The “compromise” plan for building two new coal-fired power plants near Holcomb really isn’t much of one, our editorial today argues. Legislative leaders proposed building two 600-megawatt plants instead of two 700-megawatt ones. But the smaller plants still would produce about 10 million tons in annual carbon dioxide emissions, while the vast majority of the power would still being going out of state. “I don’t see how that materially changes things,” KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby told The Eagle editorial board.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
108 Comments
“Coal compromise isn’t much of one”
Let just hope it’s enough of a compromise we can get past the disturbed thought process, characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion, and the fear mongering about AGW, and get them built for the benefit of western KS and the state in general.
Will the next proposal be two 500 Megawatts, that we don’t need? Throw the bums out!
The disturbed thought process is that we need to build coal plants for the benefit of neighboring states.
Hell Bells, the Kansas press has expended 500 billions tons of co2 just writing about it.
How will the citizens of Texas and Colorado get their electricity if we don’t build these plants here for them?? What will they do?? Did they run out of space to build their own plants, or just forget how?
Texas is too busy rounding up Mormons to deal with energy issues.
Colorado is too filled with Yuppies to get their hands dirty to build their own plants.
Been wondering something.
10 million tons of Carbon Dioxide- how does that compare with the CO2 released by pasture burning in the Flint Hills each year?
…and wheat stubble burning across the state….
….and livestock flatulence?
Of course we could try and eliminate the livestock contribution to Methane and CO2 Global Warming by doing with that the same thing as has happened with food grains. :(
Reposting from Open thread:
The fact is that there are no easy answers. Nukes are the only real solution. The founder of Greenpeace also thinks so. Let’s start doing what we can to encourage building nuclear power plants.
“Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power – a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.”
“The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.”
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html
I think Western Ks. might jump at the chance to be the spent nuke fuel site for the nation. Let’s get to work on it Ks. Legislators!
There is absolutely nothing preventing Sunflower from building their “magic algae” plant at their existing coal-fired generating plant. By doing that they can prove that they are not lying when they claim that their magic algae will render a coal palnt “nearly carbon-neutral”. Let us scientists see that technology in action. THEN we can talk about the proposed expansions.
Heckler – the CO2 released by Holcomb dwarfs that released by the Flint burns. Also, the Flint burns stimulate growth that then absorbs CO2.
outlander – agreed on nuclear.
Wonder how many pounds of grain go into producing a pound of meat?
Good idea. Establish the science at a working plant as a pre-condition to approval for a new plant.
bth
“Heckler – the CO2 released by Holcomb dwarfs that released by the Flint burns. Also, the Flint burns stimulate growth that then absorbs CO2.”
Give me some numbers. I find that hard to believe. I live there, I live with the smoke for about a month every spring.
Stop the talk, build nuke plants!
I mean, figure a ton of dry grass per acre, how much CO2 does that release? how many acres?
Do the same for all the wheat stubble that gets burned.
OK – figure a ton of grass – about 50% carbon. That would be about a half-ton carbon which would make a bit under 4 tons CO2. If there a couple hundre thousand acres we are looking at something lime a million tons of CO2. Compare to 10 million tons per year.
And remember – that carbon got their by the growth of the grass. It then grows back later this spring so what gets released gets taken back up into the grass.
oops – bad arithmetic. The half-ton carbon would be a bit under TWO tons CO2. So a couple hundred acres a bit under a half-million tons.
Phantom – there is a very good reason Sunflower opposes the idea of building their magic algae reactor at their existing plant. They agree with me that it proably will not work. That is also why they oppose having it in any permit requirements.
Good compromise. It’s like a mugger robbing me of $100 dollars and saying what a deal I got because he left one dollar in my wallet.
bth- “So a couple hundred acres a bit under a half-million tons”
a couple hundred acres is less than a 1/2 section. )1/2 section=320 ac.= 1/2mile x 1 mile) Very small area.
so 1 million tons of c02 from one section, so that would only take 10 square miles of burned grass to equal the yearly out put of the coal plant.
ANTI – one section is hardly a couple hundred thousand acres.
I just noticed I screwed up my arithmetic above – AGAIN. (need more coffee). At a couple tons/acre it would be a half-million acres to make a million tons.
ANTI – I’ll try to fix my arithmetic. A bit under a couple tons/acre – 640 acres/sq mile leads to something like a thousand tons per sq mile. So, if we torch about a thousand sq miles we get a million tons. Which, of course, is subsequently re-sequestered into the green growing grass.
ok, bth. I thought you were correctiong the hundred thousand to just a couple hundred acres….
I am very familiar with acrage bth- 1 section = 640 ac.
burning is good in eastern part of state, not such a good idea in the far west however.
It can get out of hand fast out there. Plus it aids in wind erosion.
What the hell difference does the CO2 production from burning make….it’s been going on for millions of years!
The difference is, grass that burns was created by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. It’s a wash.
The coal that’s burned spews CO2 that’s been out of the atmosphere for millions of years. A net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
b-l – the difference is that we are unbalancing things. When you look at the carbon cycle you will see that natural burning rates and respiration used to be balanced by carbon sequestration by plant growth. That is no longer the case.
ANTI – I was correcting my ‘couple hundred acres’ to a ‘couple hundred THOUSAND acres’ to get a million tons. My big mistake was doing the arithmetic on my keyboard wothout doing on paper first.
Good post, Ben.
That’s what I’ve been saying too–if the magic algae is such a good idea, why not use it now.
As for the science-deniers, hey Jeenyouses?
You ever heard of mercury and what it does to brains? Especially the brains of little kids?
Coal is full of mercury which is atomized and blown high in the atmosphere where it precipitates to earth to be ingested by all of us, a huge risk to kids.
But maybe that’s the idea. If you can make kids stupid enough, you’ll have a fresh crop of Republicans . . .
no problem bth, it’s understandable
Mother Jones magazine agrees with Ben and outlander:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-nuclear-option.html
What do you suggest CapnA to replace effecient and reliable coal plants with? And with out sky rocketing the average American’s enery bill.
I’ll give my answers ANTI:
efficiencies
wind
solar
nuclear
bth, I would say that wind/solar would be suplimental. Nuclear would be consistant and reliable. I do have mixed feelings on nuclear simply because while it is clean on a daily basis (as opposed to which emits pollution while running), the nuclear waste does pose a hazard far longer than the containers we have to store it in, and would be an issue far after the C02 from the coal plant was absorbed by the “global system”.
(as opposed to which emits pollution while running) — insert “coal”
Every ounce of grass burning carbon is recaptured when the grass grows again. The carbon in coal was safely buried and sequestered until it is mined and burned.
It seems that many warming doubters do not understand the carbon cycle….
Cattle production does, however, have a large carbon footprint.
ANTI – wind can be a major baseload – not just supplemental.
As for nuke – the excess CO2 is centuries, not just years. My scenario for nuclear acknowledges the waste issue but incorporates the reality that we already have that today. Take decommissioned warheads (already waste) and back-mix with depleted uranium (waste) to get your fuel. Basically what I would try to create is a ‘closed loop’ using material already on hand.
DavidB,
Cattle production does have a big foot print, but it is worth it. They are delicious and their skin makes great boots. You can’t eliminate the cattle business with out a serious revolt coming to your front door.
signed, A Meat Eater
I’ll try this again.
“Monkeyhawk” explained –
“The difference is, grass that burns was created by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. It’s a wash.
“The coal that’s burned spews CO2 that’s been out of the atmosphere for millions of years. A net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Commercial coal mining (and, for that matter, the widespread use of petroleum as a fuel) is a product of 19th Century technology.
Since that first coal mine opend in 1805, we’ve been spewing previously locked-up CO2 into the atmosphere.
All the logs and twigs and grass and buffalo pies burned ’til then were a direct trade beween atmospheric CO2 ingested by plants and animals and burned into the atmosphere.
Add two hundred years’ worth of CO2 coming up from out of the ground and belching into the air, eventually the consequences are gonna catch up with you. Promise.
What I would like to see is more range fed meats.
Oh gawd.. the ignorance that is shown here is astounding.
“Burning has been going on for millions of years.” There is a big difference between burning a few twigs in a campfire and burning through hundreds of millions of tons of coal a year.
No wonder the doubters doubt.. they have no grasp of basic science.
There is no effective carbon sequestration technology available for use today. Bush funded a big science project for “clean coal” use, but it was a total bust and was just recently abandoned.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1101-fires.html
Southern California wildfires released 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in just the one-week period of October 19-26–the equivalent of about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout California–according to researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Emissions from fires contribute or 4 to 6 percent (290 million tons) of annual emissions in the United States, though in some states fires may account for more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning in some years.
“Enormous fires like this pump a large amount of carbon dioxide quickly into the atmosphere,” said Christine Wiedinmyer, a scientist at NCAR and co-author of the paper. “This can complicate efforts to understand our carbon budget and ultimately fight global warming.”
cont’d at above URL
—————————
Now, the Eagle topic suggests that one coal plant emits “10 million tons in annual carbon dioxide emissions.”
That’s 10 million tons in one year.
The California fires emitted almost 8 million tons in one week.
I think some one’s calculations in previous threads ware off. :)
Oh, and all co2 is sequestered in one form or the other, regardless of the source.
“DavidB” offers –
“Cattle production does, however, have a large carbon footprint.”
But only because of the petroleum energy used in growing cattle feed (and, of course, ranchers in pick-ups instead of on horseback, marketing and transportation costs, etc.)
If you had a cow in the back yard and butchered her, your carbon footprint for T-Bones would be nil.
LOL, no one here is suggesting banning cows!! I have greatly reduced my cow intake, but mostly for good health reasons.
Of course, take away the corn industry subsidies and send them to fruit and vegetable growers and we may have more expensive steaks and burgers, a healthier public, and lowered health care costs…
It is all interrelated….
btw, I would like to see more range fed myself. Range cattle has been a business in my family for 200 years. However as the global demand for beef increases, the “business” selling point for range fed cattle is a hard sell.
I mean that as an industry not a niche market
monkey- “If you had a cow in the back yard and butchered her, your carbon footprint for T-Bones would be nil.”
That would egual a feedlot in the urban environment cheif. And it takes more than a typical back yard of grass to sustain a steer.
“Regular,” you ignorant slut!
When you say –
“Oh, and all co2 is sequestered in one form or the other, regardless of the source.”
Uhm, yeah.
Except CO2 buried for millions and millions of years in the form of coal and petroleum and released into the atmosphere in 200 years might tip the scales just a bit, don’tcha think?
It’s not a question of what it is, but where it is. Five miles below the surface of the earth or in the air that you breathe?
Even you, “Regular,” might discern a difference.
LOL.. A lot of CO2 is being absorbed my the oceans, true. This is observable and seems to be causing growing disruptions of a lot of ocean life.
Wildfires, suddenly release CO2 that would have been released through natural decompositions slowly over time as the vegetation rotted. Comparing that to release of old coal is comparing apples to oranges…
But wild fires can result in nicely done steaks on the hoof! wOOt!
(pssst Monkey .. play nice… we do like to avoid personal insults and stay on the high road – the SNL reference will be lost…) lol
David – about half the excess CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. The resulting decrease in pH is already causing problems.
“ANTI” offers a classic example of changing the subject after getting nailed, with –
“… it takes more than a typical back yard of grass to sustain a steer.”
And I could follow “ANTI” on his non-relevant tangent by reminding him my example was:
“If you had a cow in the back yard…”
As long as there’s a bull in the area, you don’t need a “steer,” or any male bovine (past veal status, anyway).
And a cow in the backyard provides more meat than a typical family needs in a year, so you team up with your neighbors and let the cow share everybody’s back yard. And in the meantime the cow gives you milk and butter and cheese and leather and Jell-O and maybe even a hood ornament for your ‘79 El Dorado…
But it’s all a distraction.
The issue is burning fossil fuels. And the key word is fossil. Understand that difference?
Do you even understand that planet earth probably sustained higher forms of life only because a lot of pre-historic CO2 got locked up inside the earth? Burning off all that CO2 collected beneath the suface for millions and millions of years in the course of a couple of piddlin’ centuries has some consequences.
MH, you brought up the whole “back yard cow for everyone” idea…A subject you are clearly ignorant of. By the way a good guide line for range/back yard cattle keeping- 10 acres per head. That is quite a few back yards and mouths to feed for one cow per say 3 years to raise for slaughter on fescue.
MH- You get milk from preg. cows. they don’t produce milk out of the blue.
or from cows that have recently calved.
MonkeyHock,
Thanks for the admonition, may I have another.
In physics and especially chemical reactions such as fire (coal-fired plants) the conservation of mass still applies.
Some of the mass of coal or plants that are burned are converted to energy (heat) and other is converted to charcoal, other is converted to gases.
I would look it up on what the reduction of coal and charcoal is, but can’t find my physics/chemistry handbook atm, may be in storage.
To give a figure that X tons of coals equals Y amount of atmospheric co2 is simply wrong if one does not consider the full equation of the law of the conservation of mass.
Also, there are charcoal deposits, that’s burned organic matter, that has been deposited in soils and oceans that is thousands of years old.
One of the biggest mysteries to Climate scientists is to figure out exactly how much co2 is sequestered and for how long.
The problem is, the Climate Scientists JUST DO NOT KNOW. These wildly speculative claims that CO2 alarmists give are laboratory spew.
There is no magic formula in figuring differences between natural and man-made co2 over time and how long that co2 “emission” is sequestered.
Sorry, but I don’t like science that leaves out convenient facts covered under well known laws of physics.
Sequestration of carbon has been studied and scientists do not have clear answer – only guesses/theories. There are no definitive studies or studies that have been done in this area.
oh, and ancient co2 absorbed and chemically react in oceans that is thousands of years old as well…
Uranium, mercury and other heavy metals released from burning coals concern me more than co2 release.
BTW, my previous post was referencing sequestration, not reduction chemistry in general.
regular – climate scientists do not leave those things out. And the measured CO2 levels etc are not “laboratory spew” but are real-world measurements.
The metals concern us as well.
Ben,
The measurements do not entail the accurate sequestration of co2 over time. They are still fighting about “black bodies” and what the exact life of atmospheric co2 is and how much is sequestered.
They can guess about the oceans sequestration, problem is they don’t know, because the amount already sequestered is unknown.
“Regular” begins his (lame) “refutation” with –
“MonkeyHock…”
You just can’t control yourself, can you “Regular?”
You’re desperate, you’ve got to name-call.
And you’re so sure you’re so clever.
“Get it? Get it? ‘Monkey-hock’ sounds like ‘Monkey-Hawk!!’? Get it? Get it?! (heh heh heh)”
Did you have anything worthwhile to talk about?
Our ol’ pal “Regular” suggests –
“The measurements do not entail the accurate sequestration of co2 over time.”
Yeah? Well, we’re pretty limited by you people limiting the universe to 6,000 years old.
regular – the scientists have a much better understanding then you seem to think. Of course, if we are going to wait until they can determine everything to 100 decimal places we might as well not bother. Instead I guess we just get to watch the results of inaction.
If CO2 is not a problem then why did Neufeld and Morris LIE and claim that the supposed microalgae pilot plant would “have rendered the expansion nearly carbon-neutral”? Why didn’t they just come out and say they don’t care about CO2?
DavidB posts;
“Oh gawd.. the ignorance that is shown here is astounding.
“Burning has been going on for millions of years.””
David, not sure who you were quoting above but if it was mine,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/coal-compromise-isnt-much-of-one/#comment-337168
then the outstanding “ignorance” is yours. The context of the conversation was on the Flint Hills grass burns, which have been going on for millions of years on their own due to lighting strikes. There is no increase in CO2 release over what has been going on over the same time period from burning that grass.
#
bth
Posted April 25, 2008 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
If CO2 is not a problem then why did Neufeld and Morris LIE and claim that the supposed microalgae pilot plant would “have rendered the expansion nearly carbon-neutral”? Why didn’t they just come out and say they don’t care about CO2?
———————–
I think they call that appeasement.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
“Regular” begins his (lame) “refutation” with –
“MonkeyHock…”
You just can’t control yourself, can you “Regular?”
You’re desperate, you’ve got to name-call.
And you’re so sure you’re so clever.
“Get it? Get it? ‘Monkey-hock’ sounds like ‘Monkey-Hawk!!’? Get it? Get it?! (heh heh heh)”
Did you have anything worthwhile to talk about?
——————–
Oh you mean like “ignorant slut?”
So Ben, here is a quote from one of your favorite websites concerning Climate Change concerning circulation which directly affects how “sinks” react.
“It is unknown precisely how much fresh water is needed to shut down the MOC. Scientists are fairly certain that the last two abrupt coolings seen the Greenland ice core, the “Younger Dryas” event and the “8200 years before present” event (Figure 1), both occurred when huge North American glacial melt-water lakes flooded down the St. Lawrence River into the North Atlantic when the ice dams restraining the lakes broke. The sudden addition of low-density fresh water presumably partially or totally stopped the sinking of ocean waters in the North Atlantic, slowing or completely stopping the Meridional Overturning Circulation. Once the fresh water got into the North Atlantic, it stayed, puddling on top of the ocean and freezing in winter. The Meridional Overturning Circulation stayed shut off for about 1100 years during the Younger Dryas event, then suddenly restarted, for reasons scientists don’t understand. Current computer models of the climate cannot reproduce the observed sudden shut-down or start-up of the Meridional Overturning Circulation at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas period.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimate.asp
———————-
And Ben,
From a Geologist in Norway.
“This is nonsense,” says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists — a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.
“The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,” he says. “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”
Most leading geologists know this? But, how can that be true? After all, Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio – despite having absolutely no expertise concerning this matter – say otherwise. As such, why should we care what someone that actually specializes in this field thinks?
Regardless, the article demonstrated how the IPCC has basically created computer models to predict an end result it wanted while totally ignoring current and past scientific observations regarding CO2’s expected life in the atmosphere:
[W]ith the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide’s longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.
Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.
“They don’t even try,” says Prof. Segalstad. “They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.”
For those that are interested, this is why anthropogenic global warming is regularly referred to as junk science. As Segalstad stated, rather than base future expectations on known past and present observations, the IPCC has created models to predict future events lacking any historical basis.
The article then explained what has been observed, and why what the IPCC is predicting is so ridiculous:
In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. “The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium,” explains Prof. Segalstad. “This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon– it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.”
So, how does the IPCC resolve this conundrum? Better remove all fluids from proximity:
Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad’s isotope mass balance calculations — a standard technique in science — show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in “a missing sink.” Many studies have sought this missing sink — a Holy Grail of climate science research– without success.
Marvelous, wouldn’t you agree? But, not as good as the Professor’s conclusion:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,” Prof. Segalstad concludes.
“It is all a fiction.”
BTW, the Geologist was a former IPCC Scientist, an expert wouldn’t you agree Ben?
:)
I agreed that we cannot do it to the ‘nth degree’ and you are correct that the understanding of Younger-Dryas is imperfect. However that does not change the ‘bottom line’ in any way – anthropogenic acticities are increasing CO2 and that in turn is increasing T.
Ignoring real world measurements and putting wild guesses into a computer climate model that even IPCC states is inaccurate is more than changing the “bottom line” Ben.
It’s simply making stuff up to fit into a hypothesis.
That is not science.
Yeah, good thinking, Regular . . . because we don’t have enough evidence to be absolutely sure that we’re destroying the environment, we should just keep on doing what we’ve been doing.
After all, only 90 percent of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that “we’re so f***ed.” There’s still that 10 percent that’s ambiguous.
*****
As for ANTI . . . what are “anti” of? Thinking?
Ben’s answer was spot on, as the Brits say.
BTW, what we’re using now is nuclear fission. Had we been researching agressively during the laisse-faire Reagan-Bush days, we’d have nuclear fusion by now.
This would nuclear power without the radioactive waste. In fact, we can use it to dispose of all the hazardous nuclear waste we have now.
But it takes vision and money. And Bush’s vision and money is lining the pockets of Halliburton in Iraq.
CapnAmerica
Posted April 25, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
Yeah, good thinking, Regular . . . because we don’t have enough evidence to be absolutely sure that we’re destroying the environment, we should just keep on doing what we’ve been doing.
After all, only 90 percent of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that “we’re so f***ed.” There’s still that 10 percent that’s ambiguous.
—————————-
Wrong Capn,
The very basis of the anthropogenic climate change is being questioned.
That is not 10 percent, that is 100 percent.
Trying to predict climate change with computer models that leave out most of the known physical measurements that affect climate, water vapor and putting in wild guesses is not science.
It’s bogus hype.
Damn, write the Nobel Prize Committee!
Regular knows way more than they do about global climate change.
“mythical CO2 sink”
It is not mythical. CO2 in the surafce waters of the ocean is increasing. As a result pH is decreasing. Ominously, primary productivity is decreasing due to damage to phytoplankton caused by the reduction in pH. That reduction in primary productivity has serious implications both in regards to positive feedback loops with carbon and also with the oceans’ ability to feed people. Phytoplankton are like the ‘grass’ of the oceans – everything else feeds upon that.
Nope Capn, wrong again.
I actually read the IPCC reports and they admit they do not include a lot of things into their “predicting machines”, the computer climate models.
What’s even worse is that they take a statistical mean of their incomplete data and state that the one in the middle is the accurate one.
So they have one computer that models way too heavy on one side and another that measures way to light on the other.
Then since they can’t get accurate data they statistically extrapolate the differences and call a derived mean to determine their accurate (cough) prediction.
That’s sort of like that study in Iraq where 1000 Iraqi civilians were interviewed and the statisticians determined 600,000 Iraqis had died.
When actually bodies and death certificates were counted by the government of Iraq, the figure was 60,000.
But hey, you know, believe what you want.
I believe the scientists that do actual physical measurements and observations and emphatically state the whole theory and claim by the AGW crew is false.
capn – I’m not sure we would have fusion – it has a lot of real technical barriers. I’m also not sure fusion would be without radioactive waste for a number of reasons.
#
bth
Posted April 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm | Permalink
“mythical CO2 sink”
It is not mythical. CO2 in the surafce waters of the ocean is increasing. As a result pH is decreasing. Ominously, primary productivity is decreasing due to damage to phytoplankton caused by the reduction in pH. That reduction in primary productivity has serious implications both in regards to positive feedback loops with carbon and also with the oceans’ ability to feed people. Phytoplankton are like the ‘grass’ of the oceans – everything else feeds upon that.
—————————–
The claim was made by a real geologist Ben, you know the PhD in Geology type.
He was in IPCC as a climate scientist.
Don’t you believe that the scientists that are and were in IPCC are experts Ben?
You can’t have it both ways Ben.
We do not know exactly how gravity works, either. Please stand under this suspended grand piano and we will perform an experiment!!!! WHAHAHAHAH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Pay no attention to the graph above showing a steady rise over the last 50 of CO2 from 318 ppm to 380 ppm today.
That’s only a 20 percent rise over 50 years.
We’ll probably be okay.
Now our grandkids on the other hand . . . well . . . they’re so f***ed.
I love it when you post all this techincal crap, Regular.
Because I don’t have to bother to refute it.
All I have to do is remember that even if it meant what you say it meant, you wouldn’t know it meant that . . .
Okay Capn, tell me how much of that co2 has been sequestered by the various carbon sinks (oceans, soil, plants, etc.)
And while your at it, tell me what 1 degree rise in Temperature over 100 years time (the IPCC measurements) have precisely what effects and where.
As cosmos used to say:
Go do a paper on this matter, get it peer-reviewed and let us know your conclusions.
And just when did you get your PhD in Climatology Capn? Is this a new thing or are you one of the GORACLE’s lemmings?
:)
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 25, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Permalink
I love it when you post all this techincal crap, Regular.
Because I don’t have to bother to refute it.
All I have to do is remember that even if it meant what you say it meant, you wouldn’t know it meant that . . .
————————
Some of us spent time in college learning science Capn.
Unlike yourself, who thought splitting open that fetal pig or pickled frog in Biology class was all the science you were going to need. :)
I studied research methodology with Lyle Bachman at the University of Illinois, graduate level.
Thanks to that, I remembered that the main method to analysis correlations was called ANOVA, not NOVA.
And you tell me, Regular why one can see almost a perfect one-to-one relationship between a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature (or conversely a fall in CO2 correlates to a fall in temperature)?
Going back 600 million years.
As far back as we can measure.
Just coincidence, I suppose . . .
capn – was that Champaign-Urbana? I did some asphalt research there lone ago. Trying to find ways to ‘rejuvenate’ asphalt pavement – the so-called Superpave projects.
So where is your PhD in Climatology Capn and just where is your peer-reviewed paper on Climate Science?
It is important to know when you are talking to someone with no ears.
Good night all, I am off to attend Final Friday art gallery events.
Lemme know when the deniers come around……….
#
bth
Posted April 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
capn – was that Champaign-Urbana? I did some asphalt research there lone ago. Trying to find ways to ‘rejuvenate’ asphalt pavement – the so-called Superpave projects.
————————–
Hmmm, I think they tried some of that stuff on Ohio roads when I was stationed at Wright-Patterson.
The problem with it was that it was too good.
The patches they made from the compound stayed, but the road around it crumbled. :)
It’s imperative that our state legislators stand their ground and OPPOSE building the coal-fired power plants of whatever configuration in western Kansas, specifically near Garden City/Holcomb.
According to my calculations, as I recall, these power plants will use some 100 million gallons of NEW water per year in the generation of power. PLUS more water will be needed for ethanol manufacturing plants that have been mentioned to be built on the site. PLUS more water will be needed for irrigation of crops that might be grown on their property surrounding the power plants and for ethanol ingredients.
This adds up to more water than is used by the City of Wichita and surrounding suburbs.
And the water that will be taken from the Ogallala aquifer normally flows or oozes slowly deep underground southwesterly towards central Kansas where some furnishes the water in the north and south branches of the Ninnescah Rivers that eventually provide the water in Cheney Reservoir and the Equus Beds aquifer that together provide the millions of gallons of drinking water used by the Wichita Water Department for Wichita’s drinking water supply.
This Ogallala water does NOT, for all practical purposes, recharge.
How can I say it plainer? These two coal-fired power plants plus the one already there threaten the sources of drinking water for Wichita.
Kansas needs to go on an immediate five year program of building wind power sources around the state of Kansas. Diffusion is the answer … the wind is bound to blow somewhere in the state at all times.
I need to learn more about operating characteristics of Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant in Burlington County. However, at this point I think expansion of that plant should be seriously examined.
And we need to accelerate the examination of more electrical based trains because it now appears that gasoline is going to be priced out of range of most middle-class Americans very soon.
Unfortunately most of our politicians have their heads stuck in the sand and don’t see what is going on in the big picture.
SOME legislators and some posters here just don’t seem to get it.
The plants are not needed for Kansas. The plants are not wanted by Kansans.
The plants will not, they MUST not be built.
Good for Bremby standing his ground! That’s a man with a political future.
Again, I’ll say the cause of global climate change is irrelevant. One only has to look at facts to see the average global temperature is rising. The tundra, covering over 25% of the planets land mass, is thawing. When it thaws, the vegetative matter decays, giving off Methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Massive Methane gas releases in the earths past could have led to major changes in temperature.
Ice coverage is also a smoking gun. As the ice shrinks, less heat is reflected back into space. The heats got to go somewhere. Also, as the glaciers continue to melt, that water, being land based, adds to the sea level, risking major coastal catastrophes.
Combine all three, and a problem making Katrina look like a popcorn fart can be in the works. Plan for it; this planet neither knows, nor cares, we are on it. It will be here long after we’re gone, and the arrogance of people with their heads in the sand can only tend to hasten that end.
A link to an animation video showing changing ice coverage from 1979 to 2007:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003464/index.html
An excellent article on sea level changes:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mtsparker.html
Forgot the link to methane and climate change:
https://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov04/feature_climate.html
bth, Regular, & anyone intrested in inventions/ideas. This displays a new twist on wind energy. Collection of power from wind without a turbine. I find it interesting for it’s purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paxI4y_WmZI
Anti,
Interesting concept. I wonder what the output per square foot of material vs wind velocity/vibration is. I’m thinking these would have to be done on a massive scale to furnish enough energy to be cost effective. But then you would still run into the NIMBY mindset, just as we’re seeing with windmills.
They might, however, be productive on a per house basis, if we can get the state and fed involved in forcing energy companies to buy back energy fed back into the system through the units. Worth checking out.
JMWalker, I was thinking they would me more of a per hut/tent/small house form of power- would be great for isolated communities. I would think it would be a bad idea to magnify the concept to an industrial/community level– a large band, under tension, vibrating- just asking for disaster. I am curious if the motor concept could be used in other applications, it is not a typical rotating motor.
“They might, however, be productive on a per house basis, if we can get the state and fed involved in forcing energy companies to buy back energy fed back into the system through the units.”
If the companies are forced, we will pay for the loss in higher cost….They won’t take a hit like that with out making up the difference. It will be in the form of a higher “service charge”.
If one was to implement a turbine/solar to a home, I wonder what the cost (or legality) would be in installing a switch of sorts to cut off Company power and use personal power.
Interesting idea. Even witout ‘reverse metering’ I think there is an opportunity for home-based power. Consider: If I had wind/solar on my roof connected ONLY to a heat pump that I could then run full blast based on power available. In summer especially with up to 15-hour days I could cool my house enough during the day to get me through the evening/night without running the AC on KGE electricity. Think of how cool you house could be when you get home from work with the AC having gone full-blast all day.
In winter I might not get enough to totally replace gas heat but it sure could place a dent in it.
Community Wind: This is a concept being developed at K-State through their agricultural extension service. The idea here is a conventional wind farm but, instead of being owned by some utility it is owned through a cooperative by the residents of the area. they then share toe power and become self-sufficient.
ANTI – I don’t know if that technology itself would work but I think there are MANY things we can be using. There is not one solution – there are MANY solutions.
One thing that helps me reduce my own energy use is the fact that I only heat into the 60s and cool into the high 70s. With the solar idea above I might have the house down into the 60s at sundown and then just let it warm a bit overnight in mid-summer. think of not having those horrible electric bills in July.
When I lived in LA they had an insulation program underwritten y the gas utility. It was great – I had an old house with absolutely nothing in the attic. I contracted with the gas company; they in turn had a ‘mom-and-pop’ outfit (actually dan and son with mom running the office) to do the job. A winner all around. The small-business contractor got a lot of work and was assured payment. No advertising or billing overhead for him so he both made good money and could still charge less. I paid for the work through by monthly gas bills. The payments for the insulation did NOT increase my bill because my gas consumption went down. So, in effect I got it for free. the gas company got to figure that into their rate base somehow to protect their investments. Not charity by any means – simply a program that worked.
ANTI – there would be no legal problem with ‘going it alone’
If I was in the country I would seriously consider the idea. In town constructing a wind tower would cause some issues with the city.
My main concern was to do with code violations and cost.
bth, I have seen helix wind generators now that I think about it, I suppose one could install a few of them on a residential roof with out pissing off the city or neighbors, plus they are quieter than a tower.
btw, I would also like to state that I am not a subscriber to the Global Warming craze, however I am a card carrying member of the “Tight Ass Club”, therefore lowering my energy cost is appealing to me as well as most consumers. In saying the previous, I feel that addressing Alt. Energy in the manner of cost effectiveness is the best way to sell the idea to the masses.
One Trackback
free government grants…
Hi there. I just stopped by and I’ve got to say you have a kewl site! Come see my college grants site….