Brandon Lorenz - All Comments

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

Jeff Miller — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:39:55 GMT

Ed, It seems that in my absence the thread has run it's course, but to answer your question: no, I never flew them (would have in a heartbeat, though, if I had the chance), but (for other reasons) that's the source of the WW handle and you're the first one to ever ask!

re: Kerry's Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act Faces The Future

Ed Humble — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:18:20 GMT

Brandon, I'm all in favor of your goal of Carbon Reduction. It's just the way you want to get there that I have issues with.

Let the Government set goals and prizes for reaching these goals. Doesn't cost the Treasury a dime until the goal is reached.

Goals like a proven mass production way of making cellulosic ethanol. (Granted not carbon free, but carbon neutral.)

Increasing solar cell efficiency.

Reducing Solar Cell cost of production.

I'm all in favor of telling the Arabs to keep there oil, but taxing our way out of this recession clearly isn't working.

Let's switch to the "Carrot" instead of the "Stick". If you raise the cost of energy more and more, industry will move to other countries who need the jobs and don't care about the CO2 they make. On that one, I believe we can agree, the environment loses, and America loses as well.

The next election will be all about Jobs, JOBS, JOBS. If the national rate is still at 10% or above, I'd hate to be a Democrat.

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

Steven Wagner — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:49:08 GMT

I agree with Ron this sight should stick to Facility Issues and stay out of politics. I'm thinking about dropping this sight now.

re: Campus Administrator Talks About Making ESCOs Work

Robert_W — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:29:14 GMT

There is a danger to adding maintenance projects onto an ESCO project. That problem is cash flow. ESCO's are quite willing to add maintenance based equipment replacement into their project. However, they require the owner to stipulate, e.g. agree to the savings. The discussion goes something like: "You need to replace X and it would cost you $Y. We will do it in the project and you agree that you saved $Y." This is quite legitimate. However, recognize that the energy savings of the project are not guaranteed to cover this cost. If you are counting on the project savings to fully cover the ESCO payment you can be in for a surprise.

re: A New Tool For Estimating The Carbon Footprint of Your Products, And For Tackling LEED's Regional Material Credits

lashellejenkins — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:41:37 GMT

Hello - great artcile. My team and I would like to begin tracking our carbon foot print for our new green initiative - do you know of other resources we could use for this?

re: Kerry's Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act Faces The Future

Brandon Lorenz — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:40:57 GMT

Update: You can also add Apple Computer to the list of companies who have quit the Chamber over its opposition to taking action on climate change.

re: Energy Bill Isn't Dead, Just Delayed....

Ed Humble — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:08:19 GMT

Give it a rest will you.

Even the "New York Times" is calling it "The Year Without Summer."

www.nytimes.com/.../01hot.html

This was the year without a hurricane even coming CLOSE to the US. They WAY overestimated the number of storms.

www.weather.com/.../8_19029.html

Last years winter had near record snows in the North and Great Lakes area.

www.worldclimatereport.com/.../antarctica-snowfall-increase

www.mlive.com/.../its_a_record_year_for_snowfall.html

More like Global "Cooling" the past year.

It's a Cycle. It's a Cycle. It's a CYCLE.

If Obama still wants to fight this battle, bring it on.

The facts will switch his numbers before Christmas.

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

BobVahey — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:24:23 GMT

Be prepared for some general thoughts relating to the manner in which the subject matter is being put forth and debated.

We have here some great discussion on a difficult and controversial (obviously)subject . IMHO, one way to reduce global warming would be to eliminate all the hot air exhuasted by wanna be know-it-alls. In spite of all the "scientific" evidence put forward in support of one position or another, when you get right down to it, we have to make some sort of value judgement as to which data we want to believe.

If this notion catches you off guard, then you simply need to ask yourself the following question each time you are confronted with so-called scientific evidence or matter-of-fact sounding opinion: "Am I able to verify the suppositions or statements of fact being pushed at me?"

If you answer this honestly, then perhaps you'll find yourself wondering where to go from there. Surely there is merit to portions of much of the evidence and supposition, but assigning weight to any given set of information should leave one wondering if all of the facts are included or even available.

If nothing else, following these steps should inspire us to be a bit more 'allowing' in our effort to constructively move a subject forward toward something more substantive than we started with. In this context typically, a lot more questions arise that need answers and some good ones have been asked here in this discussion.

Here's an example from Ed: 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?

And Ron Asks: And what’s wrong with nuclear power and for that matter drilling for oil we have on our own land?

Personally speaking, before I can answer these questions, I need to understand my own responsibilities as one human being whose actions affect those of others around me. At least in this context, I can begin to have some control over the ingredients of cause and effect. At this level, I can apply a fair is fair approach. Sometimes this requires that we back track on prior reasoning to come up with better solutions and that is a tough thing to ask. Nonetheless, how are we to refine processes, behaviors, values etc?

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

Ed Humble — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:48:42 GMT

Well the Majority is fast becoming the MINORITY:

online.wsj.com/.../SB124597505076157449.html

Science: Ozone creation is directly in proportition to the strength of the solar wind hitting the earth.

Man didn't create Chlorine. It seems to be the root of all evil in Ozone depletion.

www.chemistry.wustl.edu/.../Ozone.htm

www.srh.noaa.gov/.../ozone_formation.html

Science: As for sea level; I'm a Hugo Survivor. As per my previous post, Hurricane incidence is on the decrease. (WE just got through a winter of RECORD LOW temeratures and RECORD HIGH snow falls in the northern states.) I'm working at 9 feet above sea level. I live at 18 feet above sea level. I can walk out my back door at work and after a 100 ft stroll be standing in brackish water AT SEA LEVEL. Nothing has changed since 2004 when I started working here.

Now how is ocean CO2 absorption related to upper atmosphere Ozone creation? Please send me a link to that one. I REALLY want to Know.

Science: CO2 creation and measurement.

www.pnas.org/.../4167.full

Clearly there are a few bugs with the CO2 measuring system.

Throwing out the geological records for CO2 measurement, how do we know what the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were even 30 years ago?

Gee, it was just the 70s that we were worried about global COOLING. That same geological evidence suggust that the Earth does indeed warm right before the on set of a new Ice Age. How do we know that isn't what is occuring now?

muller.lbl.gov/.../history_of_climate.html

The above indicates as I've said. IT IS A CYCLE.

YES, We must get off fossil fuels.

We can't afford the Current Climate Change Bill.

Let's do this through incentives. That will solve the "Carbon Problem" as well. The alternative is the Great Depression ROUND TWO. (Which would give the same effect, but "Trickle Up Poverty" just isn't the way to go.)

Fact: Hoover RAISED taxes in the early thirties and PROLONGED the great Depression, just as this bill would do.

It is thought the global economic downturn helped spur the formation of Nazi Germany. (Can you say North Korea and Iran. Fanatics are in real good supply when they are out of work and hungry. Notice that the world cut off North Korea and they get more belligerent?)

facts.randomhistory.com/.../12_great-depression.html

www.absoluteastronomy.com/.../Herbert_Hoover

We're headed down this same road again. It is a fool who plays the same cards knowing the first time results expecting a different result.

SCIENCE: Let's suppose John is 100% right. What is the forseeable alternative? Nuclear power is the only current practical non-carbon alternative. I have friends working for utilities that say they can NOT meeting the terms of this bill without spending billions and it may take a decade to get off coal because of the lead times involved. It will be at least 2012 before new NUCLEAR PLANTS start coming on line. Electric cars aren't ready yet. The electric grid requires billions to update it to get ready for an electric economy. Wind and solar still require a STORAGE MEDIUM to be useful. (None currently is cost effective.)

Is it Mopeds for all and no heating or cooling in our homes and workplaces because the utilities will still be on now SUPER expensive coal until at least 2012. Will we set in the dark freezing or roasting because we can't afford the energy bill?

I think I'll take my chances with global warming.

Global Warming Proponents: Send us your proof of Global Warming. Send us your SCIENTIFIC study links. Send us your CO2 data and sources. (You have SOME of mine.)

Yes the Earths climate may be changing, but man has nothing to do with it. We are a microbe on an elephants back. A microbe just along for the ride.

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

John Mock — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:02:37 GMT

WaltonG, I'd say if you're looking at all of these comments and you read mine as the one that is biased, then you are not being an honest broker. I'm coming at this as purely a scientific problem, no political overtones at all. If you objectively review the SCIENCE and not wikipedia (that is like quoting a blog), the consensus is clear.

Simply ignoring the problem will not solve it. Greenland isn't losing ice because the Democrats are in power. The southern ocean has stopped absorbing CO2, the best scientists believe it is related directly to ozone depletion. Worldwide CO2 levels are rising, temperatures are increasing and sea levels rising (check Alaska). These are scientific challenges that are only complicated when political histrionics are injected into the mix. Politicians are liars, I trust science.

Since when did we as a nation choose the path of least resistance rather than making the correct choice? Review the science honestly, and, if after you do so, you still interpret it to agree with the minority opinion, then that is your right.

But please do not assume you have ANY knowledge of my political belief system simply because you disagree with my position on climate change....

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

WaltonG — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:25:54 GMT

Thanks Brandon,

That makes me feel a little better using CFLs over incandescent. I havn't found that they are lasting as long as specified. Perhaps they last a lot longer if you are not turning them off and on every day. What do you think?

Thanks, Gil

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

Brandon Lorenz — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:24:23 GMT

Hi Walt. Good question. In fact we've covered the issue of Mercury in light bulbs at Building Operating Management. This very issue came up in one of our Webinars hosted by Lindsay Audin, an energy and lighting consultant.

Some have balked at converting to CFLs because of the mercury contained in fluorescent lamps. A closer look, however, reveals that using CFLs actually reduces hazardous waste. The lead, which is also a hazardous waste, built into the base of incandescent lamps requires, in most areas, their disposal or at least that of their bases as lead-bearing hazardous waste. The relatively short lives of incandescents further exacerbates that problem since five to 10 of them are needed merely to match the lifetime of a single CFL. Besides, CFLs contain very little lead. But when the situation is carefully analyzed, the mercury issue actually favors CFLs over incandescents, which contain no mercury.

More than half the electricity generated in the United States is made by burning coal, which contains mercury. As the coal is burned, the mercury is vaporized and sent up the smoke stack. Mercury in vapor form is much more dangerous than when confined in a landfill. To produce the same light output as a CFL, an incandescent typically consumes three to four times as much of that coal-fired electricity, resulting in much higher overall mercury emissions than occur from use of CFLs. While electric utilities that burn coal are being pressed to control their mercury emissions, it will likely be decades, if ever, before that equation is reversed.

In contrast, the lighting industry has reduced the amount of mercury used in CFLs over the years. One major CFL manufacturer recently announced a new line of CFLs that contain 75 percent less mercury than standard CFLs.

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

WaltonG — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:38:44 GMT

Sorry Ron I meant Brandon. But Ron, you were up late.

When I referred to John I meant Mock, didn't realize there were two John's in the string.

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

WaltonG — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:28:17 GMT

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!

re: The GOP Alternative On Climate Change: Smoke And Mirrors

Ed Humble — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:31:48 GMT

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.