Global warming and financial positioning

[mykidslovedogs]

OK, since this conversation seems to be going in circles, how about I throw in another loop. I heard that PETA is now claiming that cattle maneur creates more Carbon Emissions than all the cars in the USA. Thus, we now need to stop ranching cows for meat...?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat For nuclear to re-surge the American public needs to be desperate, they don't trust the industry. Also the cycle time to get a plant on line is long.

I think nuclear power is more likely to surge in popularity than many alternatives. It can use the present transmission infrastructure, it is produced in a compact, centralized location, newer reactor designs eliminate some of the possible failure modes (e.g meltdown is impossible with a pebble-bed reactor, a design we've been working on in the US for many years), and the cost is right. IIRC, laws passed last year may help with the licensing issues. The waste storage issue is a political one, not a technical one--and Nevadans are probably just gonna have to smile as this gift comes their way.

Here's what China is doing. Cheaper, safer, faster. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

[Texas Proud]

About nuclear....

IIRC, there are utilities working on 28 license applications....

From all the KNOW problems with coal (which is being proposed by many) and even oil and gas... why even think this is the way to go...

I don't think we can do enough wind or solar or tidal or geo to make a big enought dent in the usage of America... kind of like ethonol.. you could use ALL corn grown and not make enough to reduce oil consumption enough to matter... I could be wrong...

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I don't think we can do enough wind or solar or tidal or geo to make a big enought dent in the usage of America...

We better be able to. Almost all power is ultimately solar power. Oil and corn are just storage containers for solar. Wind is a side-effect of solar. Solar is the way to go, but we might need better ways to capture it. Plants seem to have figured this out, so maybe we can too.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee Reading this thread reminds me of those Holiday Inn Express commercials: "No, I have no formal training or advnaced degrees in environmental studies. I have not spent decades of my life studying environmental science. I have not collected or reviewed any data. I've never written (or even read) a peer reviewed article on the subject. . . But I stayed last night in a Holiday Inn Express and I'm not sure I think the scientists have it right."

Now that you mention it, this whole forum at times gets uncomfortably close to this.

Fortunately I realize that global warming like many other issues that require inside or expert knowledge is way beyond me, so I really don't have an opinion. It also helps that my having or not having an opinion on this will not impact my life in any way. In this regard it differs from other difficult issues like peak oil. Here, I may not be able to come to an informed opinion, but nevertheless it seems worth trying because there are many practical individually actionable steps to take depending on where one comes down on that issue.

For the rest, I'll just continue to try to get my grammar and spelling right, and try to stay somewhere near my limits of credibility.

Ha

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab We better be able to. Almost all power is ultimately solar power. Oil and corn are just storage containers for solar. Wind is a side-effect of solar. Solar is the way to go, but we might need better ways to capture it. Plants seem to have figured this out, so maybe we can too.

True with regard to corn which is an annual crop.

With fossil fuels we are the lucky inheritors of millions of years of solar storage.

Ha

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab We better be able to. Almost all power is ultimately solar power. Oil and corn are just storage containers for solar. Wind is a side-effect of solar. Solar is the way to go, but we might need better ways to capture it. Plants seem to have figured this out, so maybe we can too.

... WAB... let's see... stands for Wise A$$... well I will let someone else name the B....

OK... got me... how about solar cells...

Even the tides have a solar component, but the moon is the stronger one...

[rigel]

to Khan:

I really don't have any interest the theory of evolution - not unless you are planning on using it to raise my taxes and lower my standard of living, then I'll be happy to spend time digging into the details of that theory and develop a firm opinion.

I think you are a bit misplaced. If you equate all global warming skeptics with evolution skeptics, then I'll lump global warming believers in with the eugenics believers. Both use junk, flawed science to make ridiculous conclusions that is used to lower the quality to life for everyone, and then defend their flawed studies with anger, not open intellectual debate. Statements like "the debate is over" in scientific discussions is very telltale that one is not dealing with honest scientists and one should automatically be very concerned about anything they have to say.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

assuming global warming, what political system would best handle the consequences insofar as best is determined by the least amount of worldwide suffering?

is investing in global warming akin to investing in pornography, tobacco, the military or drug running? or is it more akin to green investments?

[kcowan]

Here is a test that will determine your knowledge and possibly teach you something new. (I got 9/10)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html Quiz

Of course, knowledge does not mean there are not investment opportunties in the manias created by hysteria (like tulip bulbs). :

[bosco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B You don't understand. Carbon credits can be taxed to support world socialism. If the wackos were serious, China and India would be included.

whackos, socialists, atheists. Boy, it's tough to disagree with 2B anymore.

C'mon, 2B. All those scientists that believe the evidence that human induced climate change is real are at LEAST as dumb as someone who might run the numbers on an annuity. Don't mince words--isn't it about time you called someone an idiot again? Don't stop with socialist, whacko and atheist. People will think you are going soft!

[wabmester]

After my argument with SG, I decided to see if my claims had any merit.

Wikipedia has a nice section on the "Accuracy of models that predict global warming." I am not impressed. I'm sure we can get close on the first-order effects, but it's truly hubris to think that we can ever get close to predicting the long-term effects on health and welfare.

link

Interestingly, wikipedia also claims that solar cells are more efficient than plants. I am impressed. Well, actually, I'm more suspicious about how they calculated efficiency in plants.

link

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab Interestingly, wikipedia also claims that solar cells are more efficient than plants. I am impressed. Well, actually, I'm more suspicious about how they calculated efficiency in plants.

Bumblebees are aerodynamically unsuited for flight, too.

And as far as predicting global warming goes, meteorologists are still getting their forecasting butts kicked by persistency. It says a lot about the difficulty of analyzing a weather system when all our computers, money, and effort can't beat a forecast that just says "Same weather tomorrow".

Heck, the best weather computers in the world are just getting comfortable with five-day forecasts-- and most of that progress has happened over the last two decades. There's a long way to go and it won't have to depend on a guy who both invented the Internet and won an Oscar.

[Brat]

DD says that solar system efficiency is improving in the near term. I know that a couple VCs and two well known major companies have a dollar or two in solar development. The advantage of solar is that it is something an individual can do to impact their energy sourcing.

One really interesting (still in the research stage) technology is using enzymes to break down garbage to generate fuel.

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat One really interesting (still in the research stage) technology is using enzymes to break down garbage to generate fuel.

There are already power plants in operation that use the methane gas produced by decomposing garbage dumps. Not a direct application of enzymes, but that is how garbage decomposes naturally....

As far as solar, I like these guys:

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat One really interesting (still in the research stage) technology is using enzymes to break down garbage to generate fuel.

Shucks, we did that ourselves last night after a chili dinner...

[arandomwalk07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Heck, the best weather computers in the world are just getting comfortable with five-day forecasts-- and most of that progress has happened over the last two decades.

Weather forecasting is not climate forecasting.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Random Walk Weather forecasting is not climate forecasting.

That's my point. If you can't do the former then you're certainly not ready to do the latter. Computers can handle the calculation process and the time intervals but there are too many factors left unaccounted for whose long-term effects will be much more critical over decades, let alone over hours.

After years of sleeping with a meteorologist I've heard 'em all. Here's another one: "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

[Brat]

Here is a listing of energy technologies identified as promising:

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/New_Energy_Congress

[arandomwalk07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords That's my point. If you can't do the former then you're certainly not ready to do the latter.

And what happens in 50 years time if it turns out to be true? The price of failure here is catastrophic. Would we prefer to just ignore the question because "it's too hard" and hope for the best? Why should those who want to be early retirees keep themselves in good physical shape, because we don't know if we're going to get run over by a bus the day we retire.

All science exists at this point in time i.e. we can only use basic principles of good science to draw conclusions as of this point today. If in the future it turns out to be wrong, then our conclusions obviously change (I'm not talking about the pseudo science done by those who get their scientific background from religious dogma). What we can't do is use this natural process by which we learn and grow with scientific discovery to dismiss all current results, neither should we say "it's too hard, we shouldn't try". We can only live with what we know now and with our current state of development in understanding complex systems.