Global Climate Change
After Sandy, now NYC got 4.7" of snow? Not much more crazy weather before the consensus will be that "Yes" we are experiencing Global Climate Change.
iJay 
rierie To me Global Climate Change yes or no is easy. The answer is that it is always better to pollute less than more so who cares whether there is climate change.
Right now, we have screwed ourselves with the pollution amounts we put out. And China supports us by being even worse. Sure, we can reverse this, however, if we do exceed the tipping point and no one knows where that is, we become dinosaurs. I think we have seen how fast we crumble in a 100 year storm. What is our tipping point? A 1,000 year storm? Five 100 year storms? What would it take to break out the guns so you can fill your gene?
So I think beyond what anyone believes as to global warming or normal weather patterns, it is always better to pollute less than more. And it will be a world-wide effort convincing those who have less to give up for saving the planet so we need to start soon. Otherwise, good luck when we hit the tipping point you tyrannosaurus rex's you.
mistergoogle i think everyone agrees there is climate changes going on. What the debate is wheither this is man made or the planet going thru its changes on it own.
darwin It's an inconvenient truth, all this manmade pollution is doing it. I read an article in 1986 when Reagan was president (before I'd ever heard of Al Gore) that predicted what is happening ... stronger and more damaging storms and more of them ... when have we ever gotten to the letter S in hurricane names before? I remember when I was young, by November the season wrapped up with a G or H hurricane name.
To ignore the manmade factor would be madness. We can't politicize this, or we'll never get the right things done.
Andy Loigu Yeah and in the 70's the talk in school was about the next ice age. Polluting less is always better but ways need to be found that make sense from all perspectives. Investing money in lost causes like the Chevy Volt or now bankrupt solar companies certainly don't make sense. Any programs should be forward thinking and financially successful not regressive and bankrupt. Man is very arrogant in some senses that they actually have that kind of power of mother nature. If there was man during the last ice age we would have been responsible for the melting of the glaciers. We probably also would have claimed responsibility for the dinosaurs being extinct and created crazy laws to protect them. The Earth is a dynamic place that has been going through changes for a eons. Now all of a sudden we have manipulated that change in the last 60 years? I doubt it. If we find a way to keep the Earth static in its current state wouldn't that be unnatural. Mankind loves being guilty.
Happily marriedbefore anyone gets going about "Global Climate Change"...read up about the hurricane of 1938...it makes this latest weather seem trivial... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_New_England_hurricane
oldman Our recent superstorm was worse than the 1938 hurricane. The '38 hurricane was always considered a benchmark for worst case scenario storms for our area. That being said it went farther east so it was not as damaging for our area. The superstorm had the lowest pressure ever recorded in the northeast.
Bryan there was global climate change long before man, so lets not kill them off yet.
I agree that Chevy Volt is a half arse effort of a plug in vehicle.
But we do need to support new companies like Tesla. Thankfully, government supported it and now it has successfully created Model S. Car that can go 300 miles on one charge, Can go 0-60 in 4.4 seconds and can seat 7 people. You can charge the car that will last 160 miles in less then 30 minutes. But It is still too costly for average american. Hopefully technology will further improve and prices will go down (Remember flat panel tvs were 20,000 dollars when they first came out, now they sell for 500$s).Tesla is ahead of schedule to pay off their loan to USA government and cars are sold out until August 2013. And company is about to turn profit at the end of this month. I test drove it, awesome made in america car. It just got awarded Automobile Car of the year. I am about to reserve that car. Just need to tighten the belt to buy the car.
"You can charge the car that will last 160 miles in less then 30 minutes."
Plugged into the wall outlet in your garage? I doubt it... probably closer to 30 HOURS than 30 minutes.
ianimal ianimal, I was doubtful, too. So, I looked it up :) According to Tesla, "The Tesla Supercharger recharges Model S quickly. Super quickly. Superchargers are for refueling quickly on road trips. A Supercharger can charge about half the battery in 30 minutes. All Model S vehicles with the 85 kWh battery can use Superchargers as can properly equipped 60 kWh battery vehicles. Superchargers will be positioned at convenient locations along major interstates throughout the country."
I guess that means with a Supercharger you can get 150 miles in 30 mins (a full charge gets you 300 miles). But, your regular outlet in your garage will get you much less.(I hope the text below copies correctly.... got it from the tesla site.)
NEMA-5-15 Standard Outlet 110 V / 12 A 1.4 kW 5 miles per hr of charging
NEMA 14-50 RVs and Campsites 240 V / 40 A 10 kW 31miles per hr of charging
NEMA 6-50 Welding Equipment 240 V / 40 A 10 kW 31miles per hr of charging
NEMA 10-30 Older Dryers 240 V / 24 A 5.8 kW 18 miles per hr of charging
NEMA 14-30 Newer Dryers 240 V / 24 A 5.8 kW 18 miles per hr of charging
KathyDG Actually, For home charging , you can also install HPWC (High Powered Wall connector) for extra 1200$s and it will charge at 62 Miles/hour.
However, for daily use your regular Dryer outlet or NEMA 6-50 or NEMA 14-50 are fine. No need to purchase HPWC. When you come home, plug it in and in the morning it is fully charged and ready to go.
I have been following tesla since 2009 and YouTube videos of current few Owners are exciting. I think one of the independent automobile magazine had a drag race scheduled between BMW M5 and Tesla Model S. Result: Tesla won. Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHTN0Yi1t4
newbee Thanks for the clarification, Kathy... maybe it's because I haven't looked, but I don't recall seeing any of these mythical "Supercharging stations" along the interstates that I drive. Charging it from zero on a standard 120V wall outlet would take 60 hours, but if you only drive 50 miles round trip per day like I do, you could charge those 50 miles overnight in 10 hours. Or, you could install a dryer outlet in your garage, I suppose... 18 miles per hour ain't bad.
85 kWh for 300 miles... that's about 340 kWh per month for me, give or take. Even at the maximum $0.12/kWh rate for generation and delivery, that only comes out to $41 per month in commuting costs. Considering most of the charging would be done in off-peak hours, it could be as low as 1.4 cents per kWh, which would result in that $41 being lowered to less than $5 for the month.
Compare that to the $200 I'm spending now on gas and that's almost $2k per year in savings... just in fuel. Five oil changes a year at $75 a pop is another $375.
But ianimal what about the stockholders of big oil companies :)
WIthout man, the Earth is warming ever since the last Ice Age. BUT, the activities of man is adding to the mix and the results are not good. The 1 foot sea level rise in the past 100 years will be 3 feet or more in the next 100 years.
What has the United States done since the last Oil Crisis about 40 years ago... little... The time is now to change that.
Now is the time to change it, begin to cut dependency on foreign oil now. Drill, build refineries etc while new, improved, more efficient sources are found. Create a situation where people can afford to fill their tanks and improve national security. I think it is widely agreed that we need to break the dependency but it hasn't been found yet. Electricity is hardly reliable at this point with an ancient infrastructure with no solve in sight. Ask someone who lives in Hopatcong if they want to depend on a plug in vehicle. Granted there is gas lines but imagine waiting in line for an outlet. The fuel source will be eventually solved but we need affordability long before it will be feasible.
$75 for an oil change? Damn synthetic!
I am all for Tesla and electric vehicles. While it's not practical just yet, I think we need to forge ahead and somehow ***responsibly*** support these alternative energy research efforts. As mistergoogle alluded to, it doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not or whether man has a significant role in it, reducing pollution is always good.
Hybrids used to be prohibitively expensive. They're much more affordable now. Heck, 42" plasma tv's cost $15K just 10 years ago. We now have a 50" LED's costing less than a $1K and using way less power. It's just a matter of time.
emaxxman ianimal, you don't see those superchargers on any interstates here because they don't exist yet on East cost. Currently there are only 7 superchargers in operation and they all are in California. However, I just got an invite from Tesla for announcement of some kind of big milestone in NY on Nov 12. I am assuming it will be one or more of following.
1) announcing superchargers on east coast
2) Motortrend car of they year award for Tesla Model S (MotorTrend is scheduled to annonce their car of the year on same date)
3) Tesla finally turns cash flow positive.
I also have an invite for their new store's grand opening in Short Hills Mall, NJ from 9 th Nov (friday) to 11th Nov (Sunday).
and yes your math is correct, I am currently driving 80 miles a day. And according to my calculations buying new base model S (160 mile range @$50,000) is cheaper then buying new Toyota Camry/Honda Accord/Huyndai Sonata etc. over 5 years for me. And I already have solar panels on my house, so I don't pay for those Electricity charges also ;) $0 for commuting that would be awesome.
How much does a Camry/Accord/Sonata cost?!
100 miles per day * 5 days * 50 weeks = 25000 miles
25000 / 30mpg * $4per gallon = $3333 per year in gas
$3333 * 5 years = $16666
Those cars cost $34K? My Acura didn't cost that new.
A hybrid Camry would cost even less over 5 years, no?
right now the infrastructure could not handle that amount of power draw if everyone owned one of these cars. where is this electricity going to come from? your solar panels on houses wouldnt be enough to power a childs power wheels. Coal is (was) the cheapest form of power generation, but that will soon be outlawed, through excessive regulation. EPA regulation is going to drive electricity costs through the roof, the Tesla will cost much more than the sticker price in the long run. Everyone thinks they are being environmentally responsible by buying these cars, when in fact 10 x the amount of fossil fuel will be needed in power plants to keep up with demand, unless they are nukes, but no one wants them either. I just hope tesla puts a good rear window defroster in so you can keep your hands warm while your pushing it!
bluelinr I assumed $30,000 + Tax for honda Accord V6 = $32,100
My calc..
80 miles/day * 6 days/week* 52weeks = 24960 miles
24960miles / 25 mpg = 998.4 gallons
998.4 * 4.25 = 4243.20/year (I assume 5 year avg would probably be even more, may be around 4.50 - We have already seen $5/gallon in California and near $4 hear in NJ)
4243.20/year * 5 years = $21216 Gas
$32,100 CAR
+$21,216 GAS
=$53,316
And I haven't even included maintenance for Accord.
However, Tesla has 1900$ for 4 year maintenance plan that covers everything except tires. (It even covers brake pads, vipers etc)
No Sales tax for Model S.
visit http://teslarumors.com/Teslanomics.html
on right hand side select any manufacturer, make,model on right hand side of the page and you will be able to compare numbers according to your personal situatioin
That 1938 storm and many others before it caught people unaware because weather forecasting was not as good as it is now.
Kudos to Bryan and his colleagues for warning us well in advance when Sandy was advancing.
Bryan, you would know, how many times have we gotten to the letter S with hurricane names ... that's deep into the alphabet, a lot of storms for one season. When we start getting more storms in a season than A-Rod hits homers, we're in trouble.
Happily married.
The Solyndra failure was within the scope of the original investment plan where a certain level of failure in start-ups needs to be expected, was, and was documented in the investment plan. That said, still a stupid investment, they should have seen it.
But how many companies went broke building the light bulb? The auto industry? The computer industry? Any start-up industry will have it's share of failure in a competitive capitalistic world. It is how we fuel the engine of progress.
Is the Chevy Volt a failure: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/09/24/august-chevrolet-volt-sales-redefine-failure/ You be the judge. There's a big difference between not selling to plan and not selling.
Meanwhile I always said US entry into hybrid and electric cars would be two step. Step one was what Ford and others did the last few years to slap together Escape and Fusion hybrids. OK, but really not cost effective. Now, the real Ford Hybrids are starting to roll with the C-max and others offering pretty good mileage but with some umph in the power at a relatively reasonable starting price of 25K. We do build good cars here and once we put our minds to energy efficiency, we will rule the hybrid and electric auto industry.
Meanwhile, investment in renewable energy just makes plain sense on so many levels. Jobs, ROI, less pollution, and energy independence. Why not invest our tax dollars there versus another Iraq war.
Andy - very true the LI Express Hurricane was not even forecasted i believe. It tends to be all or nothing with hurricanes in the Atlantic. There was one year where we went past Z and into the Greek letters. So it's not that unusual but certainly not every year.
I agree google, in a capitalist system risk brings failure sometimes. That's what makes the entrepreneurial spirit such an amazing thing. But I don't know how many government programs failed building the light bulb. I'm assuming private businesses failed not the government. Huge difference. I may be wrong though. Iraq War? Tired of that topic and stale. I've agreed that we need to move towards new energy. I don't agree that the government can mandate it. I don't believe the infrastructure can handle the change now. I do believe that we should be working on cheaper oil in the meantime. Iraq? Exactly why I've already mentioned that the dependency can be cut before the switch from oil is even feasible. And you go to Iraq. So predictable.
I see two major problems with our current power system - we use mostly fossil fuels with a little nuclear to generate power and burning fossil fuels is not particularly clean. The other problem is distribution - an issue that many of us in this area are familiar with because of the frequent disruption due to storms. The current distribution system also wastes a tremendous amount of power - maybe up to 50%.
The conventional solutions are to add expensive equipment to power plants to make them cleaner and to drill and dig for more energy. Some advocate more nuclear power which still hast a significant waste disposal problem. The other solution is a "smart" distribution grid - again expensive.
For the future there seems to be a lot of money going into nuclear fusion. Great if it can be made to work, but you still have the distribution issue.
What I really would like to see is more research and investment into the development and continued commercialization of microCHP systems - small fuel cells that generate both heat and power from propane, natural gas, bio-fuels, bio-mass, etc. Basically you could have a furnace sized unit in your basement that would not only generate your heat, but also your power.
Lest you think this is a dream, these units are already in commercial use. There are a number installed around New York City - in fact there is one in Central Park to serve the police sub-station because the city didn't want to dig in the park to run new power distribution cables and the station needed more power. And there is also the tremendous experience that the space program has with fuel cells - the space shuttles used three of them on-board.
RAD Happily, The Iraq was alluded to how we spend our tax dollar since we will spend it on the choices we make. And the government does not mandate it, we do through the government's use of our tax dollars.
You want to work on cheaper oil. Ideas? Because shale drilling in Canada (Mitts idea and you pipeline zealots) is not cheaper oil; we can only do it because gas is so expensive. Likewise, shale drilling out West is not cheaper oil. No, what you are really looking for is more oil and that, my friend, at the cost of alternative energy is a fool's mission.
Back to you mandate. Should government fund start up industries that benefit the nation? Wow, you don't think so because "the infrastructure can't handle it."
Gee --- our nation's highway --- entrepreneurial or govt mandate? Did companies go broke --- you betcha. Could we handle it? I dunno, dem dad bermed cars are pretty complicated.
Basic Research. Industry in search of the bottom line has cast off basic research. They just don't do it. Where is Bell Labs? Sold to the French and torn down. Govt. funds 80% of all basic research today. Should we just not do it? Just say no? MRI machines came from basic research. It is estimated that 50% of all cardiovascular improvements comes from basic research. Did companies go broke. You betcha.
Our electric grid only exists because of Rural Electrification Program. Want us to turn the lights out again? Did companies go broke.
Railroads, dams, internet --- I can go on and on but let's pull one out that glows.
NASA --- should we have just said no. Your thinking would say YES to NO. NO NASA. Just let private industry do it when they are ready. The infrastructure is not ready for Space, that's just obvious. Companies will go broke trying if we fund them for this folly. What would we have given up thinking your way? Communications, defense, pride, tang. And yes, companies funded by NASA went broke. And today we just have companies starting to enter the industry at a competitive level through private industry 53 years after NASA was founded.
Not to beat you over the head but government spending is about doing the things that we can't do for ourselves. It is a choice by the people for the people. As such, the choices are ours to make to benefit us as a society. To be sure, there are bad choices, too be sure there is waste.
And that's why I mentioned Iraq. Not only a bad choice but given the size of budget, think about the waste there as compared to a Solyndra. Matter of fact, think about the waste in Defense budget versus a Solyndra. I daresay in the scheme of things, waste in igniting an alternative energy company or NASA is a better choice than an Iraq or Defense budget that drawfs the next ten countries ---- combined.
And sure, drill more oil. But that's a shortlived success at best, one that will get you dwindling supplies over time, and one that adds to pollution not subtracts.
Your choice on how to spend the tax dollar. Active or passive.
RAD: as you drive down Rt3 to NYC you will see solar panels on each of the telephone poles. What a clever inexpensive use of existing real estate. All answers don't have to be super complicated or fancy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/science/earth/28solar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Funny about those solar panels. Was just talking with an engineer about them. Not sure about his involvement but he does have involvement. Basically there is talk about taking them down. They arent working as planned. But hey its just government dollars right google. I agree with youre failed war in Iraq. I would also throw in the trillions spent on the war on poverty and war on drugs. Both consummate failures. But lets keep plugging in those dollars so we all feel good. Imagine all of the government spending on infastructure we could have then.
mistergoogle: I don't disagree with you at all - solar power is great. (Actually I agree very often with what you post in these forums). Unfortunately solar and wind power are not necessarily there when you need them. You allude to solar as being simple but it's a bit complicated to integrate the power they generate into the grid on a large scale you can Google for why that is). And they are definitely not producing at night. If you intend to use them off the grid then to have a constant supply of power you need to have a reliable storage capability. I do think that a hydrogen powered future might be a good thing. That would mean hydrogen powered cars, fuel cells, etc. What is needed are ways to create the hydrogen fuel - and maybe that is a good use for solar. We could generate some form of hydrogen fuel and that becomes the storage mechanism. I don't really believe any of this is necessarily complicated. All the technology is in use - probably needs to be improved in some respects and also become cheaper.
I remember reading that we have had 7 years in recorded history of 19+ storms.. and 3 of those 7 are the last 3 years.
BLocal RAD --- you are correct by that's where we need a smart grid, load sharing, and multiple sources of alternative energy. In the scheme of things, hydro is best. Most others are cheaper than wind and solar but wind and solar have low pollution, operation, and little or no decommissioning costs. This project also saves on the capital cost of 170 acres which is huge.
Bottom line, they are spending $1,200 per unit or $1M for 40MW. Investment is $515M for two 40MW projects and some other stuff so I can't find total costs since I don't know what the other stuff is or the incremental total costs. But, from the attached article, a 92MW solar plant costs $300M and that's expensive so $515M for 80MW stinks.
If we can find total costs, we can plug it into this article to see if it is a good deal or not. It would take 1,725 of these projects to equal the one trillion kWhrs in the article so we if can get the costs, we can run the math. Lastly, everyone agrees that greater use and production of solar panels will bring costs down. Creative placement like this project will further reduce costs and design looks pretty darn simple. Like you noted, management of power-by-sun is not simple but they are big boys, I am sure they can manage.
Government funding of said projects to kickstart alternative energy IMHO is a good use of tax dollars. However, it must make more sense than just cleaning up the air, lowering waste costs (burnt coal, spent rods) --- it has to lead to lower, equal, or at least tolerable price increases.
The Fan may have something on this one.
Here's the article and here's an alternative energy blog showing the incredible payback for solar. But there are funny numbers and assessments on both sides of this. The Forbes looks pretty good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/07/08/the-direct-costs-of-energy-hydronuclear-best-solar-still-lagging/
http://www.unenergy.org/Popup%20pages/Comparecosts.html
alternative energy is not there, face it! technology is not there, don't destroy what we have until there is an alternative plan!
Coal is the cheapest by far, no matter how you skew the numbers! there is no power cheaper, does it contribute to global warming? do solar flares? scientists have determined that the surface of jupiter and mars have increased since 1990, are they inhabited? check the facts, before you fall into the mainstream of conformity!
MG,
the spending of gov't revenues are a good spending of tax dollars? are you insane? there is not enough land to run these projects, there is no cheaper output than coal, look it up! even with your left leaning goverment mantra you will never be able to refute these facts! but of course, you have your money invested in china, so we will never know.
bluelinr, you pump carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, guess what.... it screws up the climate. The industrial revolution was the worst thing to happen to this planet.
Metsman you know that for a fact? why has the climate of the entire solar system as far as we know increased? you think maybe it has something to do with the the sun? your are right, we should have stayed in the stone age, did you enjoy your power failure? I am a met fan, but that will be as far as I can agree with you. Solar energy and alternative energies are fine, AS A SUPPLEMENT! the technology is not there, until you have a viable plan to replace energy lost by what we have you have no argument. I am glad we have clean air, we can breathe easier as we watch each other starve to death! either way, the result will be the same!
so here is another comparison to the latest bad weather...the Blizzard of !888...heard stories about that for years... did Global Warming ...cause this...back then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1888
We have 200 years of coal and if we burn it all you don't think (just a little) that it is not good for our atmosphere?
The Status Queue is going to kill us as a nation. We need to be a leader in the energy field, but doing such a thing would create new wealth while destroying old wealth. It would also trivialize the Middle East for anything other than religion for the United States. And all the oil purchases not being made would not be good for the dollar.
Hang on... rough ride ahead...
mistergoogle: I'm not really particularly interested in those kinds of numbers. And hydro isn't going to get us there - too many environmental problems. My main argument is that long term we have to migrate from being a carbon based fossil fuel powered economy to a hydrogen fuel based economy. The second issue is that I believe we would be better off if power generation is localized rather than centralized in massive power plants connected by a complex distribution system that is subject to disruption (weather, sabotage, equipment failures, etc.).
This is not far-fetched. Nature splits water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen - it's called photosynthesis - and that's a really neat kind of solar energy.
On a quick note: Anyone against NASA and space exploration very obviously does not understand spin-off technology and is an anti-science zealot. You have lost any credibility with me, sir. You understand that the computer you used to post your anti-science message is partially due to spin-off technology from the space program?
The_Bishop Well Blue --- I think if you look back, read, sit on it awhile, you will see you are answering your own question.
First, no one is suggesting we destroy what we have; most are suggesting augmenting it with alternatives for the future. Myself, I see a need for much more power, not less. I like listening to TV while working on PC with all the lights on.....
Second, no coal is not cheapest, water is. Both have environmental impacts but I will take water any day over coal. Sorry, you be wrong. Meanwhile I don't care about the size of any planets and have no idea what you mean by "mainstream of conformity." If that was the case, America would manufacture solar equipment and have a real plan versus test projects.
Third, you say "the spending of gov't revenues are a good spending of tax dollars? are you insane?" No, but really take a closer look. I said spending of govt dollars to fund kickstarts for alternative energy are good use of dollars IMHO. Uh, opinion dude.
"there is not enough land to run these projects," Uh, again please read. The concept of the project was to avoid the use of land of which 170 acres were saved for the 40MW plant. Wrong again, sorry.
" there is no cheaper output than coal, look it up!" Wrong again and actually I already posted multiple links that agree. Sorry...again.
"even with your left leaning goverment mantra you will never be able to refute these facts!" Apparently not true also sorry wrong again....sorry again.
"but of course, you have your money invested in china, so we will never know." Don't know what you mean but yes, I have some money invested in China in alternative energy manufacturing and Chinese traditional medicines. But I do agree that it appears that you will never know. You got that right.
And as to your last question. I really don't know why or if they are expensive. In general, solar plants cost more. It is expected that costs will come down, but I have not looked at the technology cost curve. However solar has tiny O&M costs, almost invisible, and no decommissioning costs like coal or nuclear where you have to get rid of what's left somewhere. So once it's up, you are virtually cost free to run the thing. Therefore, if the design could exceed the current 25-year lifetime estimate, the cost advantage would begin to turn rapidly to solar. Build a system for similar costs that lasts 35 versus 25 years and you beat coal hands-down. The question I don't know for this project is does lack of a real estate cost change the ROI significantly.
Blu, I think you can have the opinion that coal is better. However my desire is to reduce pollution if we can, cost effectively. Global warming is another issue altogether but if it exists, and less pollution helps. Good. I can't imagine that you are for more pollution, are you? I see test projects to prove in solar a good use of funds, private or public. We will never make it cheaper if we don't start something, sometime. But to support your opinion with knee-jerk accusations does not add value to your assertions.
Does anyone know the total costs?
RAD -- I think we need a little of everything. Like we noted, water tends to work on cloudy days so has more advantages than just costs. And we should be able to work the environmental issues in order to better power the grid. And Decentralized grid design is probably the best you can hope for; I doubt we will do away with large plants.
Others have stated it well, but I'll add a voice of support in consolidating the points made.
1. Yes, there has to be some kind of transition plan to get to what ever the future is since we don't have the technology at the moment
2. No, coal is not the current best solution, it's a highly dirty burning fuel now, and even if made cleaner it's still hydrocarbon based
3. Currently a better hydrocarbon alternative is natural gas which has proven to quite viable in public transport vehicles given motor technology that has computerized timing (fuel injected engines helped do away with manual distributors and has enable things like flex-fuel)
4. Long term, hydrogen as a fuel would solve the issues of pollution since burning it gives up ordinary water instead of dirty hydrocarbons (ie greenhouse gases)
5. That same flex fuel ability burns hydrogen very well and is a proven technology - it had been tested some years ago during the late 70's and 80's that cars can be adapted to hydrogen the same way they're burning natural gas in many buses
6. There is still a long way in finding a way to make and distribute large quantities of hydrogen gas, but technology that would do it on a small scale, particularly something that would be self-contained units would also go a long way towards self-sufficiency. Imagine something like a bio-enzyme that would be inside a small fuel cell. Just keep it filled with water and it pumps out hydrogen gas that your car or home furnace could cleanly burn to produce water again.
7. We're a long ways away from that - and I've got big doubts about something like that because of the law of entropy making it seem like if you split it and put it back together there's going to be something lost, or something extra required.
But isn't it fun to play Monday morning energy quarterback?? ;-)
GC 2014 was Earth's warmest year on record
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-warmest-year-20150116-story.html
LeRoy Grimace People won't get it until its too late. When it is too late there will be too much heat stored in the oceans to do anything about for many decades if not centuries...
iJay "On record" might be a little misleading since it refers to a very very short time in the Earth's long history. In other words, there may have been many warmer years for which we have no record; any year before the late 1800's?
But in any case, I share the concern, yes.
jd2 iJay --- the concept of "it will take decades," is misleading. Once we flip the switch, it will never return to "normal." The best you can hope for is a decent new normal in decades or centuries.
Luckily, we'll be dead.
But for our children, remember what it was like when we got just a tad inconvenienced over some gas lines during Sandy. Imagine when our gardens produce less combined with getting harder to afford AC and heat and you can see it does not take much to invoke social chaos.
I really fear we are approaching the tipping point. I have reduced my gas usage by 30 - 50%; my AC and heating significantly and my electric 25% or so. Am looking at solar but since on hot water base board, conversion for heat is expensive. And I have done this while driving farther, being warmer/cooler, and having more lumens to see.
Would like to see more tax incentives to help other people get the bug to get more light, heat, cooling, and miles per gallon while polluting less. We need to lower our emissions ASAP.
"there may have been many warmer years for which we have no record; any year before the late 1800's?"
This is not entirely correct since indirect measurements give useful climate data going back almost a million years. Much of this data is from ice cores although more recent, but pre-1800 data, can come from other sources such as tree rings, etc. I think "recorded history" just means the data is directly measured and recorded at the time. You might not get actual temperatures but there is still much that has been learned about the long term climate. But there is also some specific information available from the cores such as the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide because it, and other things, can be measured in the air trapped in the ice cores.
If this indirect data were not available then we wouldn't be aware of some long term climate cycles that have been detected.
Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
Mark I just had a pea-brain idea............
OK, what if I am wrong and we attack global warming needlessly.
- We spend more money faster than we needed to
- Less pollution, cleaner air
- Reusable energy, more expensive at first, less expensive later
- Maybe it gets warmer, maybe it gets cooler
- Nobody dies over these actions
OK, what if you're wrong and we wait to long to go after global warming
- Continued increase of pollution and greenhouse affect, like living in a polluted greenhouse
- Climate change, oceanic stream flow changes, farming changes dramatically
- Lose some coast line, lots of people need to move inland
- Increasing electrical needs for cooling
- Potential social unrest due to rising food prices, rising energy prices, and loss of coast line, makes Katrina look like a pic-a-nic
- Somebody gets a bad boo boo over these actions.
Commenting is no longer available.