Basic Global Warming Equations Wrong?
March 8th, 2008 at 02:51am Mark Noonan
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals “runaway warming” impossible
Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center.
After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. “I fell in love,” he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.
“Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.
Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution — originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today — ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference … but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Naturally, we can expect the anthropogenic global warming zealots to disparage this - but I’ve done a bit of checking ’round the net on Miklós Zágoni and he really was an ardent advocate for global warming. Given this, he really can’t be just dismissed - his arguments have to be met, head on, by those who disagree; in other words, someone will have to demonstrate that his calculations are incorrect…and if no one can do that, then we’ll have to work from the assumption that, at the least, he’s on to something which requires a lot of research and which keeps open the whole global warming debate.
Entry Filed under: Environment
58 Comments
1. GOP4ME | March 8th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Oh we can only tremble in anticipation at the insults and invective our seditious leftist miscreants will throw at this scientist who is obviously in the pocket of big oil and cannot be trusted because he does not toe the hysterical line.
2. LibSweepinNov | March 8th, 2008 at 6:24 am
no - no hysterics. The simple fact of the matter is that there will always be contrasting opinions on any scientific theory. That is a good thing for both science and society. However - what is clear is that Mark just cherry picks the few stories that come out that contradict global warming while ignoring the overwhelming majority of scientific research that that concludes that it is a real phenomenon which humans have caused to some extent.
3. Jerry Haberer | March 8th, 2008 at 8:06 am
… and the operative phrase is, boys and girls?
“… which humans have caused to some extent.”
4. phnx | March 8th, 2008 at 8:43 am
It seems that another eco myth has been exploded. The campaign against plastic bags is based on a Canadian study showing the 100,000 marine animals and birds die each year from injecting plastic bags.
The only problem is that the study has NOTHING TO DO with plastic bags.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3508263.ece
Nevertheless the left has siezed upon another meaningless feel good program to save the environment.
5. SEW | March 8th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Mark, Present all the science you want. The messiah has spoken to his followers, Joe, Sunny,Liberalmind, dian….Kool Aid drinkers. And no science, however detailed and compelling, can overcome that presented by the Goracle.
The CO2 vs Temperature graph
It took mad Al and his scientists 2 seconds to construct this. And a new Religion was born. And garbage went in their computers but wholesome food came out. Green food. Planet saving food. And then there was light.
The Goracle. Fat Al. And his followers. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for narrating the most beautiful documentary of all time.
6. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 10:10 am
However - what is clear is that Mark just cherry picks the few stories that come out that contradict global warming…
LibSweep, Mark didn’t cherry-pick anything. I emailed the link to this article to him because I thought it was a potentially interesting new development in the debate. As Mark says, though, his arguments have to be met, head on, by those who disagree; in other words, someone will have to demonstrate that his calculations are incorrect…and if no one can do that, then we’ll have to work from the assumption that, at the least, he’s on to something which requires a lot of research and which keeps open the whole global warming debate.
My biggest concern about this whole issue is that civilization makes collective decisions based on the truth, or as close to the truth as we can scientifically get, not on fear and hysteria.
7. Fredrick Schwartz | March 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
While I was ruminating on the Israeli-Palestinian thing I was struck with a thought: I don’t generally see to many Creationists here but I am sure there are a few so this is for them, if the world you live in is 6 000 years old then the impact of what Mankind does is multiplied manifold and possibly the last 500 years have changed the weather. Yet if the world is 2 billion or more years old as scientists say then there is no way any amount coal burning or oil refining could change the climate.
8. Almiranta | March 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I am not aware of ANYONE who has flat-out denied that mankind has had no effect on climate. What I have heard is, on one side, a shrill and adamant demand that we all accept their assertions—no questions at all, just assertions—that man is DESTROYING THE PLANET!!! while on the other side people have been saying, “Wait a minute, let’s not jump to conclusions”.
The problem is, anthropogenic climate change has become a religion, a faith-based movement, and those who are not yet converted are considered heretics. Science has played a remarkably small role in the passionate embrace of this new religion—or in the enrichment of its priests.
What is interesting is that the pro-mankind-is-destroying-the-earth crowd is, nearly to a man, from the far left end of the political spectrum, which of course gives rise to the next logical question: Why? How can it be that what is supposed to be scientific fact is so isolated in its acceptance?
Could it be, could it possibly BE, that it is actually a political ploy?
Look at the effects.
The first and most obvious is that it has been very successful in giving the Far Left a wedge with which it can increase the distance between the Left and the rest of the world.
It has fed, brilliantly, into the Victim vs Villain model the Far Left depends on and uses, constantly. It has created a whole new list of Villians—people who drive SUVs, people who don’t think the Kyoto Protocol is the best thing since sliced bread, people who—-well, we all know the list.
Better yet, beyond allowing the Far Left to identify a whole new class of Villains, it then ascribes to them a whole new litany of sins and grievances—more things to hate about more people, what could be better?
It has created yet another plank in the “We’re Better Because…….” platform the Far Left uses to recruit people who are far more interested in a short cut to the Higher Moral Ground than they are in actually solving problems.
Its “answers” don’t seem to deal with working on technology to simply solve problems associated with pollution, for example—no, these people would be horrified at the prospect of $1.50 a gallon fuel, no matter how clean it might be—because their goal is not to allow us to continue and maintain our lifestyle with less impact on the planet, it is to change that lifestyle to one deemed more acceptable by the Leftist ‘intellectual’ Elite.
If I could run my Excursion on cheap, clean, renewable-energy biodiesel, they would still hate the fact that I drive an Excursion. The Elite would determine that “no one NEEDS a car that big”—as a Lefty once sneered at me in a parking lot.
No, but ’someone’ DOES need a TRUCK that big—an Excursion is just a nice, enclosed, truck—if one is a rancher, carrying feed and supplies, pulling trailers, and hauling several large people around. The word that keeps coming back is what people “need”—based, of course, on the determination of the Elite.
And we’ve also learned that ‘need’ is defined by those who are pretty flexible in their definitions, depending on who those definitions affect. Babs, for example, pontificated on how the Little People don’t ‘need’ clothes dryers, but can hang their clothes out to dry, while occupying, with only one other person (aside from Staff, of course) a massive mansion, and air-conditioning a large barn.
It’s never really been about “THE PLANET”. It’s always been the convenient creation of a crisis which lets some people look down on others, which offers the possibility of control of the many by the few, and which establishes yet another class of Elite.
9. Almiranta | March 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
When I think of the Lefties “solving” a problem, say by forcing ethtanol down our throats, I am always reminded of the day a group of cars and vans pulled up on the road next to my brother’s farm, when people hurriedly scurried around, dumping carriers of prairie dogs, separated from their burrow mates, scared and disoriented, out into his field—where they were immediately set upon by the highly territorial prairie dogs who already lived there and torn limb from limb, while the “rescuers” no doubt retired to the Boulderado Hotel for tea and mutual admiration for their “rescue”.
It’s this refusal to look ahead at those pesky Unintended Consequences that marks the true radical zealot.
So we have mandated ethanol. And??? Well, we have a lot more equipment burning a lot more fuel to grow the plants that are the source of ethanol. And we have the costs of those grains skyrocketing, which is raising the costs of meat, eggs, and dairy products. Do you eat bread? Bread is made from flour, which is usually made from wheat—but there is more money in growing corn or soy right now, so corn or soy are replacing other crops. Come on now, boys and girls—what happens when inventory goes down and demand remains stable?
Corn, which is a prime source of ethanol, requires huge amounts of water and fertilizer–we are already seeing increased amounts of nitrogen fertilizer seeping into the aquifers.
And vehicles are getting fewer miles per gallon on ethanol blends, while we are paying more at the pump, and taxpayers are being gouged because of the government subsidies.
And the ethanol groupies are down at the Boulderado having tea and patting each other on the back.
10. Ricorun | March 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I agree with Spook, who agrees with Mark, that it is important for Miskolczi’s theory to be scrutinized. But I’m not going to be involved in it, that’s for sure. I tried reading his paper and it’s beyond me, I’m afraid.
But in my relative ignorance I do wonder how he explains the warming that occurred at the Permian Triassic boundary. The evidence suggests that the average temperature of the earth rose several degrees at that time. The evidence also suggests that the reason was a dramatic rise in GHGs, particularly CO2 and methane. Of course humans weren’t the cause then. Apparently volcanoes were — lots of them. The bottom line question remains the same though: if it GHGs could cause a dramatic rise in global temperatures then, why can’t they do it now?
11. BARRASSO | March 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
‘It’s always been the convenient creation of a crisis which lets some people look down on others, which offers the possibility of control of the many by the few, and which establishes yet another class of Elite.’
A fair description of the “War on Terrorrrrrr!”
So let the left spend 3 trillion dollars on climate change and it comes out even.
12. BARRASSO | March 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“So we have mandated ethanol.”
I wonder who is pushing this mandated ethanol? Corn grows in red states, which have Republican representatives and lobby the federal government for the usual red state welfare. The “lefties” don’t push corn produced ethanol as it is a losing proposition as far as saving fuel goes. Just another example of conservatives living off of the profits of liberals.
13. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The “lefties” don’t push corn produced ethanol as it is a losing proposition as far as saving fuel goes.
BARRASSO, if the Left hadn’t consistently blocked drilling for more of our own oil, the ethanol revolution would have never taken off in the first place. The list of solutions offered by you Lefties is a short one.
Just another example of conservatives living off of the profits of liberals.
What a load of crap.
Could it be, could it possibly BE, that it is actually a political ploy?
Almiranta, I think H. L. Mencken had it about right when he said:
14. mikeinportc | March 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
It seems that another eco myth has been exploded.
Not quite . It says that there is self-correction at some point . I think that’s probably assumed anyway , but that it’s just so far down the line as to be irrelevant . This puts it closer . I’m curious to see by how much . The question then becomes “Can we, or do we want, to live with those conditions?”
As to the climate change deniers , are you assuming there are no limits? No matter what we do , it has no effect ? I’d rather not find out by direct experience what the limits are. Even if the theories are incorrect , the positive effects of acting as if they are correct, outweigh the negative .
15. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Mikeinportc (if that’s Port Clinton, great Walleye fishing, BTW),
I read your post 4 times, and each time it made less sense, particularly the last sentence:
Even if the theories are incorrect , the positive effects of acting as if they are correct, outweigh the negative.
Could you expand on that a little. What are the positive effects of acting, what will they cost, and who will pay for them? And, on the flip side, if the “theories are incorrect”, what are the “negative effects” of not acting?
16. BARRASSO | March 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
A great measurement of the Bush admin.
“Just another example of conservatives living off of the profits of liberals.
What a load of crap.”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
17. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
BARRASSO,
I’m not sure whether you’re complaining because Blue states are getting hosed or you’re bragging because Blue states are funding a disproportionate share of the bloated Federal bureaucracy. Which is it?
As I said before, all those ethanol tax subsidies wouldn’t be flowing to Red states if you Lefties would just let us drill for our own oil and build some more refineries, and build nuclear power plants and……, well, I think you get the picture.
18. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
But in my relative ignorance I do wonder how he explains the warming that occurred at the Permian Triassic boundary.
Geez, Rico, leave it to you to come up with something that happened A FRICKIN’ QUARTER OF A BILLION YEARS AGO
The evidence suggests that the average temperature of the earth rose several degrees at that time. The evidence also suggests that the reason was a dramatic rise in GHGs, particularly CO2 and methane. Of course humans weren’t the cause then. Apparently volcanoes were — lots of them.
I like this explanation better.
19. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Well, Rico isn’t the only one who forgets to turn bold off. Sorry about that.
20. BARRASSO | March 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I’m just pointing out that the corn ethanol dead end that some of our energy policy is wasting money on is not because of evil lefties as alamitra put it “When I think of the Lefties “solving” a problem, say by forcing ethtanol down our throats.”
as far as, “if you Lefties would just let us drill for our own oil and build some more refineries, and build nuclear power plants” Some would like that to happen, most I think would say that is just kicking the can down the road and we should be spending our money on being the new leader of the world in green tech. We will have to kick the oil habit at some point sooner is better than later, it could be we could avoid a great deal of time money and lives lost in a series of proxy resource wars with China, Russia, and India.
21. congressive | March 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Reaffirming known science doesn’t pay, but REFUTING IT DOES.
It still blows my mind that neocons support more oil burning. It’s a national security issue as much as a global warming issue.
It’s like arguing that eating oatmeal will not only lower your cholesterol but might also prevent cancer, but you don’t because the cancer part is inconclusive.
Cutting our oil use by half would mean no future president would ever have to go begging to Saudi princes for a break. Iran would be sitting on a worthless pool of dead dinosaurs.
But, no. Gotta get me some more of that sweet black juice.
22. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
and we should be spending our money on being the new leader of the world in green tech.
BARRASSO, there’s a “green tech” revolution going on right under your nose — all kinds of research, much of which has reached the experimental and even initial commercialization stages, on new hydrogen generating methods, new thin-film solar technology, cellulosic ethanol and bio-diesel and enhanced geothermal. You need to get out more.
I think a fitting analogy to your mindset is; lets say you’re lying the hospital, suffering from some form of cancer. There are current treatments that have shown some promise, well as a possible cure that is still maybe 5-10 years away. To use your reasoning, you would tell the doctor, “just stick in a feeding tube and put me on a respirator, and I’ll tough it out until the cure is available. That’s basically what you’re saying, isn’t it?
23. Mark Noonan | March 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Libsweep,
Cherry pick? No, but I’ve come across a rather large mountain of dissenting opinion on anthropogenic global warming and its enough to leave the debate completely open, in my view…the Goracle may have spoken, but as he’s an ill-educated mountebank, I’m not too impressed.
24. Retired Spook | March 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
BARRASSO,
One additional thought. I’ve written to my Congressman and Senators and told them if they continue to support Federal subsidies to grain-based ethanol, I won’t vote for them. If you haven’t done the same, then you have zero room to complain.
25. Ricorun | March 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Spook: I like this explanation better.
Either way, it doesn’t change the bottom line question: if there is such a thing as boundary conditions which limit the effect of GHGs, how do you explain what happened back then? The earth heated up dramatically, and stayed heated for many, many millions of years. That’s the point.
However, now that you brought it up, this is a more complete explanation of what probably happened at the P-T boundary: one (or more) impact(s) followed by volcanoes. The idea is that the (or at least one) impact was so big it caused huge shock waves travelling through the planet which then focused on the other side with such a massive amount of kinetic energy that it cracked the crust and heated the upper mantle underneath, resulting in huge lava floes that lasted for a few thousand years. There is no question that there are huge lava floes from exactly that period in Siberia — over an area about the size of the US. As for where the impact hit, there is very good evidence that there was an impact near what is now Australia around the right time (impact arc nasa gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=142) (replace the spaces with periods), but many are skeptical that it represents the smoking gun.
But again, whatever the details turn out to be, none of them change the question — why did it happen then and can’t now?
26. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | March 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Mark-
“Cherry pick? No, but I’ve come across a rather large mountain of dissenting opinion on anthropogenic global warming and its enough to leave the debate completely open, in my view…the Goracle may have spoken, but as he’s an ill-educated mountebank, I’m not too impressed.”
…and we’re not impressed by those who think “global science” incorporates the idea that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by a supernatural force and that the Grand Canyon was cut out in just a few hours after a mythical worldwide flood.
27. Mark Noonan | March 8th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
NiP,
Miklós Zágoni believes the world is 6,000 years old? Or is it that you’re arguing that all people who doubt AGW believe the world is 6,000 years old?
28. BARRASSO | March 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I don’t know if a cancer analogy fits as well as an addiction analogy, a heroin addict may die if cut off cold turkey, but if an end of supply is seen coming extending the supply a little longer does the addict no good. But simple analogies fail in complex situations. In the real world we may never tap all the resources we have because of environmental concerns, that doesn’t change the fact that we need to get off of oil as soon as possible for our own security. Complaining that the liberals are holding up drilling all you want, but they won’t change so the situation is what it is.
I have not written my congressmen, but I really like complaining I can’t just quit cold turkey.
29. William Teach | March 8th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I reckon it all comes down to a simple equation: if the chicken little global warming as caused by Man hysterics actually believed their rhetoric, they would actually implement the actions for themselves that they propose for everyone else.
In fact, they do not. Most of them, including all the leaders in the climahysteric movement, continue to live their lives, drive their SUVs, and do all the things they tell everyone else not to do.
30. Almiranta | March 8th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
congressive supports my contention that the real underlying issue for many is not whether or not we are polluting the planet, or whether or not there are alternatives which will allow us to retain our lifestyles and pollute less, but one of control—some people are just so darned OFFENDED by the actions of others, such as driving big cars, that they will go to any lengths to stop it.
So the issue is not really “how can we find different sources of fuel for our cars and homes”—it is “how can I make more people live the way I think they should live”.
Spook is exactly right. I’ve been planning to post something along the same lines—how the Left assumes that if the government isn’t doing something,nothing is being done. There is a huge amount of productive research and development going on, which is ignored.
And actually, the government is responsible for the lack of progress in some areas. For example, its restrictions in the import of most European diesel-powered cars, and/or its refusal to allow farmers to grow hemp (a dryland crop requiring no fertilzation and little or no irrigation, producing large amounts of oil which can be used to make both biodiesel and ethanol).
But even bringing in super-efficient cars and powering them with non-polluting vegetable-based fuel would not solve the real problem as seen by so many hard-liners on the radical Left: It would still not force us to live they way they think we should live.
Coal-powered electrical generation companies use huge diesel generators. They are also allowed to put only a certain amount of particulates into the atmosphere. If they could run those generators on biodiesel, and cut generator emissions, they could then produce more electricity without increasing their emissions.
But that would not solve the real problem for the true Leftist zealot—we would still be using “too much” electricity.
BTW, loved the quote, Spook—notice how a Lefty tried (and failed) to turn it into a BDS thing? The ah, shall we say, naked nether-parts fellow just has to try to get the last word, even if it only serves to point out his desperation to try make absolutely EVERYTHING anti-Bush.
31. Almiranta | March 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“climahysteric movement”
too good………..
32. William Teach | March 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
One of the things that drives me nuts about the climahysterics is how they have subsumed every legitimate and important environmental issue into their poppycock climate change “theory,” which tends to relegate their importance to being secondary to “climate change.” There are already enough wackjobs in the environmental movement, such as Greenpeace, without making it less serious.
33. Ricorun | March 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Spook: As I said before, all those ethanol tax subsidies wouldn’t be flowing to Red states if you Lefties would just let us drill for our own oil and build some more refineries, and build nuclear power plants and……, well, I think you get the picture.
Looking at the list BARRASSO supplied it’s a little hard to say ethanol subsidies are a major factor explaining why tax dollars are flowing into red states. Then again, I’m not really up on where corn and soy beans are grown, either. But I’m pretty sure Alaska doesn’t account for much, but places like Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska do.
As for the other part of your statement, crying over spilled milk just wastes tears. And it doesn’t help to clean up the mess, either. The question is, what to do now? Given that every dollar spent on one thing can’t be spent on another, I would say the best answer depends on the available options. If you favor more drilling and building more refineries, then it seems justifiable to ask why you think spending money on those things are a better choice than spending it in some other way. Same with building nuclear power plants. And in that regard, it’s important to keep in mind that nuclear energy is a stationary fuel option, not a transportation fuel option (like oil). Thus, “viable” alternatives to oil are not, in large part, the same as “viable” alternatives to nuclear. Mind you, I’m not advocating here for anything in particular. Not at the moment anyway. I just mean to point out that whatever solutions are suggested, they are best rationalized on an economic basis, not an ideological one.
As you know, I’ve given a lot of thought to these kinds of issues. I also recognize that I need to know a lot more. Thus, I am always willing to swap information and ideas with interested people.
Getting back to the red/blue divide, I suppose I should add that I appear to have a different attitude than most with regard to how to construe it. The way I see it is that there are both Dem and Rep politicians who are very cozy with entities that have a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Oil, gas, coal, and auto industry manufacturers, as well as their associated unions all have an interest in perpetuating the fossil fuel industry as long as possible. And various factions within them are affiliated with various politicians across the traditional red/blue spectrum. It stands to reason they’ll stall as long as possible. By the same token, it also stands to reason that whatever alternative is proposed, the influx of investment, jobs, etc., are not likely to be distributed among political districts in the same way the legacy fuel industries are. In other words, some stand to benefit much more than they do now while others stand to lose. And that’s likely to make for some very strange bedfellows, politically speaking. That might be something to keep foremost in our minds.
As for the corn (grain-based) ethanol issue, I presume most folks are aware of the pair of articles that appeared recently in Science that indicated corn ethanol (as well as seed and palm-based sources of oil) are not only something short of terriffic in terms of their carbon footprint, they are atrociously bad — much worse than gasoline in most cases. Some disagree. But those that do tend to use some variation on this argument: the results are based on the assumption that there will be no improvements in land use and feed-stock technologies. With particular respect to the latter, if non-food stocks (e.g., cellulosic, waste stream, algae) can be brought on-line quickly, then it’s worth the price. That seems to be the opinion of the Bush administration: he said as much in a speech recently. In keeping with that, the DOE just announced they’ll be investing another $35 million in cellulosic R&D. Personally, though I acknowledge that there are many different approaches in development and it would take only a few to succeed well to change the situation considerably, I remain skeptical. It seems to me there are better approaches to spend the money on. Actually, it makes more sense to me to put in place a broadly based renewable fuels tax credit (like the one included in the energy bill that failed to pass cloture by one vote) rather than throwing money at particular companies. The latter is too easy to abuse. Yet for some reason, that seems to be the preferred approach right now. I wonder why.
34. Michael | March 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
When I went through nuclear power training back in the 1960’s our instructors projected that in 20 to 30 years that 80 percent of the electrical power in the US would be coming from nuclear plants. It never happened for reasons like fear and made-up problems that could or would happen. Imagine had it come to pass what the price of a barrel of oil would be today. All I remember is that it wasn’t conservatives who fought (and still fight) nuclear power. I guess they want God to beam down some holy energy beam - but wait…
35. congressive | March 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
In fact, they do not. Most of them, including all the leaders in the climahysteric movement, continue to live their lives, drive their SUVs,
Ah, yes. Facts. State them and they are true.
I’m not sure how Alm gets me as “control” when it’s about national security. Did I say I was offended by something? Do you like having your president being controlled by Saudi Arabia? I find that “offensive” on a few levels.
Maybe, or maybe you’re just cutting and pasting again.
36. Ricorun | March 8th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Michael: It never happened for reasons like fear and made-up problems that could or would happen.
While I’m not inclined to deny that such reasons weren’t factors, one big — perhaps THE biggest — reason was because oil prices dropped precipitously, and nuclear was no longer a cost-effective option. There were a number of plants that got half built, then abandoned because the numbers no longer made sense. Had we only known, huh? Then again, I would argue that even now they still only make sense if you are inclined to compare them to coal or gas-fired plants. If you compare them to other renewable options, I’m no so sure. I’m willing to be convinced though. And certainly in some locations they probably make more sense than others.
37. Ricorun | March 8th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Almiranta: There is a huge amount of productive research and development going on, which is ignored.
Well, not by me. But my impression is that, at least where the venture capitalist biggies are concerned, all they really want is some assurances for the government that they will maintain a level playing field. As it is, production tax credits come up for renewal every couple of years, which makes it very hard to know what you’re up against if you’re trying to make a long-term capital investment. They would also like the government to stabilize the energy price floor too, but the former is the most important thing to most of them. After all, the way things are looking the price floor isn’t going to fall too much anytime soon. And if it does it’s likely to be because of renewables.
That being said though, there are ways for the government to get involved to facilitate development of new technologies over and above those just indicated. Investment partnerships with private industry would be one. One of the things that is retarding deployment in some sectors (e.g., solar thermal, wind, geothermal, smart grids) is lack of investment capital. Although private investment amounted to about $1 billion in 2007 across all renewable industries, that’s a drop in the proverbial ocean. For purposes of comparison, that’s what it costs for Iraq every three days or so. That’s just nuts. The solar thermal (otherwise known as concentrated solar power, or CSP) industry doubled in terms of operating plants last year — from 2 plants to 4, lol! However, over 100 applications for the construction of new plants were submitted in 2007. The industry is ready to explode. It’s not a question of if anymore, it’s a question of when. And part of that question has to do with whether they can find the money to build. Other questions include who is going to pay for the infrastructure? You have to build power lines to connect up with the existing grid. And where are they going to find trained workers? It’s not like you can take people directly off the friers at McDonald’s and stick them in a power plant. Well I guess you could, but I don’t think anyone would like the results. All of these things are going to happen. The question is how fast? I use CSP as an example (because it’s so freakin’ obvious), but the same issues apply to other sectors. And in every case, the sooner it happens the faster economy of scale pressures kick in.
That’s another thing about a number of the renewable options (some more than others) — they can be build fast. You can build a 300 MW CSP plant or a wind farm of similar size in a couple of years or less. Assuming you know where to drill (and a surprising number of locations have been prospected by the oil industry already), you can build a geothermal plant in about 3 years. And now that dual cycle technology is available (which requires less well heat and pressure than in the past), the number of sites suitable for geothermal has considerably expanded. And as time goes on and enhanced techniques are perfected, geothermal plants could potentially be placed almost anywhere. But I digress. The point I wanted to make is, this: how long do you think it will take to drill in ANWR and build a pipeline? What about other locations? How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor? And where do you get the fuel?
However, as I mentioned in a previous comment, comparing transportation fuel options with stationary fuel options is like comparing apples and oranges. There isn’t much overlap. Transportation fuels are a more difficult problem — especially if the only alernative is biofuels. However, battery technologies are improving rapidly. It would surprise me a lot if much lighter, smaller and more powerful lithium ion batteries did not become available in 2 or 3 years. That would make plug-in hybrids a very viable option. Other, more exotic battery technologies show promise as well. But the lead times are likely to be longer. And besides, from what I can tell they have all the capital they need right now. The infrastructure and the workforce is there, too. And thus they’re likely to happen when they’re ready and don’t need a push.
Anyway, that’s a little overview of how I see things.
38. TiredofLibBullSh** | March 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I am sure that it will come out that this scientist who blew the whistle will have at some point came within 100 feet of “big oil”.
…or perhaps “big corn”……
…or whatever the USEFUL IDIOTS dream up next…….
39. Kahn | March 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
My problem with this debate is that the liberal leadership OBVIOUSLY doesn’t believe it either. They live lavish lifestyles. They killed wind power. They won’t hear of nuclear power. Forget a new hydro-electric plant - ever.
They push solar, but the photo-voltaic cells are not cost efficient and “bio fuels” which still put CO2 into the air (but get votes in farm country).
If the liberal leadership actually believed this, we’d see substantial legislation that we would agree with for different reasons. I want to see us energy independent. I want more power in the grid to drive the economy.
Global Warming? Tell Ted Kennedy. No us. I don’t believe it, but I’m willing to build alternatives for my own reasons. It’s YOUR party that suppressing the solutions - not ours.
And no, I will not AGAIN post links proving you killed wind power.
40. SteaM | March 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Kahn,
The wind farm concerns that democrats have are used against them in this debate frequently by republicans. I encourage you to look into this. Why do they raise these concerns?
I don’t know exactly why, even if it’s true, that solar products are not cost effective, but if that’s true maybe we should consider making them now and letting people purchase them to build up the market. See if people can get creative and competitive with a result of bringing that cost down. We might regret not having done that when we realize a day when fossil fuels are just too expensive to use for energy.
Also, you said this: “It’s YOUR party that suppressing the solutions - not ours.”
Let me introduce you to Senator James Inhofe. A ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
I was unable to find his exact position in this debate of whether or not to break away from using oil though.
He also seems to get a lot of campaign contributions from gas and oil companies…according to this Web site, I don’t know it’s reputation for being accurate so feel free to find any info that would suggest inaccuracy.
hwww.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?cycle=2006&CID=N00005582
41. Michael | March 8th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you there. I operated nuclear reactors for about 10 years. As the science progressed, we were about to produce Megawatt Hours so cheaply it would have almost not have been worth the effort to bill the consumers. Projections were that the price would be so cheap that there would be a great temptation to give away the electricity. The last plant I worked on refueled in the months after I left it and the cores (uranium) of the same exact weight as those they were replacing were going to last over 20 years. The reactor cores on the USS Enterprise were last refueled in the late 1970’s and there are no plans to refuel it when needed because the ship itself will be obsolete and will be scrapped.
An expended reactor core has something called atom percent burnout - the amount of the Uranium that has gotten consumed to produce electricity and when it reaches some point the core must be refueled. On the USS Enterprise (several technical generations old) it was 3 percent atom percent burnout which means 97 percent of the Uranium is still in the core. This is extracted and used in making refueling cores. So we are saying that after a 20 year life or so, the Uranium in the reactor is only 3 percent consumed and the rest is reusable. There is a place in Idaho called the expended core facility which extracts the Uranium and prepares it for reuse. Believe me, the costs of generating nuclear power are extremely low compared to just about any other method. Science was working on ways to de-activate radioactive waste produced by the reactors and had some promising ideas but then the plan to build hundreds of plants across the nation were canceled so the funding for the research dried up. We really missed the boat on this economical energy source that depends on no foreign country.
42. SteaM | March 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“Science was working on ways to de-activate radioactive waste produced by the reactors and had some promising ideas but then the plan to build hundreds of plants across the nation were canceled so the funding for the research dried up.”
Why was this plan canceled?
43. js | March 8th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
When food is more important than oil, then they will drill.
Until then, they will push the price of food up and tell us its going to save the world. Doesnt make sense, thats because the only thing its really doing is making more money for some mega billion dollar corporation.
44. phnx | March 8th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Environmentalist wackos insisted upon it.
45. phnx | March 8th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Some environmentalists aren’t buying. “We remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power,” Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said. “We’re not willing to believe they are as safe as the industry is willing to portray them.”
The Sierra Club says it has not wavered in its stand against nuclear power. Greenpeace USA also says it finds nuclear power unacceptable.
46. Kahn | March 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
SteaM - it doesn’t matter if we agree with you on Global Warming or not if we’re willing to do the same things. It’s the actions that matter, not the motivations.
Your party controls Congress. Ted Kennedy wrote and sponsored and called in favors to get wind power severely restricted wind projects. You know this to be true.
Greenpeace is all over it. BUT, Greenpeace is also against nuclear power. So are many, nay - MOST liberals.
Solar? Sure. Buy some. It’s wildly inefficient. But you can put a solar water heater on your roof. Or a big photo-voltaic cell if you want. Don’t expect me to help pay for it. I know they are inefficient. But knock yourself out.
Meanwhile, I’ll stay skeptical until I see you and other liberals pushing for nuclear and/or reversing the Kennedy wind ban. That ban doesn’t have to be permanent you know. Senators Clinton or Obama could introduce a bill overturning it. So could ANY Senator. So? Why won’t they?
Look, I take their inaction as an indicator that they don’t really believe this stuff. I take your unwillingness to attack them, or even to criticize them as an indication that either YOU don’t believe it - or that you think party politics is more important. Whatever. I don’t think you see Republicans here arguing against alternatives. You see us questioning your theories.
So what is it? Are you more interested in winning the argument or in “saving the planet”?
Join us in pushing for more hydro, more wind, and more nuclear power. Help US turn off the coal and oil and natural gas plants. Only with cheap clean access to power will people abandon petroleum automobiles.
Argue? Or act?
47. Kahn | March 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
SteaM - liberals control all the great universities - ASK THEM. Harvard has a FIVE BILLION DOLLAR endowment. So? What are they doing to make nuclear power safe?
Protesting in the streets while sipping latte?
Deeds, not words.
48. phnx | March 8th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Kahn,
To the leftists its all about intentions not action.
49. Almiranta | March 9th, 2008 at 3:43 am
“Cutting our oil use by half would mean no future president would ever have to go begging to Saudi princes for a break” says congressive, apparently unaware that we actually get most of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico.
But instead of the pie-in-the-sky non-plan to “cut our oil use by half” how about doubling our ability to access our own oil?
Again, because that would not solve the problem of having a few elites dictate to the masses how they “should” live their lives.
Sometimes I think the radical Left will not be happy till we are all trudging around in our Birkenstocks, wearing undyed cotton clothing—no doubt the cotton must be spun and loomed using only clean water power—and riding our bicycles everywhere too far to walk. The problem with that is, the vision always progresses to that red star we will have to wear………..
Teddy’s objection to the offshore wind generators was that they would be in his view when he is sailing on his yacht. I’m not sure what the objections were to the wind farm proposed up in northwestern Wyoming—it was in a remote area, but it was shot down by some so-called “environmental” group.
There were “environmental” objections to mining more silica, a component of photo voltaic cells.
We were not allowed to drill for oil off the Gulf of Mexico, even using the most stringent environmentally sound procedures possible. And of course ANWR is off the table—-winter drilling using ice roads, limited drill pad footprints, new clean drilling and pumping technology, none of it matters. Who cares that the caribou, those dramatically endangered creatures so threatened by the Alaska Pipeline, appear to love it, hanging out near its warmth, and that the caribou herds have actually increased in number since the pipeline was built? They’ll stil recycle that argument for ANWR.
So, no new oil, no new wind farms, no new nuclear energy plants, no new refineries, no new material for solar cell production—-and be sure to blame Bush for high energy prices.
Tell me, is Obama going to sprinkle some fairy dust and magically make more energy appear, without of course offending the radicals who get him into office? Will his caresses of Hugo’s beehind get us some extra petro? Just HOW, pray tell, is any other president going to solve this terrible Bush-created crisis?
Simple answer: He/she can’t. It’s a market problem, which can’t be solved till the government gets out of the way. The only way to get out of this is to elect a Congress with the brains and backbone to stand up to the radical Left and do what has to be done, which is to implement the technology available to us today, right now. That is, drill and refine, incentivize biofuels other than ethanol, and get some nuclear plants on line.
Or we can elect a president whose idea of solving the problem is to savage the energy industry, limiting profits, taxing the beejeezus out of it—the Lefty “answer” to just about everything. Will that increase the supply? No. Will it bring prices down? No. But it will FEEL so gooood.
50. Ricorun | March 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Michael, with all respect, what you say is not entirely consistent with what I’ve read. This article is representative of how I understand it: Despite concerns about catastrophic accidents and radioactive waste disposal, Gen II plants “are cost-effective and working well, and safety continues to improve,” says James Lake, INL’s associate director. Yet, no new reactors have been ordered in the States since the industry’s peak sales year of 1973. Simple economics quashed further growth. A typical 1000-megawatt reactor costs up to $2 billion–2.5 times more than a comparable natural gas plant.
And according to CERA, arguably the most respected energy consultant group, the cost of a nuclear plant is going up. Right now they estimate the cost at about $3,500/kW, which is a big jump in just a few years. The reason is escalating costs of steel, concrete and other basic commodities used in nuclear plants (www cera com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8711)(replace the spaces with periods). So the cost is likely to keep increasing.
And while it’s true that the spent fuel can be reprocessed, that’s not a trivial task. It’s both expensive and dangerous. Then again, you can’t just throw it away, either. Likewise, when a plant has to be retired, you can’t just raze it to the ground. So there are significant costs associated with that as well.
Once built though, they are cheap to operate (even though uranium prices are going up too). And they can operate all the time — night or day, rain or shine, calm or breezy. That’s not true of solar or wind. Heat storage systems are being added to most of the planned CSP installations, which will allow them to operate after dark. Nonetheless, they can’t be relied on 24/7/365.
By the way, the installed cost of a CSP is currently about $2,000 to $3,000 per kW. But as the technology grows the cost is anticipated to drop considerably. See [smartgreenenergy com/?p=8] and [www energylan sandia gov/sunlab/overview htm#cost] (replace spaces with periods).
51. Timothy Horrigan | March 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
someone named Altamirana said: “It’s a market problem, which can’t be solved till the government gets out of the way. The only way to get out of this is to elect a Congress with the brains and backbone to stand up to the radical Left and do what has to be done, which is to implement the technology available to us today, right now.”
#1. Hmm, a couple comments… you can’t HAVE a market without some form of government. Someone or something has to decide who sells what to whom at what price, using a currency of some sort, under rules of some sort, using commonly agreed on units and measures. And someone has to pay the costs associated with the operation of the market, and with someone paying for the externalties (e.g., the pollution) from the market activity.
In other words, you need a government of some sort. It doesn’t have to be a government in the conventional political sense… but there has to be some sort of arrangement for running the show. And bitch about politicians, taxation and bureaucrats all you want… but politics and bureaucracy are the best way to run a market economy and taxes are the fairest way to allocate the costs.
#2. There are a lot of externalities associated with energy production. For one thing just about any form of energy has pollution. Even nuclear reactors leave behind radioactive waste which takes hundreds of years to decay. Do you think the guys who run our multinational corporations can be trusted to look after radioactive waste for several centuries? These corporations, even though they are global in scope, operate on a time frame where even a year in the future is considered long-range planning.
Petroleum is particular is a market which needs a lot of regulation, and not just because crude oil has a bad habit of being found in places with bad governments. For one thing, we are running out of the stuff. For another, it is an essential component of all sorts of commodities besides fuel. And even if we wave our hands and get rid of global warming, the pollution from hydrocarbons is still pretty dangerous.
52. Ricorun | March 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Almiranta: But instead of the pie-in-the-sky non-plan to “cut our oil use by half” how about doubling our ability to access our own oil?
Okay, how about it? How much will it cost? And more importantly, how do those costs compare with other options?
In and of itself, drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be significantly cheaper than drilling in ANWR. But even Jeb Bush was against that. It wasn’t because an oil platform was likely to impede the view from his veranda, it was because many Floridians and Alabamans worry that it will significantly impact the tourist and fishing industries. It would also threaten some very fragile ecosystems — the everglades, most obviously. An accident like the Exxon Valdez off the coast of Florida would be devastating in the extreme. And it seems to me those kinds of issues have to be factored in when making long-term decisions of this sort.
Listening to the comments on this blog I get the impression that the only time anyone is inclined to care about such things only when some prominent Liberal individual or group supports whatever project is under consideration. On the other hand, if that same individual or group opposes it, then that’s good enough reason to support it. That’s what I call rationalizing ideologically.
Cape Wind is an excellent case in point. It seems to me that there are a number of people here who support the project simply because Ted Kennedy is against it. Period. Nothing else matters. Seriously, if you took him out of the picture it appears that most prominent lefties are for it while most of the others of any prominence opposing it are Republicans. For that reason alone I suspect that if Kennedy were gone, support for the project among many of the righties here would weaken considerably. I suspect support would weaken further if said righties actually looked into the numbers. The Cape Wind project is going to be expensive — not just more expensive than other (on-shore) wind farms, just plain, flat out expensive. It’s going to be expensive to build, expensive to connect to the grid, and expensive to maintain. In short, if it weren’t for substantial subsidies from the federal government it would never get off the ground. And if you support the project it seems to me you have to realize that — irrespective of what you think of Kennedy. It may be the case that as time goes on, and the cost of other forms of energy continue to increase, the farm will become more practical. But no one expects it to ever come anywhere close to breaking even. Rather, those who support the farm expect that enough information will be obtained from its construction and operation to reduce the cost of future off-shore farms so that eventually they WILL become practical. So if you support it, that’s basically the argument you’re buying into. And if you can do that for the specific case of Cape Wind, it’s going to be easy to talk you into getting the government to incentivize all sorts of renewable energy projects. Especially if Kennedy opposes them, lol!
53. Timothy Horrigan | March 9th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
This hopefully isn’t too off-topic. Ricorun said: “Cape Wind is an excellent case in point. It seems to me that there are a number of people here who support the project simply because Ted Kennedy is against it. Period.”
Ted Kennedy is reviled by Republicans nationwide. Ironically, the Republicans in Massachusetts seem happy to let him continue being their Senator. Only once has a high-profile, well-funded, high-quality challenger taken him on: Mitt Romney in 1994. He was seriously challenged in 1988 as well by the little know Joe Malone, who later did win a statewide race. Since 1988 & 1994, however, he has faced only token opposition.
In 2006, when Romney decided to step down from the job of Governor after one year, he didn’t take on Teddy: Mitt went straight into a Presidential campaign, and an unknown named Kenneth Chase lost the Senate race 70%-30%.
The other Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry, is also facing only token opposition in his re-election race this year.
54. Michael | March 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Opposition to the sites being built and operated rose from the typical lot of ecologists who thought the site would cast off its radioactive waste and destroy the environment. Then there was a group that mistakenly thought the reactor could explode like an atom bomb , which is physically impossible. And there were a couple of incidents like 3 Mile Island where they had a reactor core meltdown, which was contained in the containment vessels but scared everyone anyway. Put all these fears (mostly unwarranted) together and you get lawsuit after lawsuit stopping construction over and over. Finally the power companies had to switch over to coal or oil just to get the plants finished in order to meet the growing demand. Fortunately, there are dozens of nuclear plants across the country and you don’t hear anything about them until something like the power outage in Florida a few days ago when a human error caused the nuclear reactors to automatically shut down to protect themselves. But what I find ironic is that the road to better, safer, and cheaper nuclear power is through scientific progress which the anti-nuclear people are blocking, though they usually claim science has all the answers.
55. SEW | March 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Kahn #47
“Harvard Management Company (HMC) is an investment arm of the Harvard University’s Endowment Fund. HMC currently manages the $34.9 billion Harvard University endowment [1], the largest endowment in higher education [2], which enables Harvard to invest in a wide variety of traditional to unconventional stocks and bonds.
$34.9 billion.
56. Tractatus | March 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
the vision always progresses to that red star we will have to wear………..
…not that you’re cartoonishly paranoid or anything, ‘Ranty.
No, but I’ve come across a rather large mountain of dissenting opinion on anthropogenic global warming and its enough to leave the debate completely open
Trying to “teach the controversy,” huh? You’re up against a lot of science that your position can’t answer. I know that’s a lot of words, so here’s the takeaway point for you:
So it’s not natural, you say it isn’t caused by people…you gonna chalk this one up to god?
Here’s the takeaway point for everybody else (emphasis mine):
57. SteaM | March 9th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Michael,
I appreciate your perspective on that matter. I have been against nuclear power only because I thought there were issues with the waste. What to do with it? Can it be used for weapons and get into the wrong hands?
But I wouldn’t be against it if science could find ways to overcome these issues.
58. Michael | March 9th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
There may never, at least in our lifetimes, a scientific answer to de-activating the radioactive waste products because the economic motivation is not there due to the forces lined up against nuclear power. BTW, the waste products are not Uranium or any other material to make a nuclear weapon. You may have heard the phrase “atom splitting”, well that is what a nuclear reactor does, it splits Uranium atoms into two or more other atoms, e.g., Xenon and others which are non-fissionable but are radioactive. That is the waste that has to be de-activated. Some science proposed includes bombarding them in specialized fields of radiation until they are inert. Lots of nuclear physics stuff there I could go into but won’t. What is sad is that we will never solve scientific problems by running away from them, which is what we have done.