True but there is more that could be done on an individual basis as a civilian leaders.
Buying a hybrid is one, adding Solar or Wind power is another options. CFL replacement will make a small but measurable difference. Better insulation of our homes, programmable thermostats and etc. These will all help and encouraging others to do the same will help more. As hybrid tech develops and become more mainstream the difference will start adding up.
On the government level, clean Coal for power, more nuclear, more solar and wind farms and very low resistance power transmission lines will make a huge impact. None of these things will end our current world economy. Then there is the Holy Grail of energy and environment: Controlled Fusion power.
Nobody is suggesting that we go back to pre-fire days. What needs to be done is to research into alternative energy sources. Heat sources that don’t come from burning something include hydroelectric, solar power, geothermal, wind, wave, tide, and so on.Cars could be made that run on alcohol, rather than petrol.
These are not practical at the moment but with government sponsoring research they may become practical in 20 years or so.
As for horses and oxen emitting CO2, you’re kinda missing a basic natural cycle. Oats grow, ans as they grow they absorb CO2 from the air. Then later, a horse eats the oats, and as it’s digested releases CO2 again. This does not add new CO2 to the air. Same thing with alcohol powered cars.
It’s different to burning fossil fuels. Burning coal or petroleum adds CO2 to the atmosphere that was removed hundreds of millions of years ago.
Ermm, Hail, you have heard of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, haven’t you? Do you really think a scientific consensus of that magnitude can be dismissed as “junk science”?
Not quite the story. British Coal was an incredibly expensive coal source at the time, and it was making the country noncompetitive. World market coals were readily available at the time which could undercut British Coal prices by a huge amount - I don’t have my files to give a ready cite, but IIRC it was on the order of 50%. The union did not want British Coal to fold and the power plants to start buying coal from cheaper foreign sources. Who paid the price? The British ratepayer, that’s who, as well as everyone who bought anything that used electricity. And guess what - most of the foreign coal on the market at the time (and even today) has a much lower sulfur content than British domestic coal, so it would have even polluted less.
I can tell you that in some cases you can mine coal from Adaro in Indonesia, ship it all the way to England, transload it onto rail, and ship it to a central power plant, and still be about 20-40% cheaper than using domestic coal. The US has the same situation on its East Coast…which I can’t really talk about here.
Oil and gas were not cheaper than (most) foreign coal for power production at the time. They may have been cheaper than domestic coal, I’m not certain and again my files are not with me, but that depends - you have to annualize the capital cost of building a new power plant too, so I doubt it would work out. And given the growing concern over fine particulates (PM 2.5) it’s possible that only gas plants would have had ready approval. That’s a question for energy historians.
There was a lot of inertia to keep British Coal in business, and coal miners understandably did not want to lose their jobs. I guess the real question is how much is a country willing to pay to burn expensive coal that pollutes more, just to make a labour union and its members happy?
Plants grow, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and make sugar.
We can extract the sugar, and use it to make alcohol. During the brewing, CO2 is released.
We then burn the alcohol. This releases more CO2.
The CO2 removed when we grow the plants balances the CO2 released during brewing and burning alcohol. It’s a zero sum game. The process as a whole neither adds nor subtracts from the total CO2.
Assuming we spend no power whatever to grow those plants or turn them into alcohol, you are right. But if we fertilise, plough, reap, sow, carry, distil, and distribute them the power for all those activities has to be carbon-neutral too.
A scientific body created & run by the UN is the very definition of ‘junk-science’. It will always, always put politics first.
Ask yourself this question: Why is it that so many in the Global Warming camp seem to desperately want global warming to be true? Why do they revel in the idea that the world could be facing an environmental disaster?
Because it fits their political views of anti-capitalism, anti-development, and most of all anti-Americanism. That was one of the most important things that the show pointed out. That its not any grand conspiracy, but that it simply attracts those with these views. And, more importantly, those aspects of it are the things that matter most to them. Tremendously more than any of the scientific data.
And what’s more, because the scientific theories are so complex, variable, and esoteric, they get away with only giving them lip service. The average viewer nods off the moment you start with charts & graphs, pro or con. But because the pro view is so much more sensationalized its the one that gets all the media exposure (TV, books, movies etc.)
‘Global Warming’ with a capital G W, in other words the ‘movement’ rather than the scientific theory, is the great swindle. Its like the ‘Red Scare’ of the 50s. It was based on some basic facts, i.e. that communism is unpleasant and that the other super power was pushing it. But it became completely politicized for selfish reasons. And once it was accepted not only as ‘fact’ but as a looming crisis of epic proportions, the movement to stop it caused immensely more suffering than the problem itself ever would have (blacklisting, Vietnam etc.)
And unfortunately I see GW heading down the exact same path.
Point in fact, if you search about the US Department of Energy (DOE) website, you can get a list of CO2 emissions by country and calculate for yourself the parts-per-million (PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Roughly half of CO2 stays in the air, so you just figure out the volume of the atmosphere, and add in half of the CO2 volume that the Department of Energy reports. Then check to see whether you think that the EPA’s picture of the CO2 and temperature history are bogus.
And now, what exactly are you saying they will gain? What do those in on the conspiracy at the EPA stand to gain by urging people to switch to nuclear energy and invest in hydrogen-fueled cars?
And further, you are saying that a group of people (scientists), who murder and maim countless animals every year so as to provide better medications and makeup to you so that you can live a long and healthy life, are now conspiring to make you live in a cave, gnawing on bark because they all hate capitalism?
And what in the world does saying “Ya know…we should switch to nuclear energy” have to do with capitalism? If anything, switching the world economy to new energy sources creates jobs. Hence the reason that it costs more to switch than to stay as we are. Not wanting to advance to a cheaper, safer, and cleaner solution is about as anti-capitalistic as you can get.
I’m speaking mainly about the activists being the ones with the political agenda. Combined with them (not the scientists) being the ones who are driving the issue and seriously influencing policy. And that being a recipe for disaster.
And I still don’t believe there is any slam-dunk, smoking gun evidence that man-made CO[sub]2[/sub] is or will be the driving force behind global temperature increases. Its an enormous equation, there is still way too much contradictory evidence, and like I said, the well has been poisoned by so many enviro-whackos that the only evidence being looked for now is “how bad will it be” not “is this really happening or not”.
I take your point that deep mined British coal was expensive although I reckon that the decision was a bit more complex.
My take is that we wanted to have a ‘strategic reserve’ that would keep the electricity generators going, albeit at a lower level, if something went wrong. Oil and North Sea gas provided that safety buffer, so closing the mines was possible.
The miners strike was definitely political, so Thatcher et al were given an option that they considered desireable - and they took it.
I remember around and before that time, hearing that coal kept in the ground was a pretty good idea - and that new methods would make future mining cheaper and more efficient (something to do with liquifying the coal underground and pumping it out).
I also remember that coal fired generators could also work on oil.
What sort of test do you think you would have to be done to verify that plus X parts per million CO[sub]2[/sub] would create plus Y degrees in temperature?
I’m sure people thought of keeping some coal as a strategic reserve, and other countries have done the same, but the driver was economics. British coal mines are very deep and very wet, and their cost of operation was some of the highest in the world.
However, the UK production costs have dropped, due to closing down the non-economic mines. See this report, page 3, for a discussion of costs: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file14151.pdf
The United Kingdom had recoverable coal reserves of about 243 million short tons in 2004 (US EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iea2004/table82.xls). In 2004, coal consumption in the United Kingdom was 67.16 million short tons. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table14.xls) That builds sort of a poor case for a coal reserve. Now, the rub is what’s the definition of “recoverable” - the report I linked above gives 270 million short tons at 7 currently open deep mines. Page 10 shows a serious concern about production past 2020. But that doesn’t speak for the rest of the entire country. The Confederation of UK Coal Producers alternately claims “50 years” and even “200 years” of reserves (such as in their statement to the House of Commons: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtrdind/364-ii/1111302.htm
However, I’m a bit baffled as to why they would say that - I think they’re talking total estimated mineral reserves period, not what can actually be recovered at all, let alone economically.
Storing the coal in the ground is the best place to store it, to keep it away from the sun and oxygen.
Well, having worked with a total of maybe 500 coal-fired units over my career, I can speak from authority and say that some can, some can’t. There are a lot of factors involved, including pipeline logistics (it’s a lot harder to build a new pipeline than you think), on-site storage, furnace box sizing and heat transfer surface modification, upgraded controls for dual-fuel operation, having a second set of burners for oil combustion, possibly upgrading or adding a flue gas desulfurization system (because you use heavy #6 oil for steam power production, not #2 or #4 typically, although there are exceptions), dealing with heavy metal leaching from ash, and the fact that oil ash is often much finer and more problematic to people with asthma - such as in the UK. This was one reason why the Orimulsion project at that one UK station (Pembrooke?) was shut down (yes, I know Orimulsion isn’t exactly oil, I’ve been to Venezuela and seen it made, but it’s close).
So yes, some coal power plants could have switched to oil, but that would have been very expensive and problematic to do more than a few (and some are built with dual-fuel capability, but not that many). In the US right now, switching a single 400MW power plant to oil, assuming that the pipeline is in-place, runs about $50M if you want to also make sure you meet current environmental regulations.
So what? The activists listen to the scientists. But the scientists don’t listen to the activists; they listen to the data, and use the scientific method to draw conclusions. How is that a recipe for disaster?