ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Bjorn Lomborg , energy issues , renewable energy

Reply
Old 5th February 2014, 11:19 AM   #361
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
Dinwar
Quote:
You are wrong, and seem to be ignorant of how these things work. Power companies don't care what power source fuels the generators, and oil companies may like having power companies to sell to but they'd get by just fine without them (petrolium is used extensively in all sorts of fields, from medicine to toys; who do you think makes the grease for the bearings in wind turbines?).
I'd say you are the one that is confused.

In the US most power is generated by coal and damn right they care. The denier industry is and was funded by the likes of Koch whose main base is coal.

Subsidizes used for green projects means less money for fossil fuels so there is an enormous and well heeled lobby

and this says I'm correct both in the US and in Australia

Quote:
FRIDAY 08 NOVEMBER, 2013 | RSS Feed
Anti-Wind Group Linked To Fossil Fuel : Greens

by Energy Matters
Waubra Foundation
When it comes to anti-wind farm sentiment; many roads lead to the Waubra Foundation - and some of the roads from there lead to fossil fuel interests say the Greens.

The Waubra Foundation's main claim to fame (or infamy, depending on your point of view) is its insistence so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome exists; although no credible scientific or medical body recognises it.

Pretty much the entire premise of Wind Turbine Syndrome is based on the claimed negative effects of infrasound emanating from turbines.

However, the infrasound myth was debunked earlier this year after South Australia's Environment Protection Authority released a report showing infrasound levels at homes near wind turbines are no greater than experienced elsewhere.

The lack of evidence supporting Wind Turbine Syndrome compared to the volume of evidence stating it doesn't exist is such that the syndrome been labelled by some as a "communicated" disease.

Even in light of this information, the Waubra Foundation continues to operate as a registered charity and as such; enjoys a number of benefits. It also seems to have the ear of controversial radio broadcaster Alan Jones.

Greens Senator Richard di Natale says public subsidisation of the Waubra Foundation is being used to "spread misinformation about wind energy and its health impacts."

According to an ABC article, the Senator also claims close links exist between some of the directors of the Waubra Foundation and fossil fuel interests. He has taken his concerns to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commissioner (ACNC).
http://www.energymatters.com.au/inde...rticle_id=4015

and I'd not be surprised if the same were not true in Ontario.

This certainly does not surprise me

Quote:
AFP, which received $7.6 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund in 2010 (43% of its budget), drove anti-wind efforts last fall, leading a coalition of fossil fuel-funded groups to write a letter calling on Congress to block tax credits for wind energy. The Washington Post reported in November 2012 that the Heartland Institute, which received $1.6 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund in 2010 (27% of its budget), joined with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to push model legislation to state legislators in an effort to eliminate state clean energy standards across the country. In addition, organizations that are part of the State Policy Network (SPN), which received $4.8 million from Donors Trust in 2010 (36% of its budget), published reports bashing clean energy standards that are now likely being used to attack clean energy policies in states across the country (like Kansas and Ohio).
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/fossil_fuel_front_groups

Quote:
As Congress dithers for the umpteenth time over extending a key subsidy for wind energy, the industry once again is up in the air. Called the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country. Given the planet needs to transition as quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who would be against renewing wind's tax credit?

The Koch brothers, that's who.

Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. Never mind the fact that the oil and gas industry has averaged four times what the wind tax credit is worth in federal tax breaks and subsidies annually for the last 95 years.

The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of states actually benefit from the subsidy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot...b_4396033.html

I think you are being exeptionally naive or parochial to think anti-wind groups are not being handed funding even if they are unaware of the sources.

Politicians of all stripes are venal and the fossil fuel industry has the funding to capitalize on that reality.

Last edited by macdoc; 5th February 2014 at 11:20 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 11:26 AM   #362
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
eta: Never mind. I see no reason to respond to naked fear-mongering.

Last edited by Dinwar; 5th February 2014 at 11:28 AM.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 11:47 AM   #363
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
mmm - proven lobbying against wind by fossil fuel interests is fear mongering???
That is a rather difficult circle to square.

Bottom line is you were wrong about anti-wind not having some fossil fuel funding and now you say I'm fear-mongering????!!!

About what....???

I made a case that the anti-wind brigade in some cases are not always good-hearted local citizens/environmentalists.

I'm not a big wind advocate only because I'm not certain it's best use of public funds as opposed to other approaches to move toward carbon neutral and away from specifically coal which Ontario has done.

Last edited by macdoc; 5th February 2014 at 11:49 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 11:51 AM   #364
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by macdoc
mmm - proven lobbying against wind by fossil fuel interests is fear mongering???
That is a rather difficult circle to square.
Only because you refuse to be pinned down by little things like "context". I was specifically discussing ENVIRONMENTALIST actions which shut down renewable energy generating plant construction. You proceeded to post stuff about anotherr topic entirely, and then declared victory. That is fear mongering--the argument essentially is "Because fossil fuel interests fund some anti-wind activity, they therefore are the explanation of the anti-wind activity you experienced, regardless of what the actual facts are."

Either address the concerns I raised or admit you can't. Presenting completely seperate issues as if they somehow have any bearing on the topic is a fallacy, and I will not continue to entertain such nonsense.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 11:56 AM   #365
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,833
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Context is your friend. Or at least, should be.
There really is no reason to be condescending.

Quote:
You were responding to a statement by macdoc, which was a response to a statement I'd made.
I was responding to macdoc, and extrapolating for some deniers. I wasn't commenting about you.

Quote:
Thus, your statement is tied to the reasons for my beliefs.
Non sequitur.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 11:59 AM   #366
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Belz...
I was responding to macdoc, and extrapolating for some deniers. I wasn't commenting about you.
macdoc's comments were directly responding to mine, and were arguing that I was listening to "AGW denier" comments to get my information. If this were a bar instead of a message board, no one would believe that you weren't commenting on my statement.

But whatever, if you want it to be interpreted that way, that's fine. I can do that.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 12:04 PM   #367
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
Quote:
Only because you refuse to be pinned down by little things like "context". I was specifically discussing ENVIRONMENTALIST actions which shut down renewable energy generating plant construction. You proceeded to post stuff about anotherr topic entirely, and then declared victory. That is fear mongering--the argument essentially is "Because fossil fuel interests fund some anti-wind activity, they therefore are the explanation of the anti-wind activity you experienced, regardless of what the actual facts are."
snort - I made a statement that some anti-wind was fossil fuel funded.
You said I was wrong and did not understand...( the apparently typical condiscending approach - appeal to your authority ).

I simply provided evidence that I was correct in my assertion and now you are trying to tunnel down to narrow the issue to your fiefdom and do a throw away snark about fear mongering to which you still don't answer the question.

About what???

You don't make your case and when challenged retreat into some region of yoru own making that would not be understandable to mere mortals.

Is "it's more complex than that" a favourite of yours to avoid making a case.?
Evidence would lead the reader to believe so.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 12:17 PM   #368
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Okay--so you want to talk about how fossil fuel companies fund some anti-wind activity. That's fine.

Just understand that it has no bearing whatever on what I'm talking about, unless you can link things like desert tortoise protection and jurisdictional wash protection to fossil fuel funded groups. We are talking about two very different--and completely unrelated--things here.

Originally Posted by macdoc
You don't make your case and when challenged retreat into some region of yoru own making that would not be understandable to mere mortals.
Not even a little. I presented specific statements, and provided specific places to find the information. The fact that you don't know enough to do so is not my problem. In fact, I'd say that if you don't understand the terms I used you are in no position to make any statement about the nature of construction of renewable energy power generating plants.

Quote:
Is "it's more complex than that" a favourite of yours to avoid making a case.?
Not at all. My hands are somewhat tied, due to the fact that I've actually been involved in constructing wind, solar, and geothermal generating plants, and have to avoid certain legal requirements. I'd LOVE to discuss some of the issues involved. Proving some random person online wrong isn't worth my job, however.

If you want to see the reality of wind farm construction, or at least a glimps of it, look up "Ivanpah" on the BLM website and look through the public comments on the EIR/EIS. Read the whole FEIR/EIS, actually--it'll give you a much better understanding of what it takes to get one of these built, and exactly how many conflicting concerns we have to ballance to build them. (I'm allowed to comment on this one because I didn't have much of a part in it, and there were some major local newspaper stories about it, so it classifies as "public knowledge"; plus, I'm recommending you read publically-available documents, and not giving out any confidential information.) All of those regulations are due to environmental concerns. None of them are due to fossil fuel lobbying.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 12:25 PM   #369
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,630
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Depends on the limits we're discussing. I posted up-thread the difference in land disturbance between various types of power. Hydrocarbon burning impacts a lot less habitat than wind, solar, or hydroelectric, particularly in places where the oil wells are established (offshore rigs, or the los Angeles basin, for example).
Yes, if you focus on pumping from developed wells, but that's a bit like assuming the roads and windmills are already in place. Anyway, once the developed fields are depleted then we have to move to exploration, which you have also noted is far messier than pumping.

Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm doing is pointing out that environmentalist groups have put sufficient pressure on green power developers to not use the space that the environmental groups have shut down numerous green power generating plants. Those groups are actually much stupider than I'm portraying them as, but I'm not permitted to go into details (NDAs suck).
Idiots abound. I doubt the environmentalists have a monopoly on that resource.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 12:28 PM   #370
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith
Anyway, once the developed fields are depleted then we have to move to exploration, which you have also noted is far messier than pumping.
True, but we're still not talking whole square miles removed from the ecosystem, which is essentially what happens with solar power. Oil exploration involves far more remote sensing than drilling.

Quote:
Idiots abound. I doubt the environmentalists have a monopoly on that resource.
No argument there. It's just that some people seem to have an opinion of environmental groups that is, in my opinion, overly rosy.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 02:07 PM   #371
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,630
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
True, but we're still not talking whole square miles removed from the ecosystem, which is essentially what happens with solar power.
Unless it is deployed on roofs. Which there are a lot of, especially in places where power is needed.

And not wind. Which happily coexists with many current ecosystems, such as farm land and grazing land.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 02:10 PM   #372
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Unless it is deployed on roofs. Which there are a lot of, especially in places where power is needed.

And not wind. Which happily coexists with many current ecosystems, such as farm land and grazing land.
There are problems with deploying solar pannels on roofs, including the fact that there's often not sufficient space (some buildings require much more power than can be provided via solar cells on their surfaces). There's a reason shingles only last 20 to 25 years, and they're more durable (to that kind of stress) than today's solar pannels are. I do agree that it's a viable option in many areas, however.

As for wind, again, once it's established, sure. During construction, however, most wind farms involve tremendous ecological impact--impacts that directly correlate with the size of the wind farms. You've got to put the access roads in.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 05:00 PM   #373
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,833
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
macdoc's comments were directly responding to mine, and were arguing that I was listening to "AGW denier" comments to get my information.
Well I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear enough for you, but my comment had nothing to do with yours but was, in response to macdoc, a thought about the motivations of deniers.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 02:54 PM   #374
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I see no reason for this. In a hundred years I've little doubt new technologies will be available to manufacture the chemicals necessary from other sources (there are current technologies that can do it, but they're not economically viable at this point). Besides, if those future chemists follow your mentality they'll just leave the oil in the ground for the next generation, who will leave it for the next, and so on infinitum.
Best result I could hope for.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Not necessarily. The issue is implementation. If you can implement it at the source--ie, at the outputs from power plants--it's merely an additional income stream for the company. They're already making money on the power, this is just bonus. And let's face it, there will always be industrial activities that will require burning of hydrocarbons.
I can think of few, if any, industrial activities that "require" the burning of fossil fuels. I do not want CO2 to become an additional income stream, that is the path toward economic and financial ruin, and potentially extinction.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
The main issue with CO2 is that it's currently a waste product.
No, the problem with CO2 is that far too much of it is being generated through the release of previously sequestered carbon. This flooding of the active carbon cycle with large streams of carbon from outside the active carbon cycle is generating environmental havoc and placing increasing economic burdens upon our society while destroying the climate which fostered and encouraged the birth and growth of modern human civilization.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Make it a marketable product, and you at the very least remove the incentive to dump it into the atmosphere.
Please name a marketable product of CO2 that will not add fossil fuel carbon to the active carbon cycle of our planet.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
As for releasing it into the active carbon cycle, it depends on what processes the CO is going to be used for. Some processes lock it into non-bioavailable forms, effectively removing it from the carbon cycle (as long as it's not burned, in which case the CO2 release is typically the least of our worries!). I believe other processes use CO as a catalyst. Using it for meat packaging would only delay the release, but still, a delay is better than nothing if your goal is to lower atmospheric concentrations.
A delay of days, months, or even years, decades and centuries, is insufficient to deal with the issues at hand, and no where near the scale sufficient to address the release amounts of even minor fossil fuel power emissions.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:06 PM   #375
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, one way or another that might be one of the core reasons for denialism.
People who are merely parroting their favorite political pundit, or family patriarch, admired friend, etc., aren't in "denial," they are merely ignorant and unmotivated to discover that which they don't know about this issue. They, generally, are the "audience," not really the target or participants of the serious debate/discussion regarding AGW.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:08 PM   #376
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Trakar
Best result I could hope for.
You have yet to provide any justification for agreeing with you.

Quote:
I can think of few, if any, industrial activities that "require" the burning of fossil fuels.
Your lack of knowledge is not my concern.

Quote:
No, the problem with CO2 is that far too much of it is being generated through the release of previously sequestered carbon.
Nope. Complete failure to understand the economics of environmental regulations. It's actually pretty simple: if something is a waste product, it costs money to dispose of properly and is often merely dumped into the nearest container of uncertain ownership. The reason CO2 is going into the atmosphere isn't that it's being burned; it's that it costs less to do that than it does to deal with it in any other way. If the companies made money off CO2, even just a little, it would be incentive for them to capture any they generate. This would not cause them to generate more--the plants I've seen that have implemented similar programs didn't start generating the waste product, they kept making whatever it was that they made in the first place. This creates an additional, but comparitively minor, cash flow.

Check out how sheetrock is made sometime.

Quote:
Please name a marketable product of CO2 that will not add fossil fuel carbon to the active carbon cycle of our planet.
I'll pass. I do not believe you'll accept any answer I could give.

Quote:
A delay of days, months, or even years, decades and centuries, is insufficient to deal with the issues at hand,
This reveals a rather mystical thinking of carbon. The reality is quite different. The whole problem, as it is presented in this thread, is that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. If it goes into the biosphere, no one would care. If it went into the lithosphere no one would care. The problem is the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is a reservoir problem in a nutrient cycle--the carbon doesn't stay there, it moves from that reservoir at a particular rate (described via the residence time). The whole issue with the carbon cycle right now is that the residence time in the lithosphere is lower than it has been in the past, which means that the carbon previously in the reservoir is finding a new reservoir--the atmosphere--faster than normal. If we provide a new reservoir, pulling directly from the atmosphere, that will reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The exact residence time isn't a huge concern right now--until it reaches equilibrium, even a very short residence time would be sufficient to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. And that's assuming it IS a short residence time. If, on the other hand, it's a long residence time (carbon dioxide->hydrocarbon->plastic spoon->spoon in landfill, for example), it's even more efficient, because it takes longer to reach equilibrium while still removing a large stream of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Of course, all of this would provide money to people in manufacturing. And I have a feeling that's what you really don't want. Otherwise, I see no reason for objecting to turning CO2 into an additional, suplemental revenue stream. Turning CO2 into money is, after all, the most effective way to get rid of it--use the industrialists' greed to achieve your aims, and they'll jump at the chance ot help you.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:14 PM   #377
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,630
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
There are problems with deploying solar pannels on roofs, including the fact that there's often not sufficient space (some buildings require much more power than can be provided via solar cells on their surfaces).
There is typically enough room to offset SOME of the building's usage, even if not all. It doesn't have to solve the whole problem to be part of the solution.

Quote:
There's a reason shingles only last 20 to 25 years, and they're more durable (to that kind of stress) than today's solar pannels are. I do agree that it's a viable option in many areas, however.
We'll just have to agree to agree, then.

Quote:
As for wind, again, once it's established, sure. During construction, however, most wind farms involve tremendous ecological impact--impacts that directly correlate with the size of the wind farms. You've got to put the access roads in.
I know it is not 1:1, but drilling a new well is not ecologically neutral. And they sometimes use roads, too.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:17 PM   #378
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,773
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Please name a marketable product of CO2 that will not add fossil fuel carbon to the active carbon cycle of our planet.
Great question, but I presume you mean 'add' in the net sense?

Possibles - calcium carbonate/hydoxide in their various forms? As mortar, cement, whitewash .... relatively inert derivatives of 'lime', basically?

They're certainly marketable, but I have no idea how long they take to re-enter the active carbon cycle, nor the net CO2 cost of their extraction and use.

Just sayin'
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:28 PM   #379
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by GlennB
Possibles - calcium carbonate/hydoxide in their various forms?
True--lithospheric carbon reservoires aren't limited to hydrocarbons. There's a whole set of reversable chemical equations governing the interaction between atomspheric CO2 and CaCO3. There's also methane clatherates and a few other lithospheric carbon sinks.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith
There is typically enough room to offset SOME of the building's usage, even if not all. It doesn't have to solve the whole problem to be part of the solution.
Agreed. I also like the idea of putting solar panels along interior walls--we've got to light the interior anyway, and I've got plenty of space in my office where a solar panel can generate electricity, particularly if it's the flexible/printable kind I've heard about.

Quote:
I know it is not 1:1, but drilling a new well is not ecologically neutral. And they sometimes use roads, too.
True, but some people drastically underestimate the ecological impact of turbine construction. I know I did until I actually saw one of these projects, and I've never had a rosy view of wind power. I've heard people say that wind has essentially NO ecological impact, including university professors (that's plural, as in "more than one random nutjob").
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:36 PM   #380
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,833
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
People who are merely parroting their favorite political pundit, or family patriarch, admired friend, etc., aren't in "denial," they are merely ignorant and unmotivated to discover that which they don't know about this issue. They, generally, are the "audience," not really the target or participants of the serious debate/discussion regarding AGW.
By denier, we mean people who deny that AGW is real. But even when educated by others in the topic, they maintain their objections. It raises the question of whether they have another reason behind their conclusions, one of which is potential future discomfort.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:50 PM   #381
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
It's not poor design--it's the inevitable consequence of constructing these things. Solar pannels necessarily must block sunlight. They necessarily must cover a significant area. Turbines necessarily must be built--and that means fairly massive exacavations to create access roads (even if you built them by chopper, you'd have to maintain them and excavate the foundations). Dams, in order to have sufficient water to provide power, require reservoirs.

There are limits to what we are capable of. Those limits for green power are space. This isn't poor design, it's the nature of the technology.
Not at all accurate. First of all solar panels do not have to block all light. They do not have to be deployed in a manner that damages or degrades other uses of the space, and solar panels are neither the only means to capture/convert solar energy to electricity, nor are they the only means to produce non-fossil fuel energy.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Again, this has nothing to do with denialism. What I was talking about is the practacle and demonstrable result of environmental policies. I've even given an example of it.

I will ask again: Has anyone here other than me been involved in constructing green power generating facilities?
I realize that you probably weren't referring to me with regard to "denialism," but while environmental policies can be as misguided and poorly designed as any other public policy, this is not inherent to alternative energy technologies any more than melt-downs and radioactive leaks are inherent to nuclear power technologies.

As to commercial power generating facilities, no, I have not. I have, however, designed, planned and installed the alternative energy systems for my home and businesses which (on an annual basis) generate and feed substantially more power into the local grids than we draw from the local grids.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 03:56 PM   #382
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You don't think that some AGW deniers hold that opinion because of the threat to their lifestyles a major industry change would entail ?
Most of the major investors in alternative energy sources are going to likely be the same core individuals who are currently the major investors in fossil fuel energy sources. Core denialism (at least in my experience) is almost entirely political, not truly economics, science, or technology based in their positions.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:00 PM   #383
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Trakar
First of all solar panels do not have to block all light.
Yes, they do. Any technology that converts light to electricity necessarily must capture the light, removing it from the biosphere. And in terms of actual implementation, no currently mature solar technology deployed on an industrial scale doesn't block large (and I'm talking square MILES) areas. Then you add in fencing, access roads, O&M buildings, and other on-site structures and construction, and the ecological footprint gets really big really quick.

Quote:
They do not have to be deployed in a manner that damages or degrades other uses of the space
To generate significant amounts of power they do. The solar power plants I've worked on have covered square MILES of territory, and I've helped with construction of plants using pretty much every currently utilized technology.

Quote:
As to commercial power generating facilities, no, I have not.
Okay then. Kindly stop arguing with me as to how these are built until you've educated yourself on the topic. I am giving you first-hand experience in how these are constructed in the real world, something you just admitted to not having.

Quote:
I have, however, designed, planned and installed the alternative energy systems for my home and businesses....
This is like saying "I have a home garden, so I can critique industrial agriculture." Once you scale up to powering cities, all sorts of new issues come into play. I doubt, for example, you had to deal much with jurisdictional waterways, NEPA, CEQA, the CEC, Homeland Security (yes, they do get involved), ROW issues, or any of the innumerable other concerns that industrial scale power plants have to address. There are legal requirements that industrial-scale power generation must complie with that home owners simply don't, and these include environmental regulations at the federal, state, and local level.

Quote:
...but while environmental policies can be as misguided and poorly designed as any other public policy, this is not inherent to alternative energy technologies any more than melt-downs and radioactive leaks are inherent to nuclear power technologies.
~shrug~ If they want to claim that their goal isn't to make production of electricity impossible, but they put up so many barriers that it becomes in fact impossible, I see no reason to not call them out for it. As the old adage goes, "Actions speak louder than words". If someone beats his wife and says it's his fault I'm still gonna call him an abusive husband; I don't just take his word for it and blame the wife.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:10 PM   #384
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
That limit, or one very similar to it, applies to every form of power. That is not a green power issue, that is a power issue...

Which was the basis of my earlier statement that "Poor design/execution is a problem with all technology, the solution is proper and appropriate design/execution."
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 6th February 2014 at 04:11 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:15 PM   #385
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post

Which was the basis of my earlier statement that "Poor design/execution is a problem with all technology, the solution is proper and appropriate design/execution."
To which I responded with a discussion of the flaws in your understanding of industrial-scale power generation, along with areas to look for futher information.

The issues with utilizing green power on a large scale aren't "poor design/execution", they are limits of the possibilities of the technologies. Turbines need foundations, which need to be excavated. Solar pannels need space. Every machine needs maintenance.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:30 PM   #386
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
I say put your money where your mouth is: How would you construction a 500 mW wind-turbine power plant with minimal ecological impacts? How would you construct a 500 mW solar power plant with minimal ecological impacts?
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:45 PM   #387
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You have yet to provide any justification for agreeing with you.
Incorrect, yet again. See discussions of too much carbon being added from outside the active carbon cycle.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Your lack of knowledge is not my concern.
Your lack of providing compelling support for your statements harms your argument, not my position.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Nope. Complete failure to understand the economics of environmental regulations. It's actually pretty simple: if something is a waste product, it costs money to dispose of properly and is often merely dumped into the nearest container of uncertain ownership.
I and increasing numbers of people are unwilling to continue paying to clean up and repair the damage caused by the dumping such waste into the commons by those profiting from these activities.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
The reason CO2 is going into the atmosphere isn't that it's being burned; it's that it costs less to do that than it does to deal with it in any other way.
No, they are doing it because they are not being made to pay fair and reasonable costs to deal with their mess while forcing others to clean up the mess they are profiting from.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Check out how sheetrock is made sometime.
Sure, but of what relevance is this to the current discussion?

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I'll pass. I do not believe you'll accept any answer I could give.
I certainly won't accept an answer not even offered.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
This reveals a rather mystical thinking of carbon. The reality is quite different. The whole problem, as it is presented in this thread, is that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. If it goes into the biosphere, no one would care.
If it goes into the biosphere it is going into the active carbon cycle. The core problem is adding carbon to the active carbon cycle. Carbon in the active carbon cycle is carbon that builds up in the atmosphere as it is processed through the biosphere. Any carbon added to the active carbon cycle is a problem and is a part of the increases in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
If it went into the lithosphere no one would care.
If it is long-term (millions of years) sequestered in the lithosphere, then you are correct, the only worries about sequestered carbon are that short-sighted profiteers will try to make money off of releasing it into the atmosphere.


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Of course, all of this would provide money to people in manufacturing. And I have a feeling that's what you really don't want.
Randi's wager is still safe!

I have nothing against manufacturing, and I really have nothing against anyone earning wages or profits.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Otherwise, I see no reason for objecting to turning CO2 into an additional, suplemental revenue stream. Turning CO2 into money is, after all, the most effective way to get rid of it--use the industrialists' greed to achieve your aims, and they'll jump at the chance ot help you.
What I have a problem with is any endeavor that involves pulling long-term sequestered carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the active carbon cycle in our current situation. Once the current mess is remediated, I've little problem with extremely small scale uses of such carbon, nor with CO2 capture and utilization from such micro-scale usages.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:58 PM   #388
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Trakar
I and increasing numbers of people are unwilling to continue paying to clean up and repair the damage caused by the dumping such waste into the commons by those profiting from these activities.
Do you drive? Eat? Use electronics?

Don't act like it's some Other doing the damage. You've done your part.

Quote:
Sure, but of what relevance is this to the current discussion?
As I thought, you are ignorant of the actual implementation of the procedures that we're discussing. Please correct that. That is a link discussing flute-gas sesulferization, a process which produces the gypsum used in sheet rock. This process removes a serious ecological concern while at the same time providing a revenue source for power plants. Everyone wins. This is analogous to what I was talking about with carbon--find some way to scrub it from the power plant output, put it into a useable form, and keep it out of the atmosphere. Any honest environmentalist should be happy with those results. The fact that they're not is strong evidence that keeping atmospheric CO2 down, their stated goal, is not actually what they're after.

Quote:
If it is long-term (millions of years) sequestered in the lithosphere, then you are correct, the only worries about sequestered carbon are that short-sighted profiteers will try to make money off of releasing it into the atmosphere.
I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. NO ONE makes money dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a byproduct--it is the unintended result of some process intended to provide some other benefit. What people make money off of is that other product. They dump CO2 into the atmosphere because there's nothing else to do with it. Give them something else to do with it--turn it from a byproduct to a marketable commodety--and you will rather quickly see a decline in CO2 output, with your greatest allies being those same short-sighted profiteers you're blaming now. This is not hypothetical, this is not "it may happen"--this is what actually happens, in the real world.

Quote:
What I have a problem with is any endeavor that involves pulling long-term sequestered carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the active carbon cycle in our current situation.
Again, the only justification I have ever heard for keeping carbon out of the active carbon cycle (as you call it--it's not a term used in geology or ecology, far as I'm aware) is to keep it out of the atmosphere. No one cares about the carbon sequestered in the biosphere. You certainly don't; you haven't mentioned it once. So long as the carbon stays out of the atmosphere why the devil do you care?
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 05:00 PM   #389
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Great question, but I presume you mean 'add' in the net sense?

Possibles - calcium carbonate/hydoxide in their various forms? As mortar, cement, whitewash .... relatively inert derivatives of 'lime', basically?

They're certainly marketable, but I have no idea how long they take to re-enter the active carbon cycle, nor the net CO2 cost of their extraction and use.

Just sayin'
This is primarily an issue of scale. Yes, it is pulling sequestered carbon out of sequestration and releasing it into the active carbon cycle, and I would prefer to find processes and products that did not employ any sequestered carbon. If we look at the basic construction materials that release free carbon in their manufacture and production, however, the carbon released in the ICE engines, generators and thermal systems that are part of the mineral recovery, processing and manufacture release at least an order of magnitude more sequestered carbon than the direct processing of the minerals into construction materials. IOW, I'm more concerned (currently) about finding alternatives for the fuel and power sides of the equation than I am about replacements for concrete, gypsum, etc.,.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 05:11 PM   #390
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
By denier, we mean people who deny that AGW is real. But even when educated by others in the topic, they maintain their objections. It raises the question of whether they have another reason behind their conclusions, one of which is potential future discomfort.
I'm not too worried about people who hold their perspectives in the absence of information and understanding. Ignorance doesn't bother me that much, it is willful ignorance that pegs the denier. In many cases a proper challenge will send the ignorant in search of better information, whereas it merely sends the willfully ignorant deeper into their bunkers.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 05:52 PM   #391
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,833
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
I'm not too worried about people who hold their perspectives in the absence of information and understanding. Ignorance doesn't bother me that much, it is willful ignorance that pegs the denier.
Yes, that's precisely what I said.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 07:07 PM   #392
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Yes, they do.
No, they do not.

explore the terms "band-gap" and "transparent solar cells."

Furthermore, solar arrays do not (generally) blanket square miles of land. They form angled strips that reduce the ambient light beneath them, sometimes by as much as 70% beneath them. This isn't much different than occurs in most forests. Does it change and alter the environment beneath them, certainly, but it does not make that environment without use or value. Certainly, in biomes where there are endangered species that require very specific conditions, it would be very poor planning and design to build structures on such land that would significantly disrupt that environment.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
To generate significant amounts of power they do. The solar power plants I've worked on have covered square MILES of territory, and I've helped with construction of plants using pretty much every currently utilized technology.
First, and foremost, I am not an advocate for "Big Solar/Wind." I see these technologies, in their current state, to be more situational, local and small-scale solutions to be used as supplemental energy sources more than as base-load commercial grid mainstays. This isn't to say that there are not potential big energy applications (e.g. DLR studies, off-shore wind farms, and a variety of other systems of various scales) but, merely that I do not see these as viable near-term solutions to help wean our civilization off of fossil fuels.

Secondly, a significant portion of our population, individually (and in neighborhoods) generating substantive amounts of their own energy consumption on, or near, their own homes would generate "significant amounts of power" in total, without covering contiguous "square MILES of territory."

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Okay then. Kindly stop arguing with me as to how these are built until you've educated yourself on the topic. I am giving you first-hand experience in how these are constructed in the real world, something you just admitted to not having.
I do not have to possess practical experience in planning, designing and building fundamentally flawed systems to understand the flaws or methods and means to address those flaws.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
This is like saying "I have a home garden, so I can critique industrial agriculture."
Your irrelevant straw-man, do with it as you will.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Once you scale up to powering cities, all sorts of new issues come into play.
I would rather power individual homes, buildings and businesses, which is where our perspectives upon these issues most dramatically differ in approach. Not that I don't want any large generation capacity, but merely that I don't think that such capacity needs to be generated through fossil fuels nor any one alternative generation system.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I doubt, for example, you had to deal much with jurisdictional waterways, NEPA, CEQA, the CEC, Homeland Security (yes, they do get involved), ROW issues, or any of the innumerable other concerns that industrial scale power plants have to address.
These should be issues that are common to the proper design and construction of any private (or public) power utility to begin with. I don't perceive why these aspects would be any more onerous with alternative systems than they are(/should be) with nuclear, hydro, coal, oil, or gas system. Clearing these approvals still does not mean that your system is well designed and planned according to all aspects of consideration; it just means that they were sufficient in the areas checked to receive the sign-off of the appropriate public agency.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
There are legal requirements that industrial-scale power generation must complie with that home owners simply don't, and these include environmental regulations at the federal, state, and local level.
My own planning and clearances were a bit more intensive than a simple supplemental home power system, and my personal environmental considerations are much more extensive than federal, state or local regulations, but, you are correct that I have never been hired to design and build a commercial power generation system for a large city.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
~shrug~ If they want to claim that their goal isn't to make production of electricity impossible, but they put up so many barriers that it becomes in fact impossible, I see no reason to not call them out for it.
I fully support the production of electricity; I do not support the release of previously (long-term) sequestered carbon into the active carbon cycle of our planet. These propositions are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
As the old adage goes, "Actions speak louder than words". If someone beats his wife and says it's his fault I'm still gonna call him an abusive husband; I don't just take his word for it and blame the wife.
Still awaiting compelling support for your assertions and quickly tiring of the ad hom innuendos and irrelevant straw-man form of argument that you seem to enjoy.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 07:21 PM   #393
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
To which I responded with a discussion of the flaws in your understanding of industrial-scale power generation, along with areas to look for futher information.

The issues with utilizing green power on a large scale aren't "poor design/execution", they are limits of the possibilities of the technologies. Turbines need foundations, which need to be excavated. Solar pannels need space. Every machine needs maintenance.
No, they are limits with the approach taken to apply and deploy such technologies. This is much the same problematic process approach that has proven flawed with the application and deployment of fossil-fuelled power generation systems, nuclear power systems, hydro power systems, etc.,. The failure to clearly see the forest for all the trees is in blaming the technology rather than the process.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 08:44 PM   #394
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I say put your money where your mouth is: How would you construction a 500 mW wind-turbine power plant with minimal ecological impacts? How would you construct a 500 mW solar power plant with minimal ecological impacts?
Generally not my goals, and I wouldn't presume to attempt such designs without a great deal more research than you've provided me with motivation towards accomplishing. That said, what I would not be inclined to do is build the few traditional style wind or solar farms I was interested in, anywhere near environmentally sensitive localities. I would certainly look at requiring all components to have low carbon footprints (going all the way back to the way the minerals were recovered, transported and processed). I would also give serious consideration to non-traditional means of harvesting wind and solar energy (eg Wind001, Wind002, Solar1, Solar2.)

As I stated, previously, however, I don't believe that this is necessary or necessarily desirable. I, personally, would rather see NatGas turbine systems replace all coal (and the few oil/diesel) power generation over the next decade and a major public investment in a massive quasigovernmental advanced design nuclear power industry (500 new cores online by 2030). A lot of what we need to do will be a lot easier and less painful with not just abundant electrical power, but with ridiculously cheap abundant electrical power that doesn't create problems worse than the ones we are resolving. Some people believe that this is the problem with nuclear power, I disagree. I do not feel that any of these positions are antithetical to a distributed national power generation and delivery network.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 09:55 PM   #395
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...You've done your part...
Please point out anywhere that I've denied this, or stated otherwise?

I have, however, upon becoming aware of my own role, begun correcting my behavior and attempting to help others understand the problem we all face and the steps we can all take to reduce the magnitude (and potentially avoid some aspects) of this problem.


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...As I thought, you are ignorant of the actual implementation of the procedures that we're discussing. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization"]Please correct that.
A process which has demonstrated some efficacy, but not under widespread application, nor a solution for removing all of the carbon emissions in the combustion of coal, yet alone removing that carbon from the active carbon cycle for any geologically relevant period of time.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...That is a link discussing flute-gas sesulferization, a process which produces the gypsum used in sheet rock.
might possibly find use in sheetrock manufacture, but largely ineffective as a means of scrubbing coal combustion product gases of CO2, in fact it actually doesn't capture Carbon from the emission gases it captures the carbon from the limestone as the sulfuric acid releases it. This process is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with removing carbon from coal combustion products, in fact, it releases even more previously sequestered carbon from the limestone. It doesn't just not address the problem, it exasperates it!

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...Any honest environmentalist should be happy with those results. The fact that they're not is strong evidence that keeping atmospheric CO2 down, their stated goal, is not actually what they're after.
Keeping additional carbon out of the active carbon cycle is the goal. I'm not sure why you are focusing on Environmentalists, or why you think that this is solely an environmental issue, but I would like to hear your explanation.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen.
You ought to try reading your posts from an objective perspective sometime.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...NO ONE makes money dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
anyone who recovers and sells coal, oil or natgas makes money from releasing sequestered carbon into the active carbon cycle.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...Again, the only justification I have ever heard for keeping carbon out of the active carbon cycle (as you call it--it's not a term used in geology or ecology, far as I'm aware) is to keep it out of the atmosphere.
Your error, correct it:

Carbon and Climate - http://carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/

The Carbon Cycle - http://www.ucar.edu/communications/gcip/m2ccycle/m2pdf.pdf

http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/carbon-planning

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34059.pdf

The Carbon Cycle and Climate Change - http://www.cengage.com/custom/enrichment_modules/data/Carbon_Cycle_0495738557_LowRes.pdf

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...No one cares about the carbon sequestered in the biosphere. You certainly don't; you haven't mentioned it once. So long as the carbon stays out of the atmosphere why the devil do you care?
Actually, I have, both consistently and repeatedly over the last several years of this (and other) threads here. Extra carbon in the active carbon cycle moves throughout the active carbon cycle. It is difficult to remove carbon from the active carbon cycle.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 6th February 2014 at 10:10 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 10:02 PM   #396
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, that's precisely what I said.
Perhaps we have different measures of "willful." I see, very few here that I would consider "willfully ignorant" as opposed to more simply ignorant of the science and evidences, at least within the more general JREF sci - tech threads (Though a few trolls appear periodically, and they aren't concerned with issues or discussion beyond the troll).
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 02:02 AM   #397
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
(500 new cores online by 2030)
A bit more ambitious than I intended,...try "500 new cores, with the first portion of these coming online by 2030"
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 01:07 PM   #398
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
...I have, however, upon becoming aware of my own role, begun correcting my behavior and attempting to help others understand the problem we all face and the steps we can all take to reduce the magnitude (and potentially avoid some aspects) of this problem...
In relation to this and another discussion regarding the term "denial" with regard to climate change, I have recently finished a book called "Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life." It is a look at the sociology associated with climate change issues. The author, Kari Marie Norgaard, classifies everyone who understands that climate change is real and serious but still does nothing about it, for reasons that vary from one person to the next, as being in denial. This is generally not how I use the term, though in reference to some recent discussion, I can certainly see that this is a definition that deserves further consideration and application.

Norgaard writes regarding her definition, that denial isn't:
Quote:
...in most cases a rejection of information per se, but the failure to integrate this knowledge into everyday life or to transform it into social action...
I'm still not sure that this fits my conceptualization of the term but I can certainly understand what leads her to this perception.

Over all a very good book with a lot to think about coming from its pages.

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Denial-...dp/0262515857/
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 02:06 PM   #399
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
A nanophotonic solar thermophotovoltaic device

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/....2013.286.html

How to tap the sun’s energy through heat as well as light - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/h...ight-0119.html

Quote:
A new approach to harvesting solar energy, developed by MIT researchers, could improve efficiency by using sunlight to heat a high-temperature material whose infrared radiation would then be collected by a conventional photovoltaic cell. This technique could also make it easier to store the energy for later use, the researchers say...

...A conventional silicon-based solar cell “doesn’t take advantage of all the photons,” Wang explains. That’s because converting the energy of a photon into electricity requires that the photon’s energy level match that of a characteristic of the photovoltaic (PV) material called a bandgap. Silicon’s bandgap responds to many wavelengths of light, but misses many others...

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-8FveMieM ...
Potentially, this technology could yield PV cells whose conversion efficiency reaches above 80% and approaches 90% as well as the other benefits discussed in the paper and press release(/youtube vid) linked above.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2014, 11:15 PM   #400
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,965
Interesting analysis...I'd rather see progress in nukes....but this helps....

Quote:
Who needs sunlight? In Arizona, solar power never sleeps
Ars visits the Solana solar thermal power plant, newly online in October.
by Kate Shaw Yoshida - Feb 19 2014, 12:00am AEST
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/...sun-goes-down/
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.