samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
|
The debate in the science community is pretty much settled on the causes of global climate change. All you have to do is pick up the Sept. 25 issue of Science discussing carbon capture and sequestration to realize that the larger scientific community has accepted the hypothesis of anthropogenic CO2 causing climate change. There are also plenty of other issues of Science which cover the science behind global climate change and also come to this conclusion. I will point out yet again, that Nobelist Peter Duesberg managed to convince Idi Amin that the HIV retrovirus wasn't the cause of AIDs-with disastrous results. So the discussion as to the causes of global warming is effectively irrelevant-time to move on.
What is an open question are the economics here. It strikes me that everybody's been going in circles about the science of global climate change, but has been placidly accepting the economics of the situation. I'm sorry, but this is laughable since much of the problem stems from the idiocy of economists.
Two things no economy can function without: clean water, and clean air to breathe. Yet all current economic theory postulates that these resources are effectively infinite and free. Well, news flash- they're not.
While you folks are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin- the real debate that needs to happen is how to proceed to be successful economically. Sanity is claiming that correctly pricing clean air and water will carry tremendous costs and that we should continue with current technology. This is protectionism of the worst sort and relies on faulty economics, i.e. not correctly pricing breathable air and potable water. My response is that protecting legacy industries transfers economic advantage to the competitor not so burdened. Furthermore, I don't buy the nonsense that the US can no longer manufacture anything and that China has to be the world's manufacturer. So rather than look at this as a crisis that the sky is falling and that energy prices are going to skyrocket, I'd look at this situation as an opportunity to build new industries.
What do we need?
1) More wind generation. Wind is cheap, technologically reasonably mature, and low environmental impact. Heck, the wind turbine designs everybody is now using were developed out of NASA in the 70s and 80s.
2) Improved solar- both thermal and PV. Current PV technology sucks- higher efficiency stuff is in the labs and should be commercialized. Let China sell outdated crystalline Si solar cells, we need to leapfrog.
3) Better transmission lines. We've already got superconducting transmission lines that are underground, small volume (don't need massive tunnels) and are robust and deliver energy with far lower losses than anything else. Time to put people to work building infrastructure. Rather than use these superconducting lines for a mile or so- they should be running cross country. Yes, it'll cost in the billions. We'll get a lot more out of it than the bank bailout. The poor folks don't need a cheaper energy bill- they need jobs. Which would you prefer- no job and a 25% cheaper electricity bill- or a job and a 25% higher bill? I'm guessing that bumping up spending in this area by 25% will be sufficient to get the ball rolling- but it might be 50%. This is certainly debatable. The savings in the defense budget alone will pay for these costs though- wouldn't it be nice to tell all the sheiks in the Mideast to keep their lousy oil- let their camels drink it?
4) Along with better transmission lines- more and better storage capacity. We already have hydro storage measured in terawatts- time to go to flywheel and improve the hydro. Large scale battery and capacitor may work too.
5) I'm a bit leary about expanding geothermal much further- not such a great idea if you produce earthquakes.
The September 29 issue of Science covering the technologies of carbon capture shows very quickly why protecting existing coal plants is a no/no. While developing new renewables technology is only going to decrease energy prices, adding carbon capture to existing plants is only going to increase prices- dramatically. Essentially carbon capture decreases the energy output of a plant by at least 20%- and it's likely to be higher. No way will China and India go to this technology. However, China has already figured out that they've got an environmental disaster- our chance to get ahead of them is now, because they're going to have to spend more money cleaning up their country than we will.
So in summary
1) We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2) We are in a competitive position to do so now- waiting will only make our competitive position worse.
Sam
|
RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread