Global Warming Bill passes House

[rory_20_uk]

The thing is I can't see a problem with wave, wind or tidal - but Enviromentalists can.

Guesses would be:

Destruction of habitat (those deserts are precious you know, and almost everything does...)
Wasteful manufacturing process


There's probably some bug or whatever who'se numbers will be threatened if you try to build one.

Solar sounds for both micro and macro uses to be fantastic, making electricity and also reducing the amount that is required in many cases (solar cells prevent IR and UV rays getting through special glass, so less air con to cool the office down).

I think that a mixed approach is best; one thing I thought would be a dead cert would be building masses of geothermal plants on Iceland. But no, tehy're an eyesore... The whole country is a desolate rock. Who the hell cares?

[CountArach]

The thing is I can't see a problem with wave, wind or tidal - but Enviromentalists can.

Can you please not lump us all together and accept that there are, as with all things, competely different grades of Environmentalist? I consider myself one (And indeed I am a member of the Green Party in Australia, as well as having attended climate-based protests/rallies) yet I support Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal, etc.

[rory_20_uk]

Can you please not lump us all together and accept that there are, as with all things, competely different grades of Environmentalist? I consider myself one (And indeed I am a member of the Green Party in Australia, as well as having attended climate-based protests/rallies) yet I support Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal, etc.

I took the average IQ of the Backroom to work that out for themselves... Yes, along with everything else in the known Universe with the possible exception of Pure Maths (and even then probably there's some doubt) there are no absolute groupings and everything is a shade of grey...

[Louis VI the Fat]

climate change denialists

Are you suggesting Americans are climate septics?


* Hah! I've out-ozzied the Aussi!! *

Moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi! Oui! Oui! Oui!

Never mind. One for the franco and ozzophones. Carry on. Call me the monster of Francozstein.

[KukriKhan]

I'll admit I haven't read the bill - one reason being the democrats unveiling 300 new pages on Friday morning (That's another thing - no one has read the whole thing - they are blindly making laws).

This is my primary objection to the proposed law. Fortunately, as Xiahou points out, it needs a nod from the Senate too, where it faces another stiff battle over provisions. Maybe they'll find time to read it. :)

This program is heralded as "ground-breaking", and it is for us. But "ground-breaking" = experimental, in my opinion. Predictions (both dire and glorious) have been made about the likely consequences of the program - the fact is: no body knows for certain. Therefore, in its final form it desperately needs a sunset-provision, an automatic cutoff that'll take effect in say 2012, when it can either be ignored and binned as bad law, or renewed as something workable that we like and support.

[Don Corleone]

First, Louis, Rory, and the rest... Nobody is arguing for waste for waste's sake. I'm not opposed to rational environmental policies. I'm actually quite opposed to any energy policy that relies on fossil fuels, from a geopolitical strategic point of view. It might surprise you to know that I drive a car (in a carpool!) that gets better than 30mpg. Your assumption that all Americans that are opposed to cap & trade must be some cigar-smoking, Hummer driving, wahoo, while a cute characterization... bears little correlation to reality. But hey, if potraying me as a wasteful, eco-enemy makes your argument a little bit easier... go ahead, it's on me. I wouldn't want to be arguing your positions either.


Solar power is harnessed by allowing photons from sunlight to strike & energize photovoltaic cells. This causes an electron to be accelerated into a higher band energy gap. The energized electron forms a current with some voltage (energy potential) stored within it. As the electron discharges its stored energy by flowing through a circuit that absorbs the power, the electron returns to its valence state.

Solar panels are temporary structures. The polysilicon contained in the photovoltaic cells can only make those transitions so many times before the cell loses efficiency, typically at an exponential rate. Once the cell's effiicency is depleted, there is little use for it and no hopes for recycling, given current technology.

The polysilicon and some of the heavy metals such as cadmium used to create the cells are highly toxic. So is the silicon-tetrachloride, an extremely volatile liquid compound that is a byproduct of the poly-silicon manufacturing process. Apparently, in China, India and other places where solar cells are manufactured in volume, they just dump it on the ground in watersheds.

Wat for watt, by far, the cleanest energy technology that exists is nuclear power, which is why the wise French & Japanese have come to rely so heavily upon it. The "boogeymen" you hear about half-life's only tell half the story... college physics will tell you the longer a half-life, BY DEFINITION, the less reactive the material in question. Granted, I don't want spent plutonium dropped in my local landfill either, but there are easy solutions to the problems of waste disposal that the scare mongers don't want you to know about.

There's also a question of scale. Cedars Hospital's cancer unit produces more nuclear waste in a given year from nuclear medicine than most full-blown reactors (granted, its much lower reactivity waste). But nobody is talking about taxing oncologists out of existence. Why is that?Hopsitals doing more than their part in filling everyone else's backyards with radioactive waste.

And how anthrogenic is the current rise in global temperatures? We've had warmer periods, and we've had more dramaticly sharp heating up periods (the Middle Ages rings a bell). Where was all the CO2 we evil men were releasing coming from back then? Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to use climate data prior to 1600AD, because Uncle Albert has some Inconvenient Lies he'd rather we not ask him about. Utterly amazing, I had no idea Republican oilmen were buring fossil fuels over 135 million years ago.

As long as people inject so much emotion into what should be a scientific debate, I have little to no tolerance for those making the arguments to "do something". The whole carbon cap & trade swindle is designed to 1) steer money to lobbying constituencies 2) hamstring the US economy by punishing it while rewarding countries that are far worse pollutors 3) as always, make us "feel good", because we "did something", even if that something was utterly impotent in its effectivness.

[rory_20_uk]

Don, I think you're slightly wrong.

Solar power is utilising energy from the sun. One method is that you've described, but there are several others which utilise mirrors to focus the sun's rays on one point and utilise the energy by heating water to drive a turbine. I believe that there are also others.

[LittleGrizzly]

And how anthrogenic is the current rise in global temperatures? We've had warmer periods, and we've had more dramaticly sharp heating up periods (the Middle Ages rings a bell). Where was all the CO2 we evil men were releasing coming from back then? Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to use climate data prior to 1600AD, because Uncle Albert has some Inconvenient Lies he'd rather we not ask him about.

Heres a crazy idea.... there could have been other factors involved...

*hears response of maybe those factors are in play now*

Well i though you might say that

The way i see it (assuming the scientists are right) is there are plenty of factors involved inb global warming. Plenty of which are out of our control, as we can see by the earth changing temperature throughout its lifetime...

But the clincher is (again assuming the scientists are right) that whilst factors outside our control may be influencing the climate a factor inside our control is influencing the enviroment, and if we are doing so negatively and we think by reducting our negative contribution we can reduce the negative effect on our climate. Then theres every reason to do it...

Personally i see Nuclear, wind and water power as the way to go at the moment, with research needed to maximise the effeciency of the renewable sources...

2) hamstring the US economy by punishing it while rewarding countries that are far worse pollutors

I think the idea behind this is fairly sound, how well its actually put into practice i don't know, but from what i heard the idea is that these country's need to develop along the same lines as we did. Its unfair for us now were devolped to turn round to the un/under developed country's and tell them they can't naturally grow like we did but must work differently.

Thier industrial revolutions aren't going to be clean as ours weren't, its after thier industrialised that they can work better towards enviromental standards

[Vladimir]

Don, I think you're slightly wrong.

Solar power is utilising energy from the sun. One method is that you've described, but there are several others which utilise mirrors to focus the sun's rays on one point and utilise the energy by heating water to drive a turbine. I believe that there are also others.

Which is most common? Try placing a turbine driven solar energy system on your roof.

My idea is crazier though: Mine the moon! But I know there are people who will have a problem with even that!

[Xiahou]

Don, I think you're slightly wrong.

Solar power is utilising energy from the sun. One method is that you've described, but there are several others which utilise mirrors to focus the sun's rays on one point and utilise the energy by heating water to drive a turbine. I believe that there are also others.

You can only setup large solar facilities like that in relatively few places. Much like wind power, there are very few places where it can be harnassed reliably. Wind, solar, ect, will never be more than boutique energy sources. They can be used effectively in few places and in the rest of the country they can only be used as a part-time supplement, not as a replacement for traditional energy generation sources. The only non-fossil fuel energy source that can be used virtually anywhere is nuclear energy. Any plan to replace fossil fuels that doesn't rely heavily on nuclear, isn't being serious.

Good post, Don. Next, you'll be telling me that energy-saving florescent bulbs destroy the environment as well.

[Vladimir]

Good post, Don. Next, you'll be telling me that energy-saving florescent bulbs destroy the environment as well.

Mercury.

[Don Corleone]

[QUOTE=rory_20_uk;2274365]Don, I think you're slightly wrong.

Solar power is utilising energy from the sun. One method is that you've described, but there are several others which utilise mirrors to focus the sun's rays on one point and utilise the energy by heating water to drive a turbine. I believe that there are also others.


Actually, you're somewhat right. I didn't have time to go back and edit my post before leaving. A lot of it is also done with parabolic mirror arrays to heat tubes filled with heat-transfer fluid, like Therminol.

Before you get too excited about this technology, which does look promising, by the way, there's a lot more to be done. Assuming ideal solar conditions (the 2 plants I could find were in Nevada), they get about 52MW/year from a 400 acre array. The tubes themselves are filled with Therminol, which is a corrosive terphenyl which needs to be replaced periodically (still researchng how much is required and how often it has to be replaced).

Now, we all know how wasteful Americans can be, so let's take nice frugal Germany as an example. Germany consumed 579 trillion kilowatt hours in 2004. So, to power Germany on solar, even using these nifty new heat exchanger parabolic mirror arrays, you'd need 508 thousand acres.

Or, you could expend about 1 metric ton of enriched uranium. I know which choice I'd make.


By the way... the heat exchanger solar plants I referenced are in Nevada & Arizona. What are northern areas or overcast areas supposed to do?

[Louis VI the Fat]

First, Louis, Rory, and the rest...

Look Don, I'm going to have to be frank with you:

I naturally haven't the faintest clue about the specific content of this energy bill so I made some broad, sweeping statements trying to bluff my way into this debate, eloquently worded in the hope you'd fall for it and

wait, hang on, that was not what I was going to write. I meant:

America really does have serious challenges to face: environmental, and about energy independence. Luckily, the solutions to both go hand in hand. So too does the concept of investing during a recession. This bill goes a long way into being a good brew of the three.
Is the bill perfect? No. It is product of uneasy compromise, of heavily politicised science, of incompatible interests. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This bill is a good step forwards towards rethinking an unsustainable energy and environmental policy.


As a general remark, environmental concerns are not leftist. It eludes a left-right scheme. For example, two high-profile and distinctly right wing politicians who adopted the environmental and climate cause, are Thatcher and Sarkozy.


The specifics about nuclear energy in this bill I do not know much about. Of course, I think nuclear energy is a great medium term solution. I shall happily accept your verdict that this bill does not aid the nuclear cause.

[Louis VI the Fat]

the heat exchanger solar plants I referenced are in Nevada & Arizona. What are northern areas or overcast areas supposed to do?

Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I once read a report that said that with today's technology, a solar plant of 10.000km2 (About New Jersey?) could provide all the energy needs of Europe. If build, unfortunately, in the Sahara.

Luckily, America has the space and the sunshine in the Southwest.

[rory_20_uk]

Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I once read a report that said that with today's technology, a solar plant of 10.000km2 (About New Jersey?) could provide all the energy needs of Europe. If build, unfortunately, in the Sahara.

Considering where we get our oil and gas from it's really not that bad. Spread it over several countries and it'd be a nice revenue stream for the governments involved.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The bill did not pass because it is unpopular, far from it. The bill did not pass because it was a bad bill from whichever angle you looked at it. We are likely to see a new bill passed some time early next year, if not late this year and it is likely to be more left-wing.

I never gave reasons for it not passing - I simply wanted to show that the 'rest of the world', smugly thanking us, isn't doing anything themselves.

Also, as a green party member- are you a supporter of water (ie dams on rivers) and nuclear power, or just the environmental ones that are unproven for supplying any significant fraction of a nation's energy?

Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I'm assuming from that statement you're not an engineering type.

As a general remark, environmental concerns are not leftist.

Well the greens and the socialists always seem to be cozying up with one another.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm assuming from that statement you're not an engineering type.

I am too!!

For example, I once managed to correctly connect all the cables on my new computer!

[Papewaio]

If it was based upon the whole life of the plans and procurement of fuel I'd agree. Nuclear then gets a penalty for building, refining the ore and decomissioning - although the newer plants are easier to build, safer, can recycle other plant's waste and produce less of their own.

Yes, just like comparing the cost of creating polystyrene cups vs clay and then repeated hot water and detergent (with phosphates or other chemicals) makes some interesting analysis. True total cost should be compared. Much like the not so well thought out first phase of CFC replacements had some worse chemicals substituted as replacements.

One thing that should be looked at is not just carbon released but all the greenhouse gases. And yes from go to woe including transportation costs of the coal to the stations would be useful.

=][=

Mind you do we want a cooler or hotter planet? Surely hotter means the ability to feed more people.

[Papewaio]

If you are green and believe that mother nature knows best then the number one energy source would have to be Fusion. But since we can't make our own suns, the next best natural made thing would be Fission. As I haven't seen a nature made coal plant, or windfarm, or solar farm (mind you an organic solar panel that uses plant properties would be cool)... but nature does make its own nuclear reactors.

So for the natural energy source, made by mother nature and found here on earth. GO NUKE!

[miotas]

Surely just collecting the energy produced by nature's power plant is more natural than trying to mimic it

Also, while nuclear is far better than burning fossil fuels, it still relies on the use of non-renewable resources. Our ultimate goal should be to rely entirely on renewable energy sources. And while it may be easier said than done. Surely once everything was in place, feeding power from huge solar power plants in the desert to less sunny places would be ideal?

And that 30mpg car, I've just done the math, it works out to 12.75km/L which is ok but nothing amazing. I drive a car that's 15 years old and it gets 16.5km/L on the highway and about 11km/L around town. I could very easily get better around town efficiency, but I'm a 21year old Aussie bloke. I like putting my foot down.

Are you suggesting Americans are climate septics?

* Hah! I've out-ozzied the Aussi!! *

Moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi! Oui! Oui! Oui!

Well you've certainly out aussied this aussie. What are you going on about you crazy frenchie?

[Papewaio]

Solar power on top of houses make sense. The real estate isn't being chewed up.

I don't think there is enough desert to make up for voltage drops in long distances. Not to mention that so much land needs to be used. So what do we choose feed humans, biodiesel or massive solar farms.

Also strictly speaking just like fission, solar energy isn't a renewable resource. The sun will die out sometime... just a lot longer then other power sources.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well you've certainly out aussied this aussie. What are you going on about you crazy frenchie?

Wordplays that only work when you understand both English and French, and which I enjoy and which the experienced posters here have learned to happily ignore and wait for the day I'll either give it up or finally learn proper English. I myself, however, think of myself as a refined artist and consequently live under the false impression that I can not fully express myself unless I share all my wildest associations with the world at large. It's very annoying.

A 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'an American'. Yank - septic tank - septic. An Australian once learned this to me, so I assumed it was Australian. Alas, it's Cockney, Ozzies use 'seppo'.
An American climate change sceptic then, is a 'Climate septic'.
Moi Aussi - Me too. Oui - yes. It's a French pun on Ozzi and oi. When Australians shout Ozzi Ozzi Ozzi, oi oi oi! one replies with moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, oui, oui, oui!. Meaning 'me too, yes yes yes! It even rhymes in French too. This is genuinly funny and is a great tactic to confuse Australians.

[CountArach]

Also, as a green party member- are you a supporter of water (ie dams on rivers) and nuclear power, or just the environmental ones that are unproven for supplying any significant fraction of a nation's energy?

No problem with dams, because I think that there are no other practical ways to collect the water Australia needs, but I would prefer that local environmental concerns are kept in mind at the same time. As for Nuclear, if someone can come up with a cost-effective and environmentally sound way to dispose of the excess then I have no problem with it. I just don't believe that those exist yet.

Also I would take Nuclear over fossil fuels any day, it's just that I think we have far safer technology at our hands now. Geothermal and tidal, for instance, could power a lot of Australia.

[Devastatin Dave]

The only thing about this that I'm going to enjoy is watching the great wailing and gnashing of teeth of all the parasites that feed off the government teet having to fork out their less than hard earned money for higher gas prices, utlities, and other affected items that they thought their messiah was going to give them, or shall i say, take from someone else and give them. They get to feel the pain of Obamanation like the other people living in reality an not in the world of Hope and Change.
Just wait till he breaks his promis about not raising taxes on the folks making less that 250,000. I'm going to sit back and drink a bud.

BTW, Green is the new Red. Most of the greenies' leaders are nothing more closet marxist trying to "spread the wealth" as the Kenyan/American President would say. If your part of the movement, your just a useful, well, individual.

[Beskar]

Everyone always misses ITER out when talking about energy solutions.

[Papewaio]

Wordplays that only work when you understand both English and French, and which I enjoy and which the experienced posters here have learned to happily ignore and wait for the day I'll either give it up or finally learn proper English. I myself, however, think of myself as a refined artist and consequently live under the false impression that I can not fully express myself unless I share all my wildest associations with the world at large. It's very annoying.

A 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'an American'. Yank - septic tank - septic. An Australian once learned this to me, so I assumed it was Australian. Alas, it's Cockney, Ozzies use 'seppo'.
An American climate change sceptic then, is a 'Climate septic'.
Moi Aussi - Me too. Oui - yes. It's a French pun on Ozzi and oi. When Australians shout Ozzi Ozzi Ozzi, oi oi oi! one replies with moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, oui, oui, oui!. Meaning 'me too, yes yes yes! It even rhymes in French too. This is genuinly funny and is a great tactic to confuse Australians.

Actually I have heard olded Aussies call them Septic Tanks for Yanks. I got the joke.

[Furunculus]

First, Louis, Rory, and the rest... Nobody is arguing for waste for waste's sake. I'm not opposed to rational environmental policies. I'm actually quite opposed to any energy policy that relies on fossil fuels, from a geopolitical strategic point of view. It might surprise you to know that I drive a car (in a carpool!) that gets better than 30mpg. Your assumption that all Americans that are opposed to cap & trade must be some cigar-smoking, Hummer driving, wahoo, while a cute characterization... bears little correlation to reality. But hey, if potraying me as a wasteful, eco-enemy makes your argument a little bit easier... go ahead, it's on me. I wouldn't want to be arguing your positions either.

Wat for watt, by far, the cleanest energy technology that exists is nuclear power, which is why the wise French & Japanese have come to rely so heavily upon it. The "boogeymen" you hear about half-life's only tell half the story... college physics will tell you the longer a half-life, BY DEFINITION, the less reactive the material in question. Granted, I don't want spent plutonium dropped in my local landfill either, but there are easy solutions to the problems of waste disposal that the scare mongers don't want you to know about.

And how anthropogenic is the current rise in global temperatures? We've had warmer periods, and we've had more dramaticly sharp heating up periods (the Middle Ages rings a bell). Where was all the CO2 we evil men were releasing coming from back then? Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to use climate data prior to 1600AD, because Uncle Albert has some Inconvenient Lies he'd rather we not ask him about. Utterly amazing, I had no idea Republican oilmen were buring fossil fuels over 135 million years ago.

As long as people inject so much emotion into what should be a scientific debate, I have little to no tolerance for those making the arguments to "do something". The whole carbon cap & trade swindle is designed to 1) steer money to lobbying constituencies 2) hamstring the US economy by punishing it while rewarding countries that are far worse pollutors 3) as always, make us "feel good", because we "did something", even if that something was utterly impotent in its effectivness.

+1 for an awesome post Don, I am in full agreement. the climate-skeptic charge lacks all nuance, and presupposes that we we are all conscienceless industrialists, or their lackeys, who happily pile toxic waste on top of their CO2 belching power stations at the same time as we contaminate and then landfill the worlds non-renewable resources.

the french do indeed deserve praise for their sensible energy policy, quite how the UK has ended up being so backward on the issue of nuclear power should be a point of national shame.

the 'consensus' that we are all fed daily is in my opinion anything but, although my opinion should perhaps be less of a surprise to me given that i am a geologist by training if not by profession, so i only later found out that as a group geologists are among the most skeptical of climate/earth science related disciplines.

and then there are the true useful idiots, the millions of people who gratefully trough at the output of the BBC and their ilk, people who scream "science" at the top of their voice without the self awareness to appreciate the irony of their elevation of the principle of reasoned argument into raw faith.................... i would despise them, but they know no better.

[Furunculus]

By the way... the heat exchanger solar plants I referenced are in Nevada & Arizona. What are northern areas or overcast areas supposed to do?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...630948,00.html

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think there is enough desert to make up for voltage drops in long distances. Not to mention that so much land needs to be used. So what do we choose feed humans, biodiesel or massive solar farms.

Also strictly speaking just like fission, solar energy isn't a renewable resource. The sun will die out sometime... just a lot longer then other power sources.

I think that the voltages they're able to use are quite efficient. Sabotage or natural disasters would be the true problems.

Well before the sun dies it will become a Red Giant, and either swallow the Earth or blast off the atmosphere and boil off the water. So, from the Earth-centric bias we currently have, it's infinite.

I am sure that periods in the past the earth has been hotter. I am also pretty sure that for part of this the UK was submerged beneath the seas.

Be it a natural phenomenon or not, the flooding of a large portion of the landmass is either something to try to at the very least delay, or we need to think about new ways of living in this environment.

[Furunculus]

I am sure that periods in the past the earth has been hotter. I am also pretty sure that for part of this the UK was submerged beneath the seas.

historically the sea is at as high a level as it has ever been in the last million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

during that time sea level has spent ~95% of time at a lower level than present.

and that lower level has a amplitude ~20 times greater that maximum of the brief higher level periods of recent geological history (circa 1,000,000 years).