Global Warming and the New Year: Finally, the Hope for Progress
I guess they're not shutting up James Hansen anymore:
Current approaches to deal with climate change are ineffectual, one of the world's top climate scientists said today in a personal new year appeal to Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on the urgent need to tackle global warming.
With less than three weeks to go until Obama's inauguration, Prof James Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asked the recently appointed White House science adviser Prof John Holdren to pass the missive directly to the president-elect.
One of the realities that Obama -- who made frequent references to that mythical beast, "clean coal," during his campaign -- will have to face is that cutting down auto emissions is only the first step he'll have to oversee. Specifically, coal use looms as a problem of great significance, particularly for electrical generation. If we go to electric cars, we won't be making any strides if we're charging them up with coal-fired electricity.
Hansen specifically addresses this, and has a plan for it:
Hansen advocates a three-pronged attack on the climate problem – all measures he has promoted before. First, he wants a moratorium and phase-out of coal-fired power stations – which he calls "factories of death" – that do not incorporate carbon capture and storage.
"Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run," the Hansens wrote.
Second, he proposes a "carbon tax and 100% dividend": a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.
Finally, Hansen wants a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel. "In our opinion [fourth generation nuclear power] deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material."
Let's hope he listens better to people like Hansen than he does to his netroots base.
individually and collectively need to use less of everything.
We take far too much from the earth.
The rest of the world may be informed by our example.
So far we have been the worst model.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Interesting...
if we used less of everything,
how would this economy grow?
how would the trillions of debt that have been accumulated be repaid?
Did you hear that Clintonites?
BOTH administrations, Clinton and Bush, put the arm on old Doc Hansen!!!
His three proposals are simple and straightforward and would address the warming problem.
I'd add: build solar plants in AZ, CA, NM, and NV.
also don't forget utah, colorado, and parts of texas....there are significant solar resources there.
although i agree with hansen's proposals, i don't think it will be possible to cut out all coal-fired power plants. i think this is the reason why obama supports "clean" coal, because he knows it cannot be done without significant job loss in the coal industry, while "cleaner" coal fired power plants will at least trend towards less emissions.
on a separate note, using coal created electricity for transportation is actually better than using crude oil based fuels, unlike the author of the post noted. this is because the coal fired power plants are more efficient than gasoline in both energy and emissions as compared to your internal combustion engine.
i think that the transition will have to go through "clean" coal and electric cars. the carbon cap and trade system will promote more coal fired powerplants to go "clean". once the transportation sector is primarily on electric or sustainable biofuels, coal plants will be replaced by wind or solar, which already are fairly competitive and much easier to maintain than coal fired power plants. at the same time, solar and wind sources can be built up as fast as the transition to electric vehicles, thus reducing need for new coal plants.
here in colorado, Xcel energy has already pledged to shut down traditional power plants (one coal and one nuclear, i think) in exchange for more solar power. not to promote a corporate utility company, but i think Xcel has done some good things towards renewable energy. in CO they give the best rebate incentives out of any power company ($3.50 per watt on top of federal tax breaks), they are closing dirty power plants and building large battery storage facilities to better utilize intermittent power sources (e.g. solar and wind). whether they are doing this through gov't incentives or mandates or on their own behalf, these steps should be seen as exaplary of future trends.
but don't know for sure, that solar panels contain substances that would speed up global warming faster than it is going now. Anyone know? I heard the amount of energy needed even to manufacture them, is more than they'll produce as well. I'll have to search that one, cuz I can't remember where I read it. Anyone?
the two things you heard have indeed been brought up. as with all stories relating to technology, more information is always the best information.
First, NF3, a green house gas, is used in production of amorphous silicon thin film cells, as well as many other silicon based electronics. this gas is about 13000 times worse than CO2 as a GHG. the reason why it's used, however, is that there are significantly lower emissions than the current alternatives. It is also very improtant to note that this only applies to thin film amorphous silicon cells. crystalline silicon cells and other thin film tech (e.g. CdTe) do not use NF3 or use it in very small amounts. the majority of emissions of this gas are due to inproper adaptation of equipment, thus this problem does need to be addressed, but only in certain situations. see this article for more info:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2085
as far as energy balance....a full blown off grid system (batteries, racking, inverter, panels, maint, etc.) are just barely energy neutral....most of these energy loss comes from poor battery technology, which typically needs to be replaced every ten years. grid tied systems, which are your typical net metered systems and solar power plants do not need batteries. here the balance of system (racking, inverter, etc.) have about a 2 year energy payback, while the panels energy payback varies from 1 year (CdTe) to 5 years (cryst. Si). thus grid tied systems are pretty good when you consider a 25 year warranteed lifetime of the panels. 25 years, however, is not the total lifetime of the cells, which can last up to 50 years in many cases.
hope this helps.
...and I live in the southeast!
Let me be the first to say I'm all for stopping deforestation, elephant poaching, exotic animal trading, toxic waste dumping, and putting an end to GMO foods...
...but I'll be the fist to say I dont wanna pay no carbon tax to some sort of "international entity"
arent Mars' polar caps melting too?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
LOL, Martians and their damn SUV's.
Or maybe its from the landers, afterall, they are a man-made item and there are a few of them still operating.
...the polar cap is not water ice. It's frozen carbon dioxide, the primary gas that makes up the Martian atmosphere.
i'm not sure you understand the issue...
Do you honestly think Congress would in any way shape or form, step on the auto industries toes right now over emissions? Considering their importance in the economic meltdown, and just giving them billions to keep afloat? And from what I've heard, he's a firm believer in "clean coal" so that isn't an area he's going to do anything about either. With all the economic gloom right now, there won't be a government in the world that will give any more than token talk to global warming, if any.
typical of a smart guy, trained in law, who knows ZERO about math and science.
..millions of 'em. But to shoot down initial efforts because they don't go far enough is just another way of putting off those steps.
I say, take what you can get and then ask for more!
seems to suggest "baby steps" isn't enough. It would be too little, too late. I don't know. How do you get a politician to listen? Can't be bribery, cuz they already have your tax dollars. I can see it now. Just before the world completely dies, some politician will step onto a television screen, and it will show a lightbulb above his head lighting up.
My home state (Arkansas) still uses the motto "The Natural State" yet the coal and natural gas factories are moving in and taking over swaths of beautiful forest... if only Bill & Hill hadn't left us high and dry they could have provided a model for Obama's energy policy. With a solar panel factory close by (Memphis) and abundant sunshine, plus geothermal springs and a windswept delta, Arkansas could be a beacon. Instead, it's still a quarter century behind the times w/coal and shale b.s. going on.
I have been reading about Arkansas. It is close to the deadliest to live in and the reddest state all at the same time.
What's the newest pickup line in an Arkansas tavern?
Nice tooth!
This guy will NEVER get to TV,ABC,NBC,CBS, or that shit chanel fox. Unless some thing happnes in the US and American people DEMAND real NEWS, Not the shit they put on TV. The News has been sold to the highest bidder of SHIT TV. There is no more ED MURROWs, there is no more WALTER CRONKITE. The people in the US said nothing when the TV News Papers all went south. People got to complacent. I would talk to people and tell them, the TV is beeing bought out by people who don't want the truth to be told on TV to America. They would just say I was nuts. Wonder if they are watching NOW.
American (and Canadian) people aren't even mere afterthoughts.
We are to be manipulated. To do what we've been conditioned to do.
Suggestion: Take a look at the exits. Who's escaping through them?
Yes, too bad about TV news = Haha!
Good thing we have the internet... for now...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I druther have my moons warmed.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Here's the paragraph: "Let's hope he listens better to people like Hansen than he does to his netroots base."
That paragraph can be interpreted in at least two ways: First, that the netroots are urging good policy but aren't being heeded. Second, that the netroots are urging bad policy and should be ignored in favor of good advice from people like Hansen.
On first reading I inferred the former. On second and third reading I realized the intention might have been the latter. It's definitely ambiguous and ought to be clarified.
There is no shortage of people in the net roots who oppose environmental policy objectives based on misinformation or downright ignorance.
Absolutely DO more research... and you'll find that France still HAS NOT SOLVED STORAGE PROBLEMS for the waste that comes off of "breeder" nuclear plants. The suggestion that that there is no waste is a LIE perpetrated by industry and governments that want YOU tp pick up the heavy costs of new nuclear plants. The waste may be in smaller quantities... but it is MUCH MORE CONCENTRATED AND DEADLY and still has to be stored for thousands of years!
Don't depend upon nuclear power to solve our energy problems. We would be better off burning the furniture in the fireplace than licensing new "advanced" nuke plants.
OK so we have energy problems...
Don't we really need to reduce the population a bit? Isn't pouring more and more energy into consumption by an ever increasing bio-mass a pointless endevour?
Of coarse that would require birth control and education and stuff...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
There is an economic slowdown and humans will consume less fuel.
Comments are closed on this entry