The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

I thought this was a Facilities Networking site not a Political Blog?

But since you brought the subject up…  You’re making the assumption that CO2 emissions are destroying the planet and therefore must Tax these power plants, etc. into submission.  As my experiences have proven to me this only inflates the price of everything and does little or nothing for the real environmental issues.

It’s always amazed me that the States that did the worst environmental damage back in the 60’s-70’s are the same ones preaching to everyone else too adopt their absurd and costly regulations.

Now it’s mostly the same States that are in financial trouble, again preaching that we all need to adopt their stringent environmental policies so the rest of us can be broke like they are.

Notice I did not define the Political Parties; some things are just obvious!

And what’s wrong with nuclear power and for that matter drilling for oil we have on our own land?  Once again, environmental regulations make either cost prohibitive.

Ron

Even though I am in one of those states that has become over burdened with environmental restrictions, I agree with you completly. Nuclear power has been used here without incident for decades, San Onofre for instance, and is a "Clean and Efficient" way of generating the power needed to keep our industries rolling. Government intrusion, either party. is restrictive.

 I have read recently that even solar generation has some opponenents because the wide open area needed for a large system might endanger some type of lizzard. We dont even want to go into the danger to birds, that wind generation might cause. We must all be aware of environmental dangers but also draw some limits.

 With unemployment rising at alarming rates manyfacilities have started to consolidate operations and are leaving large office and manufacturing plants vacant.  Facility Management is our profession and without facilities to manage we will be the next to go.    

OK, enough already.

1.) We still don't know what causes "Ice Ages".  Some current theories suggust it is internal heat of the earth that starts and stops climate change.

2.) We're basing our conclusions on 30 years of data during a hundred THOUSAND year plus cycle.  The data is statistically insignificant to draw conclusions from.

3.) We can't control what the Chinese and Indians are doing.  They are building power plants and creating motor vehicles at a rate that makes our best effots to stay ahead a joke by comparison.

4.) The Sun has been increasing in temperature since it's creation.  By most estimates it has gotten 10% hotter since creation.  It will continue to get hotter until it boils the oceans billions of years from now.

5.) The earths magnetic poles are MOVING FAST by geologic time frames.  That indicates molten magma and iron in the earths core are on the move.  Implications to the Earths surface are unknown.  The Sun's radiation hitting the Earth is CHANGING.

6.) Nuclear power takes upwards of 10 years to design, approve and bring on line.  Shorten the cycle or live with the CO2.  We have to do something now?  Fine turn off the power.  Liberals: You first! (Gee, in the 70s it was nuclear power that was going to kill us....)

7.) Some parts of the Antarctic ice cap are shrinking and some are GROWING.

8.) Most of this is a natural cycle that has occured many times before man was on the planet.  Some species survive the change some go extinct.  It's nature.

9.) The sun gets hotter and cooler on eleven year cycles, the earths orbit changes, the earths tilt on it's axis changes.  ALL AFFECT OUR CLIMATE.

10.) When Mt Pinatubo blew in June of 91, the Earths temperature DROPPED by over a degree by some estimates.  That in spite of of all the CO2 and methane that it shot up in the atmosphere.  The Earth recovered very nicely, thank you.

11.) I've been to the Third world.  (Philippines)  It's nothing unusual to see entire families dead beside the road after accidents with motorcycles or motorcycles with side cars.  Honda Gull Wings only get 32 miles per gallon.  Obama, get real!  Putting us all in Mini-Mini cars is not the way to go.  I've been working on cars and even doing some racing for about 30 years.  I know what's possible with the Otto Cycle and ICE.  Yes we must find an alternative to the ICE, but you can't legislate progress.  You can give incentives to make it happen.  (Hint! Hint!)  The only thing high taxes do is give incentives to avoid them.  Like not hire and not spend capital.

Yes, we must get off Oil.  (We're funding those that are trying to kill us.)  Yes, we must get away from coal.  (Digging holes and wrecking the area of the mines is never a good thing.)  Yes, we must use more Nuclear Power.  Yes, we must develop clean energy sources like solar, wind, and tides.  (So STOP blocking the best sites.)

When Massachusetts stops blocking one of the countries best possible wind sites with a NIMBY argument, I'll start listening to you liberals, until then, don't both me.  You have no credibility.

Can't use windmills.  They look bad and make noise.  Can't use tidal energy.  It might harm sea life.  Can't put up solar panels they look bad.

If you want to really go Green, plant a garden and a couple trees and encourage our leaders to give tax breaks to Hybrid cars, Plug-in Hybrids and get taxes off the firms that can make them.  ALL car makers are hurting now.  Give them a chance to get back on their feet.  Yes even the foreigners.

It's going to be 2015 or after until Nuclear power can make a meaning full increase in electric generation.  If you think those six years will kill the planet, crawl under you matress and stay there.  I'm going on with my life.

Iran and North Korea's missles concern me much more than Climate Change.  Climate change might get my 10 times great grandchilden.  A nuclear winter somewhere might come much sooner.

Yes, Climate Change is occuring.  No, we American's can't do anything to stop it without bankrupting ourselves dozens of years before it occurs first.  If Obama keeps trying, 2010 will be here sooner than he thinks.

If you want links for all these arguments, I'll be glad to provide them.

OK, Off the Soapbox.

Let's talk REAL engineering issues here.

Ed Humble

Obviously, climate change legislation is a hot button issue with many strong opinions and arguments on both sides of the coin. I think it needs to be said that any further discussion that goes on continues to be constructive and without any berating of views or groups of people that may have opinions different than your own.

We all have different views; that's what makes life — and hot button issues — interesting.

Personally, I've always found it interesting when people bring up the (often) extreme liberal view that energy efficiency projects would be a threat to various wildlife (turbines kill birds, etc.); therefor we should not implement them. In my view, it's only a relatively small — and very loud — fraction of opponents of these projects that use that as a reason to nix them. I'd like to think that actual policymakers, while aware of the wildlife issues, weigh them appropriately against the all the other pros and cons of the project. Does anyone feel that pro-wildlife lobbying actually has that big of an impact on the implementation of these projects, or is it just a case of "who screams the loudest"?

WOW!!  

 Reading up on Wind Power has enlightened me on the many sides of contention regarding avian mortality. Yes, I am from California and actually live about 80 miles from one of the nations largest wind farms I started reading about the law suits that have been brought against the power producing companies and the Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

 I understand the environmentalists point of view in regards to deaths of many birds at the Altimont Pass Wind Farm. Bald Eagles and Red Tailed Hawks are some of the birds that have been whacked by the impellars of the great fan topped sentinals (almost 5,000 of generators). Some of the wind mills have been shut down during mating season to comply with the lawsuit.

 To bring everything into context the envirnmentalists have to look at the bigger picture. Polution from fosil Fuel generation is credited for about 4.6 - 5 bird deaths per GWH (gigawatt hours) while on the other hand wind turbins are killing about .3 -.4 bird deaths per GWH thus eliminating about 4.6 bird deaths. Sounds like an up-side to me.

 I am not sure how many of you out there are pro or con to this technoligy but let me tell you first hand that it is very awe inspiring to stand in a field just west of interstate 5 in California and watch the sun go down over Altimont pass and see these behemoths kicking out clean power to the millions of homes in the surounding cities.    

Lacey,

Thanks for making my point most clearly.

Being against"EVERYTHING" is not a solution.

If you believe we must get away from coal power generation (I AGREE) you can't also be against all possible solutions  (Like wind and Nuclear).

The problem I have with the extreme left is they only offer problems.  They Never have any acceptable solutions.  (EVEN TO THEM.)

I've seen the wind farms in California.  Most impressive.  I've seen videos of the wind farms in the North Sea.  

I would have no problem with a wind farm like either of these offshore near my area.  (Some on the left DO.)

We must weight the pros and cons and accept the possibility of unintended consequencies in any energy venture we might make.

I agree that coal and oil must be replaced as primary sources of energy.  I just believe this transition will take several decades as financial and technological developments will allow.

The planet has been here billions of years before man.  I feel confident we can destroy it with CO2, considering the massive planet altering volcanic events that are known to have occured in the past.

In the 1940’s Edward Teller, the father of the nuclear age, predicted some ozone depletion and atmospheric damage from nuclear explosions. His estimate was a natural recovery in a few months time. Ozone variations had already been noted with seasonal change and in different geographical areas. Damage was a by product of an explosion, not of huge concern. Soon after a 12.5 kiloton atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

In a recent news release from a researcher in Colorado there was speculation of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and Afghanistan. The project used of 50 times the Hiroshima explosion could possibly do a large amount of damage to our already delicate atmosphere. I would agree.

In my personal research I have found that surface testing of atomic weapons has totaled 540 megatons of explosions between 1943 and 1990. That is megatons compared the Teller’s kilotons and a lot more that 50 times which concerned the researcher. Each of these tests incinerated the atmosphere at 7,000 degrees, destroying the ozone and creating nitrous oxides. Year after year the US, Russia, Britain, China, France, and others continued to incinerate the atmosphere at a rate far exceeding Teller’s estimates.

I believe that the natural ability of the atmosphere to “heal” itself is being slowed by continuous surface testing and the exponential generation of CO2 by human consumption. Just like a piece of iron will return to its natural state; the sky would also return to its natural conditions. The problem we face today is that our CO2 generation is working like paint on iron. It is retarding the natural processes that would normally bring the atmosphere back.

Fuel is cheap. It is the reckless use of “carbon input” that creates the unnecessary size of our global carbon footprint. When a business uses fuel the cost is passed on to the end user. If costs get too high employees are eliminated. It is fast, easy cost reduction and does not require and investment in efficiency. In other cases we look at energy conservation as a purchase and not and investment. “If you buy one to these with capital dollars it will save you money.” Budgets for maintenance or training are frequently low if they exist at all.

There are a lot of reasons for our total inefficiencies. They cost money to fix and the pain of behavioral change. The inefficiencies amount to usage of 30 to 40% more carbon based resources than we need. If we stop incinerating the sky and reduce our waste by 40% for 40 years, I think the atmosphere will recover to a natural varying state.

This string started in a political manner. It will be hard for current two party politics to accommodate a reversal of the trends that bought us to this point. Waiting for a dole out of stimulus funds will not remedy the problem. Each of us needs to get up and walk through every square foot of our buildings and do the immediate things needed. We have people accepting 18 year pay backs for energy saving equipment. How fast do you save money when you turn the light switch off? How fast does that small potion of carbon input stop?

The second paragraph should read:The projected use of 50 times the Hiroshima explosion could possibly do a large amount of damage to our already delicate atmosphere.

Correction to my previous post.

The last paragraph should read:

"The planet has been here billions of years before man.  I feel confident we CAN'T destroy it with CO2, considering the massive planet altering volcanic events that are known to have occured in the past."

The fear seems to be that we're at a tipping point.  Just the next little bit of CO2 will plunge us into uncontrolled warming and destruction of the Ozone layer.

In fact the Ozone layer is being replaced all the time.  The Solar wind bombards the upper atmosphere constantly, generating an unending supply of Ozone directly proportional to the intensity of the suns output.  Ozone (O3) also reverts to oxygen (O2) constantly as well.  It's a natural process.

If we're nearing that tipping point, then the next major volcanic blast or another massive round of wild fires should put us past the point of no recovery.  (To say nothing of the Chinese and Indian energy ventures that are underway.)

Interesting that trees seem to grow very well near coal power plants.

Every new technological innovation brings its own set of problems.  Most of which are never known until the devices are in wide use.  

Whoever heard of carpal tunnel syndrome prior to 1980?  

Don’t forget the automobile was widely praised by the media in the early part of the last century for eliminating the worst pollutant of all time:  Horse Manure.  

History does seem to loop back on itself as well.  Henry Ford ran his first Model Ts on Ethanol but switched to Gasoline because it was cheaper.  Remember Gasoline was a by-product of Kerosene manufacturing  (Lamp Oil) at that time and was both cheap and widely available because there wasn’t a use for it.

Making Solar Cells is no environment picnic, substances include Arsenic and Cadmium both of which are highly toxic.

Want to move in next to Dow Corning’s new 2 billion dollar polysilicon/ monosilane (Solar Cell Substrate) manufacturing plant?  

Even your cat can kill you. www.mothering.com/.../showthread.php

en.wikipedia.org/.../Silicosis

solarcellsinfo.com/.../1904

hiq.linde-gas.com/.../pdf_msds_silane$file/Silane%20MSDS.pdf

Progress takes time.  It will have successes and failures.

How about a solar powered engine that you can buy TODAY with no pollution at all!  (Well, there are just a few catches.....)

www.youtube.com/watch

www.stirlingengines.org.uk/.../sola3.html

Climate Change is fact.  Arguing to the contrary is analogous to arguing against the "theories" of gravity or evolution.  It can be done, but it's not credible science.

The question IS, how are we going to responsibly deal with it. Making the needed behavioral changes to slow and eventually reverse these effects before they cause impacts from sea level rise and drought that economically dwarf the energy conversion costs is the challenge that is on the table.

Political posturing is useless, scientific analysis is where I place my bet.  We have a responsibility to future generations to act as stewards of the environment.  

Power generation is a big part of the solution, but transportation is an issue that cannot be ignored.  Mass transit, shifting to localized use of resources to reduce shipping, conversion back to rail from trucking, use of biofuels versus fossil fuels, all of these solutions presently exist and can provide many needed jobs.

Old technology is always replaced by new technology, all of us know that.  Resisting the advance of technology serves no one beyond the short term monetary gain of the individual.

This has been clearly evidenced by the failures of both Chrysler & GM.  Both companies held to old business models and refused to embrace new technology and a new business environment. Due to this, not only will those directly involved with the firms suffer, but also the businesses connected downstream, and each taxpayer who now shoulder the impact of poor decision making.

The opportunities that are now available for growth in the sectors that will produce the solutions to the issue are enormous.  I would argue that rather than see this as a "glass half empty", we should realize that it offers the U.S. a chance to tap into it's greatest resource, it's ingenuity.  Creating new industry and jobs in building things, just as we once did, prior to sending all of our manufacturing overseas.

Just my .02

John: Climate Change is fact.  Arguing to the contrary ...

Ed: The fear seems to be that we're at a tipping point.

But, the question of 'do humans really have any significant control over the rate of change?' *is* in fact a valid question, John, and is not a given.  Or, are we an insignificant blip compared to the natural cycles and events, as Ed outlines?

John: I would argue that rather than see this as a "glass half empty", we should realize that it offers the U.S. a chance to tap into it's greatest resource, it's ingenuity.  Creating new industry and jobs in building things, just as we once did, prior to sending all of our manufacturing overseas.

Sure, but I don't believe this is accomplished through punitive taxation and expensive/wasteful/corrupt government bureaucracy and control.  The government has shown over and over they can't effectively manage these types of efforts ... and now they are building cars and, as of today, assuming responsible for our network security.  The same government with ancient FAA computers and other outdated technology.

WW,  Everyone is entitled to thier opinion, but facts are facts.

Climate change is accepted as human caused in scientific community by those who understand all of the variables.  Of course there are those of a dissenting opinion, however, the preponderance of the evidence supports human causation.

The proposed carbon taxation system is not punitive, it simply accounts for the previously unpaid costs.  Previously unpaid by the producers, that is.  There are real economic costs to technologies such as coal fired power generation.

Here's an example cut from an article in Scientific American.

"coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas."

Here's alittle information from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Solid waste

Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.

Toxic substances in the waste -- including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium -- can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system. One study found that one out of every 100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes were at risk of developing cancer. Ecosystems too have been damaged -- sometimes severely or permanently -- by the disposal of coal plant waste.

Cooling water discharge

Once the 2.2 billion gallons of water have cycled through the coal-fired power plant, they are released back into the lake, river, or ocean. This water is hotter (by up to 20-25° F) than the water that receives it. This "thermal pollution" can decrease fertility and increase heart rates in fish. Typically, power plants also add chlorine or other toxic chemicals to their cooling water to decrease algae growth. These chemicals are also discharged back into the environment."

These are costs of running the process, so if you are going to make accurate cost comparisons to Clean Technology, they must be quantified, that is what the proposed Carbon Tax system is intended to do.

John,

Maybe human impact, but not human caused.  And you missed my point.  I don't doubt that man (as there *are* over 6.7 billion of us) have an impact on the environment - how could we not, despite the fact that your scientific quotes are full of "sometimes", "might then", "potential" ...

The questions are what percentage of the *total* impact when considering the complete pool, including the significant list of natural phenomena which man does not control including the natural cyclical pattern of global temperature *and* what impact the .3 billion of us in the US can really have and at what cost (and when there's cost, someone is getting the money - WHO?).

No one questions that coal smoke and gas smoke and cigarette smoke have bad stuff in them and less is better, but manufacturing solar cells involves toxins, bird lives are valued higher than reducing hydrocarbons when wind farms are proposed, CFL bulbs have mercury, growing fuel (corn et al) competes with limited land for food, and nuclear ...  Then there are China, India, Africa and anyone else that is just now industrializing and could give a hoot.  

I don't think we have an answer yet, but taxing US business and putting us at a worldwide competitive business disadvantage for arguably little or no actual significantly beneficial impact ... when the environmentalist response to ANYTHING except electric cars (that somehow have to get a toxic battery or toxic solar cell charged) is NO ... well, that doesn't make much sense to me.

Should we be good environmental stewards - absolutely. Should we understand the cause and effect and trade offs first - definitely. Must solutions make good business sense - ultimately they have to or the business dies. Are the answers easy and obvious - usually not. Is a knee-jerk carbon tax the answer - in my view it doesn't pass the sniff test.

(slides soap box back under desk)

I'm agreeing with WildWeasel 100%.  (You didn't fly Phantoms in a previous life did you?) .

The Union of Concerned Scientists must do ALL their home work.

Until a cost effective form of high density energy storage becomes available, wind and solar can never be a true solution to our energy needs.  You must have base load power of Coal or Nuclear and use some form of reliable energy to handle demand surges.  (Right now hydro, pump storage, or gas.)

The only practical forms of energy storage being used or considered these days are Pump Storage or compressed air.

Batteries have come a long way, but have a long way to go.  Most batteries have some very toxic substances in them so aren't we just trading one form of toxic energy medium for another?  

Solar cells use Cadmium and Arsenic in their manufacture so I'm sure those substances find their way into our environment.  (Not to mention the fossil fuel energy that it took to make them.)  

Thermal pollution is a part of all power generation that involves energy exchange between two different temperatures and is governed by the laws of Thermodynamics.

The Earths climate is GLOBALLY connected.  A large Volcanic eruption in the Southern Hemisphere will eventually have planetary wide implications.  Mt. Pinatubo proved this to be the case.  

Did I mention historical evidence says the sun has been warming since it's creation and will continue to do so?

Is the Earth in a Warming trend?  Probably.  Can we Humans do anything to reverse it?  (GASP!, Chuckle, Choke!)  Of course not.  We may have city wide effects on out local climate, but GLOBAL Effects?

Consider the following:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Energy

greenjibe.wordpress.com/.../global-hurricane-activity-reaches-new-lowsstill-lowest-in-30-years

www.aoml.noaa.gov/.../D7.html

We're just along for the ride.

Solutions:

Future orbiting solar cell farms.  

There might be a few no fly zones.  We might fry a bird or two, and we might heat the atmosphere up some with the microwave energy.

Deep Geothermal:

Widely used out West.  We might drill some deeper wells as we learn how to.

Wind

Somebody needs to tell Massachusetts, "Sorry you don't like the way they look, we're putting the windmills in.  It's for the good of the planet. What's more important?  Esthetics or Global warming?"  That goes for ALL the other good wind sites as well.

Nuclear

Coming to a neighborhood near you.  Get ready.

It can't wait until the Liberals try to hit us with a Carbon Tank.  The American public may believe in Glabal Warming, but there is no way they are going to pay for something that might affect their three times great grandchildren.  All possible PRACTICAL solutions mean sitting at home in the dark and riding Mopeds to work.  

It ain't happening.  

That should put the Democrats out of power for another generation.  With the double digit inflation already on the way and the sustained double digit unemployment that is sure to increase, the Republicans can't loose.

Oh, those promised jobs using Lithium, Arsenic, Lead, and Cadmium making batteries and solar cells, would you want one? (Wikipedia time)

I'm open. Present me a plan for reducing global temperature (AND a Cost For Doing So.)  Remember most CO2 releases and Methane releases are natural bi-products of nature.  Now WATER is the most potent Green House gas.  I really want to see the plan to regulate that.

Nothing about the proposed Carbon Tax passes the smell or common sense test.  (Witness what happen to the Tobacco settlement funds.  Very little went to where it was PROMISED TO GO.  Just another way to pay Democratic Socialism.  

Yes, SOCIALISM has failed every where it has been tried.

Ron,

You were obviously up a little too late the other night. You did stir an interesting string of responses though. Everyone one needs to remember the people doing research already have their own biases (as evidenced by John). If an athiest is studying evolution he is certainly not going to come to the conclusion of inteligent design. Likewise for the environmentalist, animal actvist or political hack they are only taking in evidence to support their bent.

I have a question. We hear a lot about using high efficiency light bulbs. We are supposed to use them to reduce our overall demand for energy. I don't hear anyone saying that they are made with mercury in them. That is supposed to be bad for our environment also. That also echoes what Ed has been saying. Where's the environmentalist when it comes to the fluorescent light bulb?

So which one is worse needing more energy or putting more mercury in the ground. We all know everyone is not going to recycle those bulbs and they will end up in the landfill.

Ed and WW are on the right track. Taxes and Govrnment just get in the way of natural improvements and evolution of our own knowledge. They are more likely to impede on progress by bringing us further into a recession and causing more unemployment. Let America do what it does best come up with ideas that will generate profit. Who is going to have great ideas if someone else takes the rewards. I am tired of all the taxes, permits, limitations, red tape, EPA, AQMD, special interest groups etc. especially in California, we are sure to drive out all industry to another Country. I guess then we will all go back to farming. OOps no water for that either. Oh well I guess we are just out of luck. Maybe the big earthquake will hit then global warming will be the last thing we are worried about. Alright I've already said too much!