The intellectual honesty of the environmental movement

[brenthutch 416]

Quote

>One does not need a PHD to understand and utilize the "scientific
>method". The global warming fear mongers will not even debate the
>merits of their theory to a skeptical audience.

It would be fun to watch a whuffo (one who read a lot about skydiving and considers himself really smart and extreme) teach you about tandem jumping.

Awesome straw man Bill
\

[billvon 2,691]

>Awesome straw man Bill

Funny that you're calling your argument a straw man. While I agree, seems odd.

[brenthutch 416]

Perhaps I am being a bit too presumptive. As I understand your position on man- made global warming; You think that the planet is warming as a result of us not paying enough money for carbon based energy, and if we paid much more for that energy that we could “heal the planet” A type of climactic quid pro quo if you will. So tell me Bill, what is the price point of gas and electricity where the “planet will begin to heal”. Please spear me the “ifs” and “coulds” and deal with reality.

[oldwomanc6 38]

I always thought that if you could burn enough dollar bills, the resulting cloud would be large enough to create some global dimming and thus negate the global warming.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[billvon 2,691]

>You think that the planet is warming as a result of us not paying enough
>money for carbon based energy

Nope.

>if we paid much more for that energy that we could “heal the planet”

Nope.

Sounds like your mindreading abilities are on par with your climactic acumen.

[brenthutch 416]

So enlighten me. What’s your plan to battle the scourge of man-made global warming?

[billvon 2,691]

>What’s your plan to battle the scourge of man-made global warming?

There's no "scourge" of man made global warming. So far there haven't been much in the way of impacts. However, many people (myself included) prefer to not play craps with the climate, and thus reducing CO2 emissions is a good goal IMO.

What's my plan personally for that? Generate as little CO2 as possible myself. Design more efficient chargers, lighting instruments and solar charge controllers to allow CO2 emissions requirements. Install solar power systems and EV chargers for other people.

If I was in charge? I'd have a plan that hit four basic points: (adapted from an earlier plan I wrote up)

1. Increased automotive and light truck efficiency improvements
2. Increased fuel diversity for road vehicles
3. Electrical generation mix change incentives
4. Electrical consumption incentives for improved competition, efficiency and alternative generation

Part one involves increasing the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. Car and light trucks take over 40 percent of the oil used in the US, and are the second largest carbon source we have. Increasing vehicular efficiency is the single biggest step we can take to increase the amount of energy available to us and reduce the CO2 that burning it generates. The technology to do this is here; there are mid-sized cars that get 50mpg with no loss in performance, minivan sized vehicles that get 40mpg and hybrid diesels in the planning stages will push 100mpg, increase reliability and have emissions comparable to today’s LEV’s.

To do this, the federal government should:

-Remove the SUV loophole. Require all vehicles to meet CAFE, safety and EPA requirements no matter what their size. This will increase fuel efficiency by around 8-10% within 5 years. (Interestingly, the reason that average fuel economy has been going down even though fuel efficiencies have been going up is the SUV loophole.) It will also drive down the prices of lower-end vehicles, making efficient cars more affordable to low-income drivers and encouraging the abandonment of high emissions, low efficiency 20 year old cars.

-Continue tax breaks on high efficiency vehicles, specifically PHEV's. There is currently a tax credit for people buying hybrids; change this by providing a tax credit for people buying vehicles rated in the top 5% of fossil fuel efficiency, no matter what fuel they use.

-Gradually increase CAFE standards. CAFE is an eminently fair system of enforcing a certain average gas mileage; car companies can sell whatever cars they want and consumers can buy whatever cars they want, provided each manufacturer’s “fleet” averages a certain MPG. Thus a car company can meet their CAFE requirements by pricing their most efficient cars lower than their fuel-wasters, or they can meet it by improving the efficiency of all the vehicles in their fleet.

The second part of the plan is to increase energy diversity for vehicles. As oil starts to run out, we can allow the free market to select the replacement fuel as long as those options are open to consumers. To do this, we have to ensure that alternate-energy vehicles are available. These include alcohol, biodiesel, natural gas, electric and compressed gas vehicles. We can ensure this happens by providing tax credits for people who purchase “alternate” vehicles. Since these credits would be intended to increase fuel diversity, not choose any one vehicle over any other, they would expire once a given technology (say, electric) reached a 5-10% market penetration.

Again, these vehicles are pretty much all available today. Ford, GM and Chrysler make a large line of Flexible Fuel Vehicles that will run on any mixture of ethanol, methanol or gasoline. Toyota, Ford and BMW have electric vehicles out, and Toyota and GM have pluggable hybrids (PHEV's) which in many ways are the best of both worlds. VW sells diesel cars, and most American manufacturers offer diesel options for their large consumer trucks. Honda makes a natural gas car.

There are also several technologies out there that can use a wide variety of fuels. External-combustion engines such as steam and Stirling can burn nearly anything, and turboshaft engines are also being made in much smaller, more efficient packages. Any vehicle that can run on a wide variety of fuel sources will be eligible for the same tax credit.

The program shown above will also encourage usage of renewable fuels. Several of the vehicles listed above can run on either renewable fuels or petroleum based fuels. An unmodified diesel engine can run on biodiesel or petroleum diesel equally well; a slightly modified diesel (basically just a regular diesel with fuel heaters) can run on straight vegetable oil. FFV’s can run on ethanol from farm waste; natural gas vehicles can run from any methane source including biogas and methane digesters, all of which are renewable and CO2-neutral.

The third part of the plan involves electrical power generation. Generation of electrical power is the second largest user of energy (and the #1 source of CO2) in the US. Currently, our generation is broken down like this:

Coal 43%
Oil 1%
Natural gas 25%
Hydro 6%
Nuclear 20%
Solar/wind/geothermal 4%

We should be moving toward a balance that looks like:

Coal 5%
Natural gas 30%
Wind/solar/geothermal 20%
Hydro 15%
Nuclear 30%


Coal is going to be part of our energy future for a while, but it is the most polluting, most CO2-centric and most damaging source of energy we have. A large coal plant that meets all EPA standards puts about 100 pounds of uranium and thorium into the air every year; this sort of pollution kills about 30,000 Americans every year through emphysema, lung cancer, COPD and heart disease. We have to start reducing our usage of it as other sources become available. The death toll is just too high.

Natural gas, on the other hand, is the cleanest source of fossil-fuel power we have. Burning it in a modern power plant produces very little besides water and carbon dioxide (and it produces about ¼ the CO2 per megawatt-hour as a coal plant does.) We also have pretty large reserves of natural gas. It will not last forever, but there are replacement sources like digesters and biogas, and methane clathrates have the potential to supply any conceivable need for a few hundred years if we can figure out how to mine them safely.

The big source of power we should be looking towards in the future is nuclear power. It’s the cleanest source of power we have (provided the spent fuel is handled well, of course.) We don’t even need any new technologies; the technologies we have right now, like the Westinghouse AP600 and the Canadian CANDU, are plenty sufficient for near-term power. We should open a long term waste repository as soon as possible, and also begin work on fuel remixing and reprocessing plants. Degraded weapons-grade plutonium can be mixed with spent fuel to produce MOX fuel, thus quadrupling the energy you can get out of a kilo of partially-enriched uranium. Fuel reprocessing plants can essentially recycle spent fuel forever and eliminate much of the nuclear waste that we have to deal with now. Note that, in years past, fuel reprocessing was frowned upon because it was thought that the technology would leak to third-world countries and enable them to enrich reactor-grade uranium to weapons-grade uranium. Nowadays, as they say, the cat is out of the bag – there are around a dozen fuel-reprocessing plants around the world. Preventing a thirteenth one from opening in Nevada will not have any appreciable effect on nuclear proliferation.

Hydro will continue to supply fairly clean power, but we’ve dammed most of the rivers we can - and as the planet gets warmer rainfall may shift away from current hydro watersheds.

Wind and solar will gradually come into their own as costs for both go down. Right now, wind costs are equivalent to gas power plants in terms of cost per megawatt-hour, but siting problems are slowing it down (it’s hard to run power lines up mountain ridges to where the wind is really good.) New technologies, like HVDC power transmission, are helping ameliorate this.

It should also be noted that wind and solar are “unreliable” sources in that their output cannot be increased if needed. If it’s night and the wind’s not blowing, then you can’t get any more power out of either one. Any reasonable energy system combines expensive baseload generation (nuclear plants) with unreliable clean/cheap generation (like wind) and peaker plants (like natural gas.) The natural gas plants can be throttled quickly to make up for changes in demand and supply; the nuclear plants run continuously at close to max power output to generate the baseline power we always need.

Another thing we should work on is power distribution. The national power grid is bizarre, with power being shunted all over the place in odd patterns, but not transmissible at all in some areas. For example, during the summer, Canada supplies hydro power as far south as LA; in the winter, power plants in northern California supply power to Canada. However, Texas is essentially isolated from any other power grid; they can neither help nearby states nor get help when their demand spikes. Effort put into both increasing transmission capability and improving switchgear (which lets more power travel over the same lines) will let us supply more power with the same number of power plants, and also use a more diverse network of power sources (like distributed solar.)

The fourth part of the plan involves consumer and commercial energy usage. To improve our efficiency when it comes to use of energy, we should make two changes. One, we should start a true deregulation program. Allow consumers to shop for power vendors on a month-by-month basis the way people shop for cellular plans now. Have it be web-based, with real time reading of power meters and consumption, and on-site ability to do load shedding (i.e. allow generators to offer cheaper plans that include shedding of A/C compressor loads and hot water heater loads at times of peak demand.) Keep local utilities regulated; like roads, they provide the transportation for services (in this case power) to move to the consumer.

Two, institute a nationwide net-metering program with cost-plus buyback. Basically require all utilities to average power generated from small renewable sources (like wind and solar) over the year, and then bill only for net power. If a homeowner generates more than they use, require utilities to pay for them on a cost-plus basis (i.e. their cost plus five cents a kwhr.) Cap this amount in every region so utilities don’t go out of business if everyone installs solar. This will encourage alternative power generation without having to pay out money for the installation themselves, as some programs now do.

To make all this happen, the federal government should:

1. Create a tax structure for utilities that reflects true costs to government. If a utility runs a lot of coal power plants, and thus causes a lot of damage to buildings, roadways and the health of the general population, they are taxed in proportion to the cost of that damage. If they choose a technology that incurs fewer costs, then they are taxed less.

2. Renew the Price-Anderson act to allow new nuclear power plants to be built, and support research into nuclear power generation technologies (like thorium and HTGR reactors.)

3. Encourage, through tax incentives, construction and operation of fuel reprocessing and remixing facilities to reduce the amount of nuclear waste and increase fuel availability.

4. Establish a long term nuclear waste storage facility. Yucca Mountain would work but is overkill; dry cask storage on a pad in the desert is more than sufficient.

5. Put in place clearer rules for siting of natural gas terminals so natural gas can be transported from wellheads to generation facilities.

6. Set up the regulatory structure for utility power deregulation.

7. Implement nationwide net metering with cost-plus buyback.

8. Cancel current solar and wind financial incentives (not needed if 7 is implemented.)

Environmental issues concerning electrical power generation

This one is simple. End the New Source Review fiasco. Within five years, every power plant in the US meets EPA emissions standards. Period.

Specific related issues

"The hydrogen economy" is simply not viable. It's a nice idea but we don't have any hydrogen, and can't make any without using lots of energy, which makes it a liability to any energy plan. If there is a desire for a very clean, low-CO2, gaseous fuel, methane works a lot better - and is available from natural gas wells. It can be used in everything hydrogen can be used in, and is easier and safer to transport.

ANWR - ANWR represents our last big reserve of oil. We will eventually have to use it, but to drain it when oil is plentiful makes no sense. I would put a 'gate' on drilling in ANWR - say, $200 a barrel (adjusted for inflation.) Once we hit that gate, start drilling. That way we have a future reserve of oil when we need it.

Paying for all of this

In the end, it always comes down to cost. Oil isn’t used because it’s an ideal fuel (it’s not) but because it’s cheap and energy dense, and alternatives have to be paid for somehow. To be specific:

1. Energy efficiency and diversity tax cuts for vehicles. There’s no direct cost here, but the loss of tax revenue has to be made up for somehow. The easiest source of funding to replace this is to eliminate the roughly $2 billion a year in tax breaks the government gives to oil companies. In essence we’d shift the tax breaks from oil companies to car companies that make efficient vehicles.

2. CAFE standards. This is actually revenue neutral from the government’s and car manufacturer’s perspective. From the consumer’s perspective, the most expensive cars (the big SUV’s) get more expensive and some less expensive cars (like Honda CR-Z's) get even less expensive, so it’s a wash that way too (unless you can’t do without a big SUV, that is.)

3. New tax structure for power generators. Neutral for the government and consumers directly. Initially expensive to power companies until they convert to the more cost-effective forms of power. (Which means higher indirect consumer prices initially.)

4. Funding for waste repositories and Price-Anderson. This is already paid for by various taxes on nuclear energy.

5. Funding of fuel reprocessing plants and nuclear power research. The objective here would be to provide some ‘seed’ money and tax incentives for private industry to take over this function, so this would have to come out of the government’s budget.

6. Electrical power deregulation. Cost neutral aside from new equipment needed; this would be paid for by utilities and the cost passed on to consumers. There would also be a cost benefit to consumers from deregulation. This would act to offset the additional cost of any equipment required to implement functions like load shedding.

7. Net metering. Cost savings in the short term by eliminating subsidies of solar installations. Midterm cost to utilities as they have to pay for cost-plus buyback; buyback limits will prevent this from becoming excessive, and utilities will save some money by not having to build new power lines or generators to support more customers in the long run.

8. Elimination of new source review. This would cost utilities money in the short run and save them money in the long run (since their oldest, least efficient plants would have to be upgraded.)


Conclusion

The problem we have today really isn’t clean energy availability. Just taking the amount of sunlight that falls on the US every day, we have far more energy available to us that we will ever need. The trick is getting away from oil, a source that harms the environment, is going to run out, and causes political instability wherever it is in good supply. (And coal, which does even more damage to the environment, and releases even more CO2.) It’s not even that hard to do if we are willing to put in the effort to do it. But it has to be done while we still have relatively cheap oil, because it is cheap energy that will allow us to build the infrastructure to get cheap non-fossil energy generated and distributed.

[brenthutch 416]

<"There's no "scourge" of man made global warming. So far there haven't been much in the way of impacts. However, many people (myself included) prefer to not play craps with the climate, and thus reducing CO2 emissions is a good goal IMO.">

Full marks Bill! on thoughtfully and logically addressing a problem that isn’t one.
You need to watch the Simpsons episode “Much Apu about Nothing" Your solution is akin to mayor Quimby's bear patrol.

[brenthutch 416]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you work in the energy sector? I ask because I see you post these threads with the same theme repeatedly.

No I am a Banker/Army Ranger/Tandem, IAD Instructor by trade. A few years ago I had a conversation with Mr. Global Warming (Michael Mann). And it became very obvious that the whole global warming thing had no legs to stand on. After that epiphany I made it one of my hobbies to educate myself on the AGW/Green movement, and expose it for the fraud it is. I have nothing against being green, (I support the clear water conversancy here in central PA and one of my additional duties as a bank officer was to manage our "adopt a highway" effort). I have a problem with taxpayers footing the bill with billions for green boondoggles. There is real harm being done to this country, and the world with these naive and misguided policies.

You seem awfully butt hurt by the whole green thing. I'm gonna take a wild guess that there's more to the story than that

Stay on the sidelines junior. This is your one warning.

You gonna shoot me bro? Why don't you clarify your scientific credentials?

"What I Have Noticed About Alarmists

Posted on May 30, 2012

They generally understand little or nothing about science, and get confused by data. Their beliefs seem to be shaped around the idea that the science is very difficult, and that only a select few in academia are capable of grasping these tricky concepts.

For example, until it is peer-reviewed, we can’t be certain that Manhattan is not underwater."

[rushmc 18]

skinnay

All of this comes from a guy who throws drouges, has one conversation with a guy, and suddenly has a better grasp on climate science than 97% of the experts? Did you stay at a holiday inn express the night before?

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riggerrob 598]

... wind farms are being built ...
............................................................................................

What is your reaction to applications to build wind turbines around the Grand Bend, Ontario DZ?

[riggerrob 598]

.....

Environmental groups are suing to stop future oil wells in the gulf, and pretty much every oceanic-related industry/business/university/etc in Florida and along the Gulf cost is monitoring the ongoing situation with new data arriving daily.

.........................................................................................

Not just along the Florida coast ......
Meanwhile a variety of environmental groups are trying to block exports of oil, gas and coal from Canada's West Coast.
Many fear another "Exon Valdiz" style oil spill.
I fear that Canada will sell all our fossil fuel to Asia. After we have sold all our fossil fuel to Asia, they will leave "the white bastards to freeze in the dark."

[riggerrob 598]

...... Drive faggotty electric cars. ...
...............................................................

What?
You don't believe that egos (personal image) don't drive car purchasing decisions?
Surely you jest?????