times no power is produced. Solar only produces when the sun is present. We do not have effective ways to store power yet. It is not that nuclear is so great, it is that solar or wind cannot replace fossil fuels in any significant amount.
Vernon:
1) I’m not David. He hasn’t posted on this thread. I’m glad you were able to admit an error (my respect for you went up right there), although I’m surprised you never bothered to look up the source for your claim about birds before posting it. (The Albertan premier did the same thing: When hundreds of ducks died on a tar sands tailing pond not that long ago, his first response was “wind turbines kill birds too”. Note that his political party is even more tightly connected to oil interests than the Bush administration was.)
2) Case study: Wind power works to provide nearly 20% of Denmark’s electricity, despite Denmark being only modestly windy. It does this, in part, by spreading the turbines out (it’s always blowing somewhere). I’m unaware of what storage media they use, but I do know that other wind farms use techniques ranging from batteries to microhydro power to “store” excess wind for when it’s needed. I DO know Denmark has plans to use plug-in hybrid vehicles with Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) connections, essentially turning the entire vehicle fleet into a massive, intelligent battery.
(Aside: I find it hilarious that people who trust in the innovative power of the market and push for new tech always seem to assume that power storage technology will remain stagnant. It’s a problem with the hydrogen car crowd and the anti-renewables crowd that they always assume we can’t figure out other ways to store electricity. This is, of course, patently false – for instance, see exhibit A.)
3) You ignored everything I wrote on concentrated solar thermal power, which can provide power throughout the night and is comparatively cheap (and ESPECIALLY cheap compared to nuclear, in capital costs, operational costs, maintenance costs, fuel costs, and time to build). Why is it that the pro-nuke crowd is always up to date on the newest theoretical reactor designs that we won’t see for years while still thinking solar technology is stuck in the 60s?
4) I know deserts are working ecosystems. So were coastal areas before we built cities, which you aren’t protesting. So was North Alberta before the tar sands, which you aren’t protesting (but I am). So are areas in the Canadian Shield that would be opened up to more uranium strip-mining (which you not only aren’t protesting but seem to encourage). “I take it that you have no problem trashing the parts of the ecosystem that do not have a value to you”. EVERYTHING has an impact, even your precious nuclear. CSP just happens to be relatively low-impact after it’s built (as it needs no influx of fuel and produces no waste or exhaust). For what it’s worth, I’m with Arnold on this one.
5) As it stands, wind, solar, and nuclear cannot replace most fossil fuels. They can only replace coal and a small subset of natural gas, since they all produce electricity. Without transportation that runs on electricity, you could have a nuclear plant on every corner and still be slaves to oil. This is one transition we cannot tackle with supply-side tactics alone. Why aren’t you arguing for plug-in hybrids, EVs, or electric trains? And why are you arguing against biofuels (see my note above before you assume I’m talking about the crime that is food-based ethanol), which is pretty much our only hope for carbon-neutral jet fuel? It seems awfully hypocritical and single-minded (i.e. “nuclear utopianism”).
Vernon: “we should move away from fossil fuels because of the pollution. Duh, this is an environmental site and you think the only reason to want to not use fossil fuels is global warming?”
PAUL: CO2 is a pollutant. Anything can be a pollutant if it upsets the balance of an environment.
Vernon: “I think that being smart is moving from coal to nuclear until another sustained energy technology is developed.”
PAUL: Nuclear energy has a number of problems other than the well known risks.
1. It is OK at producing a base load, but it isn’t good at reacting to changing demand.
2. Large scale use of nuclear energy on a global scale would cause warming (second law of thermodynamics). So we will never be able to use it exclusively and hence renewables are essential.
Vernon: “Solar and wind are not stable so they will remain marginal only. Solar is only good for half the time and wind is dependent on the wind. ”
PAUL: Renewables can be as stable as can be engineered. Engineering and technology is finding solutions very fast.
Nuclear is ‘stable’ because the engineering makes it stable!
Vernon: “Nuclear produces no CO2 and is a stable source of energy. ”
PAUL: Incorrect! All energy sources have a carbon footprint. Nuclear energy has a similar carbon footprint to wind energy. Solar is current not so good.
Vernon: “70 percent of all CO2 in USA is produced at power plants.”
PAUL: I suspect that is incorrect. I doubt if the percentage is much different to Europe. Maybe others can confirm what the figures are, i might have a look later.
Vernon: What are you going to use if you don’t use nuclear?
Paul: You cut energy use. A lot of it is wasted in any case, especially in the US. In Europe we use energy more efficiently.
Average carbon footprint per capita:
US about 20 tonnes
UK About 10 tonnes.
I don’t think the UK economy has suffered because we have lower carbon footprints!
That implies you can cut energy use by 50% and still have a good economy.
Wind energy not good enough??
Well Dutch post-graduate Bart Ummels reckons that the problem isn’t a lack of wind energy but what to do with to much:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223083344.htm
The problem will be reducing output from power station to cope with excess wind energy, if wind energy is expanded greatly.
Hi guys,
April 13 2009 on this site on Open Thread
Vernon: Instead of doing cap and trade, why not offer tax breaks to companies that switch from fossil to nuclear. The French nuclear model produces almost no waste and is very safe. With enough nuclear plants, it would be possible to switch from fossil fuels to electric for long haul transportation and reduce carbon production even more.
Martha: Nuclear is so expensive that it requires the heaviest subsidies. It is not ‘waste-free’ — the waste is radioactive. And it is the material used in bombs. The climate crisis has to be addressed with immediate and significant C02 reductions, emissions controls, renewables, new technologies, aid to climate refugees, an end to runaway consumerism, and assistance to citizens to adapt.
Vernon: If CO2 is not an issue then ignoring Nuclear is fine but if it is, but if it is, then Nuclear is the only short term solution available.
Martha: “If CO2 is not an issue”? C02 is the major driver of the current human-caused warming trend. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Cite a published study in a scientific journal that shows otherwise… As usual, Vernon is up to his disingenuous nonsense. It is disappointing that an engineer who once worked on projects at NASA is such a tiresome ass.
(FYI I was merely repeating what he has claimed on another site. I couldn’t care less if he is or he isn’t. If he indeed worked on Apollo in the 1960’s, as he has claimed on another site, he must have had one heck of a secretary! But that’s another thread — the sexist fossil. He can barely speak English, sometimes. Juxtaposed beside his cut and pastes from professional denier writer sites, it’s quite a jolt to the reader.)
Vernon: Martha, You are ignorant and I suspect a fool. You do not know who I am, what I do, or where I work. You do not know if I am retired or working, in short, you know nothing about me.
(Tantruming has been a problem. The most bizarre was the recent tantrum with Ian on another thread. Vernon ‘admitted’ he was wrong — this one time. In fact, he is always wrong and has been for years. He is considered ‘unteachable’, on other sites. Good insight, I would say.)
So, this brings us up to date on Vernon’s ‘sudden’ interest in a discussion of nuclear energy. Of course, he was provided with information by others, two weeks ago (and has had one other identical discussion on GreenFyre’s, God know how many on other sites).
He is an obsessive-compulsive denier who trolls 24/7 and has developed a pathetic repertoire of strategies. His repertoire covers the range from classic (see Mike’s posts) to idiosyncratic.
I am genuinely interested (and reasonably educated) about the science. I teach critical thinking and help my students develop the analytic skills to avoid false assumptions and the sort of distorted thinking that is characteristic of people like Vernon.
Vernon is constantly asked to cite published papes that support his delusions or stupidity (he vascillates between the two) but never does. When he does cite information, it is from studies that are consistent with acceptance of the reality of climate change, but he insists they say the opposite.
I do clinical work for a living. I have observed an unusually high incidence of personality traits associated with personality disorder among deniers. Vernon presents quite typically: constant projections, quick to escalate, poor self-regulation, labile mood (charming ‘please tell me where I have misunderstood’ one minute, and highly abusive and hostile the next), exceptionally self-inflated, repetitive concerns, poor social skills, constant lying and stealing (we see theft of research data from sites that he does not reference and then he makes up false conclusions — but who knows what he does in his personal life), and argumentative (and I don’t mean the philosophical variety).
Vernon: Missed your meds again?
Martha: I help individuals access the recommended mental health services. 😉
Frankbi, Paul and Brian D,
Nicely written.
This is the essentially same conversation and information provided to Vernon on this topic at Open Thread, just two weeks ago (April 13, 2009).
Vernon’s point in raising the nuclear question is stated as follows;
“if CO2 is not an issue then ignoring Nuclear is fine but if it is, but if it is, then Nuclear is the only short term solution available.”
Those are his own words, unless he continues to wish to argue that he is not really Vernon. End of story since he is clearly not genuinely interested in the topic and had to be provided with the basics that anyone seriously interested in the topic (no matte their position) would already know.
Vernon to Ian: “I hate to break it to you but deserts are not lifeless, but rather fragile ecosystems. I take it that you have no problem trashing the parts of the ecosystem that do not have a value to you.”
I guess he told you! 😉
From a psychological perspective, it is not surprising that his self-presentation has taken this new twist, and he needs to present as the one who is environmentally conscious – superior, actually. These narcissists in the denialosphere have some of the best-defended egos I have ever seen.
(I’m thinking about that last interaction he had with you and his astonishing arrogance and idiocy in the face of your own knowledge and competence… I need to wipe the tears from my eyes… I can’t stop laughing… I’m on the floor… stop it!)
He has yet to communicate his corrections and objections to the world’s climate scientists, however, so there must be some sort of problem he has yet to work out.
I wish to compliment GreenFyre et al. for such informed and conscientious follow ups with Vernon. Anyone can see from his history of interactions here that he would try the patience of a saint, never mind a concerned citizen.
Have a good weekend, everyone. 🙂
I think it is normal that blogs like this are slowing down.
There is less and less evidence from real nature that there is actually a global warming going on.
And how long can one keep on promoting the lies comming from bad models that since long are proven to deviate more from reality with every electron entering the computer that is running it.
Temperature measurements show no increase since 7-8 years.
There is again a normal amount of sea ice at the Northpole.
Globaly spoken, there is much more than avarage sea ice.
Sea surface temperatures are not rising.
Sea level is not rising, like ARGO is prooving. (That is why this million costing project is silenced to death by the new Religorieus Goracle society)
Hurricane activity is never been lower.
And even the Great Barrier Reef has made a “surprising” recovery !
So what is over to be alarmish about ?
Indeed the silence on blogs like these is overwhelming.
De Rodo Willem said: “Sea level is not rising, like ARGO is prooving (sic)”. This just shows that this new troll is as ignorant of real science as all the other trolls who have decided to waste our time at this Blog. If he knew anything about science he would know that ARGO does not measure sea level. The ARGO programme measures a number of parameters but sea level is not one of them.
Every thing else he has said is equally wrong and is just cut and pasted from denier sites. Nothing original or new in his efforts at all.
Brian,
Sorry about mixing up the name.
Here is the part of the issue you do not want to address. If you want to lower carbon emissions in 20 or 30 years, then all the alternative new technologies would be fine. What your not addressing is that while there are new or cutting edge technologies, that is the problem, they are new or cutting edge. If you want to start making changes today, then it has be with today’s mature technologies.
About your points:
I have read about IR energy collector which will work at night, but then these are not solar collectors. Eventually they may develop this technology into a practical technology. This is not solar power but thermal power. It is promising but the technology is not ready yet.
There are a few issues you left out with Denmark and wind power. First Denmark is small, but size and population (~1/70 the land and 1/60 the population). Second, Denmark is both coastal and flat, which is an advantage for wind production with either sea winds or land winds being driven but the thermal difference between sea and land. Even in a geographically optional country wind only accounts for 1/5 the power production.
Concentrated Solar power has a large ground foot print. While it is do able, it will only produce power for half of the day. There are ways to store the power for times when the system is not productive but all are inefficient. The basic problem is that at night and on cloudy days, no power is produced.
Your point 5 is just wrong. Nuclear could replace all of the coal and gas. Per http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/default.htm report from 2007, 70 percent of carbon is produced in the production of electrical energy. Currently the USA produces 1582Gt of carbon; however, the natural carbon sinks remove 489Gt of carbon. Moving energy production away from fossil fuels would leave the USA as a carbon sink.
Finally,
Actually, transitioning rail to electric for the nation would make a lot of sense but would be a major infrastructure change. Moving trucking from gas to natural gas would also help. But that is another infrastructure change. The problem is beyond just have fast charge batteries or battery swapping, but the cost of replacing trillions of dollars of fixed infrastructure that currently exists. I do not doubt that both wind, solar, and heat technology will improve, but if you want to reduce carbon emissions in a short time frame, then you need a solution that you can put in place now.
Paul,
Nice conversation you’re having with your self.
Vernon said: “70 percent of carbon is produced in the production of electrical energy”
PAUL: Wrong!
Total USA emissions in 2007 were 6022 million metric tonnes.
Total electricity emissions were 2433 million metric tonnes.
That is, electricity is 40% of total US emissions.
But that isn’t just coal and gas. Coal and gas will be a percentage of that. So it will be smaller.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html
Less bullshit Vernon. Assuming you are American, i would expect you to know your own countries stats better than that.
Paul,
Did you read the US Gov document from NOAA that I listed that I got my facts from? So there are two different documents from two different branches from the government that say different things. How could that possibly be?
I will redo the calculations using the document you listed. I got a different number, but, unlike you, I added the carbon cost of producing the coal, gas, and oil used to produce electrical power. Then I got the percentage of transportation used to move coal. From the report that you like:
CO2 emissions in 2007: 5990.3
Gas: 404.9
Coal:172.2
Elec: 2733.4
Trans: 372
Total: 3682.5 or 61.5 percent
I did not add in the CO2 emissions on production of coal mining equipment.
This is a little different than the numbers I got from the other government papers but makes little difference. USA would still become a carbon net carbon sink, just a lesser one.
Oh, by the way, I could careless that the UK C02 per capita is less than America, there are a lot of social and geographical reasons why that is so. I look at the CO2 to GDP relationship and America is below the global average.
Vernon. You are using the figures incorrectly.
You have taken general Industrial sector emissions and added them to the electricity figures.
eg. The figure for gas – 172.2 is for non electricity use in industry. eg. steel production, heating, chemical production and other general uses. You can’t just add general industrial coal emissions to those produced by electricity and then say they are all electricity emissions!
The same goes for gas – 404.9. The industrial emissions for gas include heating offices, firing kilns, curing paint etc.
Geez. try reading.
The known electricity emissions are 40%. That will be higher than the UK because you use more coal in the US. But other sectors produce significant amounts of emissions.
I made a typo in the last post i meant:
coal – 172.2 figure is general industrial use, that is not for electricity production, eg. steel production, heating, chemical production etc.
For the record. UK electricity CO2 emissions are about 33% of the UK total. Which supports the 40% electricity emissions figure for the US, because as i said, you use more coal than the UK.
The UK emissions stats include flaring, solid fuel processing etc.
And these processing and transportation emissions are tiny in comparison to operating a power station. Which is totally logical! If you produced some 20 to 30 percent extra emissions processing and transporting fuels, then it wouldn’t make economic sense to do it!
eg. Power station emissions in the UK for 2007 were 177 million tonnes CO2.
Solid fuel transformation was 0.1 million tonnes.
Manufacture of solid fuels added 17.3 million tonnes.
Exploration, production and transportation was 0.8 million tonnes.
So they aren’t going to add a lot to the emissions from power station chimneys! A few percent at most, certainly not 20% or 30%!
The situation is not going to be different in the US.
Paul,
You like to make assumptions. Read the report again, that is the cost to extract and process energy sources, not what is used in non-electrical industries. The number listed for coal is what CO2 is produced to mine and process coal. The number for gas is what CO2 is produced to mine and process the gas for transportation.
Go read the report again and quit making the assumption that the UK situation is going to be like the US. Of course your transportation cost, in terms of CO2 is less. The UK is smaller than many US states. I looked up the percentage of transportation is rail, percentage of rail is coal, and got an approximation based on energy used to figure out what percentage of CO2 was produced.
Rubbish Vernon, you are misusing the data.
The data you quote is from table “US Carbon Emissions from the Industrial Sector Energy Consumption”. It is not the emissions from the electricity generation industry.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html
Quote from the report:
“Decreases in industrial sector carbon dioxide emissions have resulted largely from erosion of the older energy-intensive (specifically, coal-intensive) U.S. industrial base.”
That is basically steel production and heavy industry that use coal/coke as a raw material.
The table you get the figures from also has electricity emissions as separate figures.
You also show your complete lack of knowledge regarding coal in the UK. A lot of it is imported now, so the distances travelled would be similar or longer than the US. Around 2003, UK coal imports for power stations outstripped home produced coal, and the amount imported has increased.
IHS report about 2007 emissions:
http://engineers.ihs.com/news/2008/eia-energy-related-carbon-dioxide.htm
“When electric power sector emissions are considered as a whole rather than being attributed to the end-use sectors that consume electricity, they are the largest single source of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, representing 40% of total emissions, said EIA.”
40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%…. get it Vernon?
Other coal and gas emissions are for non electricity production.
Hey, if you really want to know. Why not email EIA. Personally i won’t bother because i know the answer!
Vernon said: “Of course your transportation cost, in terms of CO2 is less. The UK is smaller than many US states.”
Paul:
Some figures for you again Vernon.
In 2005 66% of coal used in UK power stations was imported from Russia, South Africa and Australia. Since then imports have gone up. So maybe in your fantasy world, you can imagine that UK power stations use coal out of UK coal mines.
But in the real world, it is largely imported and travels greater distances than ‘American’ coal to ‘American’ power plants.
Your right, I did miss read it. However, it is not 40 percent. It is, as an estimate:
Elec: 2733.4
Trans: 372
Coal production: 1.4 (88 percent total coal production CO2)
Total: or 52 percent
Yes, I had to go to different goverment sites to get the information. You are still ignoring the transportation CO2 costs and the coal production CO2 cost.
You are looking at electrical production without looking at the complete process. There is the CO2 cost to mine the coal and transport the coal.
Paul,
The only CO2 cost for the UK to transport coal is the CO2 produced in the UK. If the UK is claiming the CO2 cost from the other countries, how about some documentation that backs that up?
I’m not discussing the issue of national pride etc.
I pointed out that the UK imported a lot of coal because you were suggesting most of it was local and hence the ‘coal miles’ were lower compared to the US and the discrepency might explain the differences in emissions.
I couldn’t care where it comes from.
The point of this whole discussion is that your estimates of how much impact nuclear energy would have on US emissions was overestimated, based on the current energy mix.
Of course, if electricity was extended to transport and other areas then your idea of accounting for 70% of emissions is more realistic, whether the idea of nuclear expansion is right or wrong.
Paul,
I was not suggesting the difference was a matter of pride, nor did I mean to be disparaging, but the distance and quantity is much greater within the US. Coal production is largely limited to a small section of the east coast but the coal is shipped up to 2000 miles by land to be consumed. I honestly have not looked at the CO2 cost of water transportation. But the distance from the port to the point of use with in the UK would be much less. The distance in distance puts the CO2 difference in perspective.
Do the research, see if I made a mistake, as you can see I am not above them, but I do believe I got the numbers right.
Yes, I agree, long term converting all long haul transportation to electric would be very good. But this comes back “If you want to curb CO2 now, you need to use the mature technologies we have now.”
Late to the party.
Mike, good to hear that you’ve not been a-mused ;). Looking forward to resumption of normal service once you’ve cleared the decks.
~~~
Martha,
Excellent analysis of Vernon here and here. You’ve nailed him and, judging by the resultant squirming, he knows it.
I found your (professional) assessment of his, and Deniers in general, mental state interesting. My lay assessment is that there is significant pathology – the blatant dishonesty and distortion to maintain his ‘concerned environmentalist’ persona is unpleasant to witness. And he knows, at some level, what he is doing – witness the back-peddling when he thinks he’s at risk of a ban.
While I gain a lot from the reality-based responses to his perpetual shite – both the science and articulate evisceration – his tedious, dishonest output and continual attempts to pollute every thread detracts from what could otherwise be purely pleasant conversation with some intelligent people. I enjoy the oases of sanity at Joe Romm’s and Tim Lambert’s – I get my fill of arguing against the Denier’s drivel at The Guardian and reddit.
And thanks to everyone else in this thread – especially the nuclear stuff – that’s something I need to study more to understand how undesirable it is.
[I waited three days for the following to clear moderation – got tired of waiting – now edited to remove links, ‘naughty’ words – Mike, do we really need to be protected from sturdy Anglo Saxon? There’s a lot more offensive posted than a combination of letters….]
Mike, good to hear that you’ve not been a-mused 😉 . Looking forward to resumption of normal service once you’ve cleared the decks.
~~~
Martha,
Excellent analysis of Vernon [here] and [here]. You’ve nailed him and, judging by the resultant squirming, he knows it.
I found your (professional) assessment of his, and Deniers in general, mental state interesting. My lay assessment is that there is significant pathology – the blatant dishonesty and distortion to maintain his ‘concerned environmentalist’ persona is unpleasant to witness. And he knows, at some level, what he is doing – witness the back-peddling when he thinks he’s at risk of a ban.
While I gain a lot from the reality-based responses to his perpetual sh!te – both the science and articulate evisceration – his tedious, dishonest output and continual attempts to pollute every thread detracts from what could otherwise be purely pleasant conversation with some intelligent people. I enjoy the oases of sanity at Joe Romm’s and Tim Lambert’s – I get my fill of arguing against the Denier’s drivel at The Guardian and reddit.
And thanks to everyone else in this thread – especially the nuclear stuff – that’s something I need to study more to understand how undesirable it is.
David,
Martha never says anything, much like your showing. Please, defend your position, where did I squirm? Oh, I didn’t, did I.
[…] been busy (like Greenfyre, I guess), but check out this seminar announcement which the Heartland Institute has been […]
Okay, week’s up.