Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 Next
Comments 90701 to 90750:
-
CBDunkerson at 04:43 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I should clarify... You (muoncounter) are likely correct that these usage figures are a good indication of why places like the U.S. (and Australia, which has similar results) are so averse to regulation. However, the much lower ratings in other locations with similar standards of living would seem to indicate that those fears are misplaced. -
CBDunkerson at 04:40 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
muoncounter: "Which countries stand to lose more of their 'individual lifestyle' if the cost of emitting CO2 increases? Probably those where the per capita rate is highest." United States: 18.9 metric tons per capita United Kingdom: 8.9 metric tons per capita France: 6 metric tons per capita Is the 'individual lifestyle' in the United Kingdom less than half as good as it is in the United States? Less than a third in France? If not, then I don't think your emissions per capita = lifestyle quality hypothesis holds up. -
CBDunkerson at 04:31 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Looking at the UAH results;
it seems like the coolest year thus far was 1985 at about -0.35 C anomaly. Given that the first two months of 2011 were right around 0 C anomaly that'd mean the remaining ten months would have to average below -0.42 C anomaly in order for 2011 to be the coldest in the UAH record... which would of course be a pre-requisite for claiming that it was the coldest since 1956 even if we (as McLean seems to be doing) ignore the surface temp record.
Not as completely implausible as dropping below the 1956 GISS value, but still not going to happen.
-
dana1981 at 04:01 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Daniel - John discussed Forster et al. 2010 in the posts I linked to in the article (toward the beginning).Moderator Response: [DB] Sorry, Dana. Missed that reference. -
Alexandre at 03:58 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
To boldly predict what no man has predicted before... -
Daniel Bailey at 03:53 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
As the redoubtable Albatross shows here, McLean was refuted by Foster et al 2010. The Yooper -
dana1981 at 03:52 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
bibasir - yes, as you discovered, McLean is using UAH data. However, since the satellite record began in 1979, I had to use a surface temperature record to evaluate McLean's comparison to 1956. Djon - the problem is I don't know which data set McLean is using. There may be a surface temperature data set in which 1956 is colder than 1964. This was just a quick and dirty illustration of how bizarre McLean's prediction is, but you may be right and it may even be worse than I discussed. -
Albatross at 03:51 AM on 29 March 2011A climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions
Good idea @ 13 Ken. -
Albatross at 03:48 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
At the end of the day, the"skeptic" tactic of conflating weather and climate to confuse lay people is scientifically wrong and a red herring. "Skeptics" here either seem to be trying to detract from that disingenuous tactic by their camp or worse yet, are defending it. ENSO is transient and has been shown to play very little role in modulating long-term temperature trends. See Foster et al. (2010): "The suggestion in their [McLean et al. 2009] conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations." Foster et al. go state in their conclusions that: "It has been well known for many years that ENSO is associated with significant variability in global mean temperatures on interannual timescales. However, this relationship (which, contrary to the claim of MFC09, is simulated by global climate models, e.g. Santer et al. [2001]) cannot explain temperature trends on decadal and longer time scales." So I challenge skeptics here to, instead of pontificating and talking through their hats, publish a paper which successfully challenges/refutes the findings of Foster et al. (2010). -
CBDunkerson at 03:36 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Given that the satellite data he is referencing doesn't go back that far, McLean likely got the 1956 figure from the ENSO index (fig 2 in the article above) rather than any of the temp records. Of course, using the satellite temp data makes his claim untestable against values prior to 1979... though the likelihood that the annual average will below even that point seems extremely implausible. -
Djon at 03:29 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Dana, If "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier" is the basis for your analysis, haven't you understated the predicted drop? 1964 was colder than 1956 in the GISTEMP analysis. Also, you have to go back to 1929 to get a colder calendar year than 1964. -
muoncounter at 03:28 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Rob #38: "looking at the per capita output of CO2 for China" Spot on. See the chart of per capita CO2 emissions. Places like the small Middle Eastern states are the worst per capita; the US is #11, China is #80. Which countries stand to lose more of their 'individual lifestyle' if the cost of emitting CO2 increases? Probably those where the per capita rate is highest. Does that help explain why the US is so allergic to any form of regulation? -
bibasir at 03:26 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
P.S. In looking at McLean's site, I see he gets his data from Roy Spencer's site. Spencer shows Feb 2011 temp as -.02, down from a peak of +.5.Moderator Response:[DB] McLean does some of the usual cherry-picks: uses satellite TLT data instead of the longer ground (land+ocean) datasets and places his focus on extremely short periods of time. Here is the whole TLT record:
He seems to be basing much of his estimates on the Oceanic-cycles-control-global-temperatures meme; more on this is available here, such as this:
-
Albatross at 03:23 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, I very sincere thanks for all your hard work. The standard of your work is always high and yet written at a level that resonates with those not as well informed about all the nuances and complexities of climate science. Keep up the excellent work and I look forward to reading (and learning) more. -
CBDunkerson at 03:22 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Actually, I give McLean credit on this one... he hasn't just developed an outlandish theory for why AGW will not be a problem. He has shown the courage of his convictions and stated the likely outcome if that theory is correct. Having gone on record with a prediction, especially such an extreme and near term prediction, suggests that he actually believes what he is saying. Which is a bit scary, but preferable to 'skeptics' who make outlandish claims and studiously avoid examining what the implications of those claims would be. Sadly I don't hold alot of hope that McLean will re-examine his pre-conceptions if this prediction fails as badly as it seems to be doing thus far... but the prediction was made and can always be referenced in the future. Which makes it far preferable to nebulous predictions of lesser warming in unspecified amounts due to cosmic rays influencing cloud formation and other such hand waving. -
bibasir at 03:17 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
You need to comment on McLean's post in a little more detail. I went to the link you provided above, and he says the following. “In June, we predicted global cooling by the end of 2010. In October-February, world temperatures dropped by .5c.” He then shows a graph with a plunging temperature. Obviously, he is getting his temperature data from some strange source. Thus, he will probably say his prediction was correct. Where is he getting his temperature data from? -
citizenschallenge at 03:04 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Have [snip] ever explained a mechanism for how circulating currents that move heat around the planet, can warm or cool the planet as a whole? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:02 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
BP.... This is the chart presented on the RSS site:
TLT = Lower Trop
TMT = Mid Trop
TTS = Strat/Trop
TLS = Lower Strat
Source here.
Moderator Response: [DB] Sorry, Rob. We submitted at the same time, apparently. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:57 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
There is also a challenge when looking at the per capita output of CO2 for China. If you spend any time there living with actual people and seeing how they live their lives (which I do with family there every year) you realize Chinese people are actually not using outrageous amounts of energy. Most people in China ride rapid transit. Most Chinese cities are so large and dense it's not that useful to actually own a vehicle except as a status symbol. China has an extensive rail system connecting cities and that is how most get around. Most major cities either already have a metro rail system or has one under construction. In people's homes they use very little heating and cooling. Culturally they don't like clothes washing machines and prefer to wash by hand and hang clothes to dry. Chinese people are very low carbon. The energy they do use is often not very efficient but they use so little of it that it's not a huge consequence. I would contend, though, that a huge amount of energy is used in producing concrete for construction of high rise living complexes. These things have been growing like weeds in China for 30 years now with no indication of slowing down any time soon. But again, 2/3 of Chinese people are still living an agrarian lifestyle so they have a lot of work to do. But a large portion of China's output of CO2 comes from making goods for the western world. When we exported our manufacturing to China we also exported a large amount of our own CO2 production. -
Stu at 02:56 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
For completeness, what are the relevant figures for the NOAA and Hadley series?Moderator Response: [DB] NOAA data & analysis can be found here. Wood for Trees can be used to plot Hadley, GISS and satellite data directly against each other; a great resource. -
Berényi Péter at 02:52 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
#20 Alexandre at 01:37 AM on 29 March, 2011 I often wondered why those sattellite series showed a lower warming rate than the surface, when the smaller lapse rate should cause the opposite. I think now I understand: they encompass some of the cooling stratosphere too. Nice theory. Except the stratosphere is not cooling.
Moderator Response:[DB] Nice cherry-pick & ignoring the rest of the picture for the TLS:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:38 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Attractive hypothesis Phil, and as plausible as much of the stuff that has been thrown around on this thread... -
dana1981 at 02:34 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Rob is right about China. They are also on track to implement a carbon cap and trade system before the USA, which as an American, I find deeply embarrassing, since we're responsible for about 3 times more of the increase in atmospheric CO2 than China, and are already a developed nation. -
dana1981 at 02:31 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks again for the nice comments all. Sphaerica and DB - yes sorry, I thought John had made the blog post DB linked into the rebuttal to "CO2 limits will hurt the poor". He's a busy fellow - probably just hasn't had time yet! My response to Gilles on fossil fuel reserves is the same as my comments to "skeptics" in this article. Maybe we don't have enough fossil fuel reserves to raise global temperatures much above the 'danger limit'. I think this is an exceptionally unlikely scenario, but it's possible. Do we want to bet our future on this possible but unlikely scenario? I sure don't. Cadbury - economic studies have shown that carbon pricing will have a pretty minimal impact on gasoline prices, raising them in the ballpark of 10%, as I recall. Considering that our gas prices are about half of what they are in most of Europe despite the recent rise, I don't think that's unreasonable. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:29 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Jay... It always amuses me when people talk about China without knowing anything about China. What you have in China is a country in rapid transition to being a first world nation. But still ~2/3 of their population has seen none of the advances that have taken place there. Is China categorically on this road of "no regulation" in order to promote business? Not at all. In fact, they are doing exactly what we did as we developed as a nation. They're installing regulations! I spend a lot of time in China. My wife is Chinese. I've worked with factories in China for a decade. You know what the big complaints from factory owners are? "Oh, minimum wage laws forcing us to pay more for labor. Oh, the rules on how much work we can require our workers to do is getting more strict." And so on. The regulations we have on corporations are there for a reason. We developed them over many long hard decades of learning hard lessons about how companies can mistreat people and the environment. China is in the process of trying to quickly install the same regulations that keep our nation prosperous. -
actually thoughtful at 01:46 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Ger, not sure where we are disagreeing? My point is that a heat pump at a COP of 3-4 (but run by electricity from coal) puts you about even with a natural gas fired boiler. A heat pump with a COP of 9 (using solar thermal) and powered by renewable electricity is a slam dunk. But it is relatively EXPENSIVE to get that renewable electricity and relatively cheap to get that renewable solar thermal. So the strategy, for heating at least, has to be to eviscerate the load by conservation and solar thermal, then mop up the remainder with electrical sources (presumably ground source heat pumps). Completely agree that biofuels (not ethanol-from-corn) have a big future. -
Alexandre at 01:37 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Thanks Glenn Tamblyn. I often wondered why those sattellite series showed a lower warming rate than the surface, when the smaller lapse rate should cause the opposite. I think now I understand: they encompass some of the cooling stratosphere too. -
les at 01:34 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
111/112 - Gilles: "... right ?" No, wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth - particularly about something I'm trying to explain to you to help you understand how the world works. It is both rude and won't help you either. It's very clear, for example for the IPCC. Their brief is to do a report comparing all existing material. I'm not sure that they used all possibilities .... will, despite what some people think, the IPCC is populated by mortals who only have access to what's known. It's also seems to me that this is the same for the IEA report... Now, go back and read what I wrote. e.g. "research or government" ... you quote me as "from governments". That is extremely rude, shows clear signs of bias and does you no credit at all. -
muoncounter at 01:29 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles #112: "projections of fossil fuels reserves are made by civil servants who just take the material coming out from governments and combine them without any critical assessment" For someone in love with discussing fossil fuel use, you don't seem to be very familiar with standard industry terminology and methods. Oil companies report their reserves in the categories of Proved Developed (PD), Proved Undeveloped (PUD) and Probable. Proved reserves (overall) are the volumes expected to be produced to a 90% confidence. PD are reserves currently under production; PUD is somewhat more speculative than PD, as these reserves are within a field's limits, but have yet to be placed on production. PUD and Probable (50% confidence) are most likely the 2nd gray-blue category on the graph you linked. 'Reserves to be found' is subject to exploratory risk. This is, at best, a statistical assessment (aka guess) based on historic results. Depending on circumstances, one can put anywhere from a 10-30% certainty on these numbers; I cannot say from the graph whether that factor is already applied. There are not necessarily any 'civil servants' in this process; nor is there much of any 'critical assessment.' It is often an exercise is hyping a company's stock price or valuation to a potential buyer. There are internal goals to be met: the most common being replacement of a company's produced reserves with new discoveries each year; when a string of dry holes precludes that, 'creative' booking of more PUD reserves can cover the shortfall (I've been there and done that). Management bonuses are often dependent on these numbers; you can well imagine considerable conflict of interest arises from time to time. In short, I see the graph you presented as a slightly optimistic BAU for oil and NGLs; 'unconventional oil' (presumably from enhanced recovery technologies) may be the 'new policy.' In that regard, projected increases in atmospheric CO2 under BAU are highly likely. -
Ger at 01:01 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
#28. Add H2 generation with low pressure storage and local fuel cells to the spectrum as well. H2 will do great as buoyancy on floating off-shore wind farms as well. Oil rigs do have local storage tanks for the gaseous fuel? Older oil rigs could be easily converted and pump the H2 through the pipes back to land. No need for costly HV sea cables. Point of worry might be H2 embrittlement of the pipes -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:42 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
@Marcus I don't think the problem is the western corporations. I think China is the big problem. I think right now we have the reverse of what we need. Seems to me that the regulations we have on our companies are too strict and so they just import items from China. I think we should have stricter regulations on China. -
Ger at 00:40 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
actual thoughtful - with a COP of 4-5 for compressors and solar thermal boosted heat pumps with a COP up to 9, solar assisted heat pumps will reduce the CO2 footprint also with FF electricity. Besides that, heating is most commonly done with FF. That CO2 is not being emited any more. J&D will have excluded biomass, just like in the ecofys program because they assume that the mainstream of the biomass will have to come from forest area and the like: the habitat of wildlife. The sponsors like WWF are not that enthusiastic about those options. As Perseus says, biomass -preferably agri-waste- can be used for on demand surges. It is (one of the) renewables with built in battery. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:38 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Note to Moderators, 12, Dana, There is no content behind the link Dana provided at post 12, CO2 limits will hurt the poor.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for pointing that out; I've left a note for Dana asking if this is the URL intended. -
Gilles at 00:37 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
"Oh so, hang on Gilles, now you're telling us that oil consumption *will* increase over the next 25 years? " I missed this one : Marcus,I'm not saying that - note the "yet to be found" : I just remark that IEA estimates that we need them - seeming to ignore that it is so easy to maintain our way of life without them. I doubt very much that we'll actually find them. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:35 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I think all that has really been accomplished is that a problem has been identified. I think the solutions that have been offered up are rotten. Does anyone have a plan that does not involve raising taxes on gasoline prices? The newest thing I have heard about is building flexi windmills that are floatable, which would be floated out to the deep ocean to catch the more powerful winds. The problem is that operating costs would be very high. -
Ken Lambert at 00:29 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
dana1981 #Original Post "We recently examined how Australia can meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020" Not very successfully I would suggest. [inflammatory comments snipped] Any energy technology might be technically possible, and some well proven and very good ideas (kite pulled ships for example) - the real question is cost. I could not see any mention of costs in dollar terms in the above article. -
Gilles at 00:10 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
And you're also saying that projections of fossil fuels reserves are made by civil servants who just take the material coming out from governments and combine them without any critical assessment - right, too ? -
clonmac at 00:07 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Your "How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural" post is easily my favorite post on this website. I show that to anyone who tells me that it is "natural" and it certainly gives them something to think hard about. Thanks Dana for all your hard work. -
Gilles at 00:03 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Marcus : this graphic and many other can be found here http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/key_graphs.pdf Les : so you're saying that the set of SRES scenarios is far from encompassing all possibilities, right ? -
Alexandre at 22:39 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd #92 I'd love to carry on the discussion, whenever you have the time. You say: Examining the uncertainties and limitations of our current far from complete understanding, and how those limitations has a substantial impact on the global climate predictability. Those uncertainties are well known and openly discussed, too. Those who use the available mainstream science are able to make some pretty good projections. The competing theories have trouble fitting in all the data. John, I'm no expert. I don't even work in this field. After your last post I think you don't either. If you do not understand the relevance of those questions, I suggest you at least try, or ask. There are lots of pretty qualified people here that have shown to be delighted in answering any honest question asked. -
Bern at 22:34 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Marcus, lack of consistency and self-contradictory statements are the hallmark of the "climate skeptic". I, too, was particularly suprised by Gilles' assertion that there's not enough fossil fuels to raise CO2 enough to cause a problem, given the ardent promotion on other threads of FF as the *only* way to generate wealth. Then again, it's consistent if the message you're trying to push is "drill, baby, drill!", and bedamned with the consequences. Given that the alternative involves the capability of providing clean energy worldwide that doesn't require a continuous supply of (soon to be increasingly rare & expensive) fuel, and has significantly less environmental impacts quite apart from climate change issues, it sometimes is really hard to understand the almost dogmatic resistance to the idea of weaning the global economy off fossil fuels. -
les at 22:24 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
107 - DB/Moderator - fair comment. 106- Gilles I think the point about the IPCC/SRES and the IEA that you are missing is that such bodies are not innovative research units. Their job is to take material coming out from research or government and combine such material to study outcomes. Such bodies loose credibility when they introduce stuff that is outside their brief.... they are, really, civil servants with commitments to transparency etc. - it's not like the blogosphere where people are free to bring in 'facts' from where ever they like to try to direct the argument in which ever direction they like. -
Marcus at 22:22 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles, you want to provide a *link* to that graphic? -
Marcus at 22:20 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Oh so, hang on Gilles, now you're telling us that oil consumption *will* increase over the next 25 years? Weren't you saying just a few posts back that there was insufficient oil & coal to achieve the doubling of CO2 scenario? Are you really that inconsistent in your rants, Gilles, or do you genuinely suffer from an MPS? -
les at 21:44 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
105 Gilles - I escaped no such question as that was not what you asked. For all I know, it wasn't the IEAs brief or job to take into account all possible scenarios... who knows. All I said was that to the best of my understanding "New Policies" means what I said it means - what policies are being undertaken. As such, the evidence you presented neither confirms not dismisses the feasibility of Ecofys, nor any proposal. p.s. don't worry, being an idiot is not violating the rules of the forum AFAIK.Moderator Response: [DB] Do not play his game. -
Marcus at 21:22 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Gilles, yet again we see your ability to make utterly ludicrous & totally unfounded assertions. We also see your unerring ability to "believe" that you know more than the world's climate scientists-who've been studying the issues of climate science for several decades-even though you admit you're not a scientists. Well, take it from someone who *is* a scientist Gilles-your claims are without any basis in *fact* &-unless you're prepared to provide....oh, I don't know....some *evidence* to back a single fallacious claim you've made, then I think its for the best that everyone here just ignore your rants. For the record, even a very modest 0.6 degrees of warming is already causing rapid loss of multi-year Arctic Ice & accelerating loss of the Greenland Glacier. Another 0.6 to 1 degree of warming will almost certainly be sufficient to melt both the tundra ice & clathrates-both of which will lead to a release of *dangerous* amounts of methane-which will drive temperatures well past the ranges put forward by the IPCC, without the need to extract every last ounce of coal or oil. Of course, you don't help your own case when in one breath you claim we're going to increase our extraction of "cheap" coal & oil, then in the very next breath claim that there isn't sufficient fossil fuels to cause a doubling in CO2 (though you don't provide solid evidence to back either assertions). If you can't even be consistent, Gilles, then how can anyone here take you seriously? I'd suggest you stop wasting time here until you have something substantial to add to the debate, Gilles. -
SNRatio at 21:15 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
# 26 Given the fact that "probability distribution" is just an a posteriori comparison of various estimates, I can't understand at all what you mean by "independant judgements end up with similar probability distribution". It's just like saying "each person size ends up with the same probability distribution - that's an impressive agreement". This is pure nonsense. another piece of "obvious good science " ! !!!!!! I suggested you work through these types of estimation problems. You _might_ understand it then, but you can't understand that it is relevant and important that using different data, methodical approaches and judgment criteria end up with the same conclusions re probability distibutions, I don't think I personally am able to help you. -
Gilles at 21:05 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
BTW : how do you explain that despite of a very broad interval of energy consumptions and energy intensities, Ecofys scenario is also very far from the all sample studied in the SRES? does it mean that the SRES has simply forgotten the whole interval of possible scenarios between Ecofys and its own set ? which makes a lot of forgotten scenarios !!! again, where are the clowns ? Sorry for the mirror, but I wasn't personally involved in any of these works. I just try to understand the huge discrepancies between them. -
alan_marshall at 21:03 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, I want to say how much I have enjoyed your posts, and appreciate your selfless dedication to the task. Given his importance in your own life, it is also an opportunity for me to pay tribute to Al Gore, whose film “An Inconvenient Truth” was the culmination of years of tireless work taking his message around the world. But for a few votes in Florida in the year 2000, amidst allegations of Republican shenanigans, he would have been president of the United States. Those who admire him may feel this was a great loss, but I have come to see something providential in the outcome. In the years that followed, Gore was able to speak with a freedom and conviction about climate change in a way that may have not been possible from the Oval Office. Gore was too good to be president. He was and is a prophet of our time. We ignore him at our peril! -
perseus at 21:02 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Eric L briefly mentioned Biofuels. Surely Biogas is the key to any strategy attempting to run an economy on renewables, since it can be pumped into tanks or reservoirs and therefore released to provide on-demand power. Anaerobic digestion techniques can be used to generate bio-methane and produce fertiliser as a by-product, with limited carbon emissions. I'm afraid both Biofuels and nuclear have had a bad press, albeit for different reasons. I'm not sure why J&D excluded biomass, since this is used on a small scale today. It is certainly wrong to exclude technologies based on ideology, since there are many biotechnologies and processes, some as environmentally compatible as others are destructive. The same could be said for nuclear. Biomass is the Cinderella of renewables, but probably the most important due to its ability to meet demand surges. It is being sidelined and we need every ally to stand a change of going carbon-neutral.
Prev 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 Next
