Archive for the ‘Resources’ Category

« Older Entries

Where will energy come from?

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Everyone agrees that one day all the non-renewable resources in the world will be gone or at the very least, very expensive to find.  The only disagreement is how long it will take.  For some resources it will be decades and for others it will be centuries.  This is particularly important  with energy since by definition it’s not renewable.  Once used – it’s gone. So other than emigrating to other planets or depending entirely on solar power, what can we do?

One answer is fusion.  Physicist Steven Cowley is certain that nuclear fusion is the only truly sustainable solution to the fuel crisis. He explains why fusion will work — and details the projects that he and many others have devoted their lives to, working against the clock to create a new source of energy.
(The video is about 9 minutes with Cowley and the balance on a traffic management system in Stockholm that was sponsored by IBM – yes it’s a long commercial.)

Steven Cowley: Fusion is Energy’s future – produced by TED.

Steven says “we have been working on it for 50 years”.  It seems like every 10 years they move the bar further out – he’s now saying we should be successful in 20-30 years.  Let’s hope he’s right.  The last 30 years has been the communication revolution – we now need an energy revolution.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Energy, Resources | No Comments »

Preserving the environment is separate to stopping Climate change

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Once again, politicians and many members of the public get confused over the difference between trying to stop climate change and preserving the environment. It is quite possible and desirable to preserve the environment without being concerned about “Climate Change”. Skeptics of the now exposed faulty and uncertain science of climate change generally agree that the environment should be preserved. In fact one of the good side benefits of the fuss about climate change is the increased awareness in the public of the need to not destroy mother earth.

The faulty climate change science wanted us to stop CO2 emissions at any cost whereas preserving the environment means reducing pollution, preserving natural areas (especially forests), conserving resources, reducing packaging and landfills and preserving all animal species (e.g. polar bears). The only one of these that relates to reducing CO2 emission is conserving oil and coal resources. And the problem here is not super urgent; it’s just that resources are limited and won’t last forever – so it’s good to develop alternative sources of energy like tidal power, geothermal power, solar power and wind power. Many of the things proposed in the name of halting “man-made climate change” are actually good – but for the wrong reason.

Measuring CO2 emissions and trying to halt them is a backwards kind of way of measuring consumption of carbon based fuels but in the long run it may be a good idea – in moderation. (By the way – taken to extreme – CO2 is emitted in large quantities by humans and animals – should these be limited?) But let’s not damage the economy in the process. And let’s focus on the real reason to do it so we don’t get sidetracked into carbon capture and carbon trading industries. And if the climate does heat up for natural reasons, let’s focus on mitigation.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Adapting to Climate Change, Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Green Party and friends wrongly link warming to environmentalism

Monday, October 26th, 2009

There are two distinct and quite separate issues being discussed in the media and being pushed by demonstrators.  Few people are able to separate them.  The issues are:

  1. Keeping the environment safe – preserving non-renewable resources, making the planet more livable and stopping pollution in all forms.
  2. Managing the earth’s climate – first agreeing on whether there is a long term warming or global trend, then agreeing what causes it, then if it’s caused by man, agreeing on what can be done about it.

Only a small part of keeping the environment safe is (or may be) related to the climate – and that is, CO2, methane and other “greenhouse” gas emissions.
Yet if the public says they don’t believe there is a warming problem (and the American Public has said that), then they are accused of not caring about the environment.  That wasn’t the question at all!  I would suspect that 90% of Americans, like Canadians and other citizens of the world, really care tremendously about the environment.  There is no “anti-environment” movement – although some feel the concern about resources is premature, that’s not the same as not caring.  I have met no-one who wants the world to become wall-to-wall city, nor anyone who wants to cut down all the trees; it’s foreign to human nature to want to destroy the environment we live in.

Global warming is not the same thing as the Environment

Global warming is not the same thing as the Environment

Yet I am accused of not caring about the environment by climate warming alarmists when they push their view of the need to cut back dramatically on CO2 emissions.  The connection is weak to non-existent and it is slander (or libel) to say (or write) that anyone who disputes AGW (man caused warming) is against the environment.  Yet this is done all the time – someone ought to sue to make this point.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the deep pockets to pay the lawyers or I would.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Environment, Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Reducing CO2 is good – but not because of Climate Change.

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

The Cap and Trade bill that the U.S. is trying to get passed focuses on CO2 reduction – the intent is a vain attempt to reduce global warming due to a small greenhouse effect.  Other countries such as Canada will follow suit with similar programs if the U.S. bill passes.  Carbon Dioxide mostly results from burning of one form and another although small amount comes from the breathing of animals (like humans).  Burning comes partly from things like forest fires and burning garbage but a large contribution comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas as a fuel for transportation and electricity generation.

Conservation of Fossil fuels is a good idea although the need is not nearly as urgent as the global warming alarmists would have us believe.  There is only a limited amount of coal, oil etc in the ground so it must eventually run out.  Cap and Trade and similar programs will mostly affect the burning of fossil fuels and anything that reduces our consumption of them is necessarily good.

So in a backwards kind of way, CO2 reduction programs are good although premature – we don’t need it yet.  I would compare the whole thing to the drive several hundred years ago to get a shorter route to China by crossing the Atlantic – a good idea for the wrong reason.

It’s not like the only value of coal, oil or natural gas is as a fuel.  They are the best and cheapest source of hydro-carbons for synthetic materials – commonly called plastics.

Although I am skeptical about the weak science of global warming, some of the actions proposed should be done. It’s a pity the only way politicians can be motivated to reduce consumption of fossil fuels is through scare tactics about Climate change.  Maybe the IPCC scientists knew that?  Maybe they said – “well if we are wrong, it’s good to reduce CO2 anyway”.  Methane is a many times worse greenhouse gas yet there’s little talk about that.  (It comes from cattle and marshes so is quite common.)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Hybrid Coal Plants and Arctic soot

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

No matter what happens to climate, it is a given that we will have to conserve fossil fuels, one day they will be gone.  One of the results of this is that hybrid cars are a good idea – the electric grid is a more efficient way to use fuel but while batteries are large and expensive, a hybrid approach works to extend range and performance.  The benefit is measured in much better miles per gallon which means oil and gas stocks will last longer.

One of the alternative electricity generating methods that’s proposed is solar power.   But so far, the cost has been prohibitive and there has been no easy solution.  One good idea has been to construct solar reflectors to focus sun on pipes to heat water to generate electricity.  Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this.  One obvious problem is that it does not work at night and another is that the water is not easily heated enough to drive turbines.  Also, the cost is still prohibitive – not only do you need the land, the reflectors and the pipes but you need turbines to generate the electricity.

Solar PowerBut a company in Colorado has come up with a hybrid solution.  They already have a coal plant and by adding solar reflectors they can heat water at least some of the time to supplement the coal heat.  It turns out that this means they can reduce the amount of coal burned for the same amount of electricity – it’s effectively a hybrid coal plant.  Go here for details.  Their coal burning plant will get more KWHrs per ton of coal!  Now if we can export the idea to China and Australia where they burn a lot of coal, maybe the world is on its way to saving fossil fuels.  And if climate alarmist want to tout the carbon saving as a benefit, that’s OK – they’ll find out in due course that they are on the wrong track with that but the environment is still worth saving.

And by the way, why has no-one followed up on this question: Why is it that the arctic is warming (melting ice etc) and the Antarctic is not?  I saw one report that said that the arctic is covered with a very fine layer of black soot from pollution fallout – presumably mostly from burning coal.  This increases the absorption of sun and increases temperatures (do a Google for arctic soot for more).  Maybe reducing the burning of coal would help keep  the arctic from getting warmer and CO2 is a red herring!  I keep coming back to the statement by the IPCC that “there is no other explanation, it must be CO2″ (I’ve paraphrased).  Did they look at soot in the arctic?

Tags:
Posted in Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Australia’s Senate rejects Climate bill

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

The country that seemed the most likely to pass legislation to limit carbon emissions before the Copenhagen summit was Australia but it was rejected a few days ago.  The package submitted had two initiatives – a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS  – this is also called “a renewable energy target” or RET) and an Emissions Trading scheme (ETS).  Australia’s upper house (Senate) is elected by proportional representation so the members are a cross section of the actual voting public.  That means there are 4 parties in the senate and the Labour Government does not have a majority. The Opposition was split – some wanted it weaker and others wanted it stronger so the bill was rejected 42 to 30.  The Government says it will re-submit inside 3 months  – in time for the Copenhagen summit.  The opposition says it wants the bill split into its two parts and will then pass the RET since it is ”reckless and irresponsible to pass legislation for an Australian ETS before we know what sort of global agreement emerges from Copenhagen and from the US Senate”. With just a renewable energy target, there will be no way for them to achieve the goals set for carbon emissions.

The side effect of all this is to tell the world that ETS legislation is not easily passed by Governments who want to pass it – I predict the U.S. senate will also block the Cap and Trade legislation there.

And why is there a problem in Australia?  It is reported that Australia is very split – although they have a strong green alarmist lobby and lots of recent evidence of apparent warming (a seven year drought), there are also lots of realists backed by local scientists.  The public is still mostly supportive of the Government and want strong legislation – mostly because Australia is a dry country and warming would be devastating – so they want Government to do something.  But they may well be coming to realize that they should direct their efforts to adapting and coping and not trying to stop it.

Although their per-capita emissions are the world’s largest – mostly because Australia uses a lot of coal –  if they stopped emissions totally it would reduce global CO2 by 2%.  The only reason to do that is to set an example to the world – especially India and China – and their recent set-back means they will not be doing that for at least another 3 months – barely in time to influence opinion for Copenhagen.

And now the latest news is that the Australian Government has now agreed to Opposition demands and will split out the two components – the Renewable Energy target (RET) will be resubmitted soon and the Cap and Trade (ETS) will be later – probably after the US legislation is passed.  Well that’s what they expect.  The RET is actually a good thing by anyone’s standard – its main objective is to have 20% of all electricity generation come from Renewable Resources by 2020.  Currently Australia produces a large proportion by coal burning plants.

Tags:
Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Media falsely blames Big-Oil for supporting skeptics

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

The alarmists must be getting worried that they are losing credibility since they are resorting to attacks on individuals and groups instead of logical arguments.  Statements like “most scientists think this” or “the majority of scientists think that” mean nothing.  If they were talking about politicians or voters it matters because political decisions in a free country are made by the majority.  But real scientists are always questioning all conclusions including their own.  It needs only one to be right and all the others can be wrong – it’s happened many times before and is a normal part of scientific progress. It is also incredibly bad in rational discussion and debates to quote “authority” – if someone uses that argument, you know they have exhausted every other option or maybe they just don’t know how to debate/argue.

Another side of the same coin is when AGW supporters refuse to accept the work of anyone who might be associated with other sceptics.  Yet they accept the work of a whole group of scientists who associate together to make their point.  It’s OK for them but not OK for those they disagree with.

And more, a really bad arguing method is to try to destroy credibility by making accusations of hidden motives – usually because the accused is accepting support from someone who would stand to gain. It is very common for alarmists to accuse realists of accepting Big Oil money (e.g. Exxon) as if this changes anything.  But since they are saying that, it seems necessary to lay out the facts.

Exxon Mobil has contributed around $23 million, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect.  That’s about $2.3 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. Yes that’s  right, 0.1% from Big Oil compared to the U.S. Government.

And one major group accepting Exxon money is the Heartland Institute yet contribution from big Oil is only 5% of their total budget.  Unfortunately, many people do not listen to the Heartland Institute nor to other groups with good questions, good science and good data.  Once they know the opinion of these groups, they immediately dismiss anything said.  This is how politics operates – not good science.

The whole subject of Global Warming has become like a religion or political football – in the media it is no longer a scientific subject.  But then why should we expect journalists to understand science?  Good question – the answer is, it’s their job to get the real story out to the public – just like they try to do with Politics, the Economy, Sports, the Arts and other subjects that few journalists  are experts in.  But you’d hope they could get facts straight like the ones I’ve listed here.

Tags: ,
Posted in Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Obama, Harper, and Calderon on Climate Change

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

In amongst other statements, the 3 Amigos  made a “statement on Climate change” that contained a lot of motherhood statements (see the full version here ) but a short version would be:

  • We need to be aggressive and work together
  • Temperatures should rise no more than 2deg C by 2050
  • We support global goal of reducing emissions by at least 50% compared to 1990 by 2050
  • We like Mexico’s  Green Fund idea.
  • We will plan to reduce vulnerabilities to climate change;
  • We will develop regional standards in reporting
  • We will get ready for emissions trading systems,
  • We will collaborate on green technologies, including building a smart electrical grid in North and cooperate on carbon capture and storage.
  • We will reduce HFCs
  • We will cooperate in protecting and enhancing our forests, wetlands, croplands and other carbon sinks and work on emission reductions in this sector;
  • We will reduce transportation emissions
  • We will work on energy efficiency standards
  • We will work to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector,
  • We will talk again in 2010.

Stripped of the political gobbledygook, they don’t say anything that sensible climate realists would disagree with.  Let me spell it out.  They promise:

  1. They will agree with the global goals – goals mean nothing – only actions actually do anything.
  2. They will work together and have common standards – a good scientific goal.
  3. They will be ready to do anything they are forced to do – like a cap and trade system – but there are no promises here to actually implement such a thing.
  4. They will create a North American Smart Electrical grid – good idea – unrelated to Climate change.
  5. They will cooperate on Carbon capture – no actual action if no-one implements carbon capture.  Carbon capture is a total waste of time – hopefully they will realize that before they do anything.
  6. They will reduce HFCs – this is already in effect.
  7. They will look after forests, wetlands and croplands – excellent idea independent of CO2.
  8. They will reduce Transportation emissions – that means using less fossil fuel – another good idea.
  9. They will work on energy efficiency – that means using less fossil fuel – good idea.
  10. They will reduce CO2 emissions from oil and gas – that means using less fossil fuel – good idea.

Apart from planning for cap and trade and carbon sinks, all the rest is a good idea whatever side of the climate change debate you are on.  You gotta give them high marks for being clever politicians – but then they are supposed to be the top dogs.

Tags: ,
Posted in Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

Should Canada lead on Climate Change?

Saturday, August 1st, 2009

As a Canadian, I’d like to suggest that Canada should take the lead on Climate Change.  However, let’s consider the options:

  1. If Canada adopts aggressive CO2 reduction targets and the U.S. does not, then since Canada’s economy depends heavily on the US, especially oil and gas, then we will lose big time economically.  Premier Ed Stelmach of Canada’s big oil province Alberta (think Canada’s equivalent to Texas) recently made this point strongly (article here).
  2. If Canada adopts no CO2 reduction targets and the US does, then we risk US sanctions and again our economy suffers heavily. (Not to mention the turmoil as we change Government!  But some would think this to be a good result.)

And in any case, it will make only a miniscule difference since Canada consumes a tiny amount of the world’s fossil fuels (some data here).  When I ask why does Canada care, I am told we have to show leadership. Bullshit!  No-one takes any notice of us on energy issues.  India and China don’t follow what the U.S. does on energy let alone Canada and the U.S. certainly does not look to Canada.  If we stopped shipping oil or gas to the U.S., we might get attention – but it would certainly be the wrong kind of attention (maybe invasion?).  But that’s not going to happen.  Maybe there’s an “in between” solution but it’s hard to see one.

So in summary, a leadership position on CO2 control won’t make any difference to the world or to us except it would screw the Canadian economy.  A shame but that’s reality.  What the U.S. does is what Canada should and probably will do – right or wrong.  That’s why I care so much about the U.S. position on this issue.

Tags: ,
Posted in Global Warming, Resources | 2 Comments »

At least 80% of Recent Warming Not Man Made

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

A paper published in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research says that the change in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) accounts for 72% of the variance in global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) as measured by the satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980-2008.  In layman’s language – that means 72% of global warming can be explained by effects commonly called El Niño.  See the article abstract here and a skeptical response here.  The paper was written by three climate researchers: Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University).

This paper like other similar papers has been used by skeptics to counter the alarmist’s position that Anthropogenic (man-caused) Global Warming (AGW) is the reason for Global warming.

But consider the following points:

  • There has been warming from 1980 to 2001 (but not since)
  • Sunspots currently have an unusually low activity level – see previous article plus others
  • The world’s human population is very high and there is concern that resources may be exhausted at the current pace
  • Some pollutants do cause warming (e.g. Freon and Methane from cows and marshes) and the effect of these has not dissipated
  • Many scientists believe that CO2 causes warming although the mechanism is somewhat forced, the model is suspect and there is also evidence that CO2 is a result not a cause.

Taken together, a holistic view would suggest that maybe there is some AGW but at about 10-20% of the recent increase and not at the panic-inducing rate described by alarmists.  Without going into a long dissertation on my detailed reasoning, I have come to the following conclusions:

If nothing is done, there will be no problem meeting the G8 2deg goal by 2050. (See blog and comments here )

There is no need for Kyoto or any similar agreement.  Likewise cap and trade, CO2 sequestering or any other extreme plan to limit CO2 are not necessary, won’t work and are counter-productive.

We should still be concerned about exhausting the earth’s resources – particularly non-renewable fossil fuels like oil and natural gas – so some things like electric cars, tax on fuel, nuclear power stations are all good.

So this blog will broaden its scope to:

  1. Encouraging scientific method
  2. Use of resources and
  3. Skepticism about dogmatic assertions on climate and other scientific issues

All current posts and comments will be kept on-line.

Posted in Global Warming, Resources | Comments Off

« Older Entries