Comments on: The energy challenge http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge Paul Cook's blog Fri, 18 May 2012 19:04:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Gustavo Marrapese http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-31925 Gustavo Marrapese Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:14:45 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-31925 great. I really like what you've acquired here, certainly like what you're saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really a wonderful site. great. I really like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really a wonderful site.

]]> By: Edward Bucchin http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-31864 Edward Bucchin Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:39:52 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-31864 Just wish to say your article is as astounding. The clearness in your post is simply cool and i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work. Just wish to say your article is as astounding. The clearness in your post is simply cool and i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.

]]> By: Jill http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9581 Jill Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:06:50 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9581 Happy Thanksgiving! Happy Thanksgiving!

]]> By: xaosseed http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9564 xaosseed Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:20:56 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9564 Damn. I'd sort of hoped I'd gotten it wrong. Damn.

I’d sort of hoped I’d gotten it wrong.

]]> By: paulcook http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9560 paulcook Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:22:02 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9560 That's a very good point -- given the choice between definite pain now, and potential really bad pain in the future, most people are going to go for the first option. It's kind of ironic: if the economy is doing well, we have money for changes but economic growth itself is making the energy problem worse; if the economy does badly we don't have the will to make changes. Wow, that's a happy thought. That’s a very good point — given the choice between definite pain now, and potential really bad pain in the future, most people are going to go for the first option. It’s kind of ironic: if the economy is doing well, we have money for changes but economic growth itself is making the energy problem worse; if the economy does badly we don’t have the will to make changes. Wow, that’s a happy thought.

]]> By: xaosseed http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9559 xaosseed Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:46:59 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9559 I love his numbers for energy growth. He must think we're freakin' magic to conjure all that power out of what we've got. Given the woefully logjammed, increasingly costly infrastructure and logistics for the nuclear and oil & gas sectors my worry is we're going to blow out the economy (through $120 oil) before we can implement any meaningful policies. Once the global economy is staggering, then trying to load an additional cost like carbon taxes on top will become political poison. Unless it can be made very, very reasonable and attractive, then China and India (with 1/3 of all humans) who use coal for ~50% of their power generation are going to counter any loss in other fuel types with coal. Given the choice between living in poverty and taking their chances that they will be able to weather whatever a 'changed' climate is like, I would guess that most people will take their chances. Second gen biofuel (cellulose crackers) would be great - Fusion would bounce us into the realms of 'free' power. But this is betting an awful lot that we can just pull a tech solution out of a hat. I love his numbers for energy growth. He must think we’re freakin’ magic to conjure all that power out of what we’ve got.

Given the woefully logjammed, increasingly costly infrastructure and logistics for the nuclear and oil & gas sectors my worry is we’re going to blow out the economy (through $120 oil) before we can implement any meaningful policies.

Once the global economy is staggering, then trying to load an additional cost like carbon taxes on top will become political poison. Unless it can be made very, very reasonable and attractive, then China and India (with 1/3 of all humans) who use coal for ~50% of their power generation are going to counter any loss in other fuel types with coal. Given the choice between living in poverty and taking their chances that they will be able to weather whatever a ‘changed’ climate is like, I would guess that most people will take their chances.

Second gen biofuel (cellulose crackers) would be great - Fusion would bounce us into the realms of ‘free’ power. But this is betting an awful lot that we can just pull a tech solution out of a hat.

]]> By: Chris http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9521 Chris Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:43:46 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9521 @Paul (who else?): Biology is probably easier to work with on that kind of a scale, in that if you DO manage to crack a solution, chances are you'll have created a self-sustaining one. The down side of using biological factors to solve, say, CO2 emissions, is that you're never sure of the exact impact you may have on a large scale. An example I came across recently is a project that wants to use seabed microorganisms: they propose bringing them to the surface, pumping things like iron into the water and, by letting them flourish, allow them to soak up huge amounts of CO2. Trouble is, no one can say what happens when they die: does the carbon really sink with them & get sequestered in the seabed, or does it espace back into the atmosphere, having been multiplied a thousandfold? Tricky business, the study of life... :) @Paul (who else?): Biology is probably easier to work with on that kind of a scale, in that if you DO manage to crack a solution, chances are you’ll have created a self-sustaining one. The down side of using biological factors to solve, say, CO2 emissions, is that you’re never sure of the exact impact you may have on a large scale.

An example I came across recently is a project that wants to use seabed microorganisms: they propose bringing them to the surface, pumping things like iron into the water and, by letting them flourish, allow them to soak up huge amounts of CO2. Trouble is, no one can say what happens when they die: does the carbon really sink with them & get sequestered in the seabed, or does it espace back into the atmosphere, having been multiplied a thousandfold?

Tricky business, the study of life… :)

]]> By: paulcook http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9503 paulcook Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:46:06 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9503 @Chris: Mmm, those are some big ideas! It'll be kind of ironic if after all the science fiction, the first planet we land up terraforming is Earth! But yeah, the disagreements between different countries are really tricky... Hey, here's an idea: you know biology, right? Can't you make something to, you know, solve the problem? @Stuart: That website is apparently run by "Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist" [RealClimate.org]. There's a useful rebuttal to one of the other posts on that site <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/" rel="nofollow">here</a> Basically, having skimmed the article you link to, I would say that most of what Junkscience writes is correct (like CO2 being necessary, and that humans contribute only a small amount of the TOTAL greenhouse effect). But then there's some dodgy arguments around climate sensitivity to try to justify why the results are minor. They say that doubling CO2 would "only" increase temperatures by about 1C, which is probably a little low, but regardless: that rapid a change, magnified at the poles as changes are, is quite enough to have huge effects! And, of course, CO2 levels will continue to rise quadratically from that point onwards. But this is the problem with global climate change, compared to say the ozone hole. For the ozone hole what did the trick to change the laws was a very graphic photo of the ozone hole by a NASA satellite. There's no such "magic picture" for global warming, so there'll always be people arguing that something else is going on -- much as we've seen for HIV/AIDS. And this slows the response down. In the end, there are three points that are vital to me: (1) The vast, vast majority of scientists in the field have no doubt that we're changing the climate; (2) this is far too big a risk for us to merely wait and see, and earlier we start changing, the easier it will be; and (3) we're well on the way to DOUBLING the levels of a vital component of the atmosphere! It seems to me that we should naively expect that this should change something! The burden of proof should surely be on those who are trying to argue that such a huge change WON'T cause a big effect. @Chris: Mmm, those are some big ideas! It’ll be kind of ironic if after all the science fiction, the first planet we land up terraforming is Earth! But yeah, the disagreements between different countries are really tricky… Hey, here’s an idea: you know biology, right? Can’t you make something to, you know, solve the problem?

@Stuart: That website is apparently run by “Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist” [RealClimate.org]. There’s a useful rebuttal to one of the other posts on that site here Basically, having skimmed the article you link to, I would say that most of what Junkscience writes is correct (like CO2 being necessary, and that humans contribute only a small amount of the TOTAL greenhouse effect). But then there’s some dodgy arguments around climate sensitivity to try to justify why the results are minor. They say that doubling CO2 would “only” increase temperatures by about 1C, which is probably a little low, but regardless: that rapid a change, magnified at the poles as changes are, is quite enough to have huge effects! And, of course, CO2 levels will continue to rise quadratically from that point onwards.

But this is the problem with global climate change, compared to say the ozone hole. For the ozone hole what did the trick to change the laws was a very graphic photo of the ozone hole by a NASA satellite. There’s no such “magic picture” for global warming, so there’ll always be people arguing that something else is going on — much as we’ve seen for HIV/AIDS. And this slows the response down. In the end, there are three points that are vital to me: (1) The vast, vast majority of scientists in the field have no doubt that we’re changing the climate; (2) this is far too big a risk for us to merely wait and see, and earlier we start changing, the easier it will be; and (3) we’re well on the way to DOUBLING the levels of a vital component of the atmosphere! It seems to me that we should naively expect that this should change something! The burden of proof should surely be on those who are trying to argue that such a huge change WON’T cause a big effect.

]]> By: Stuart Cullender http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9502 Stuart Cullender Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:07:20 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9502 Hi Paul, I don't know if you have seen the following site: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ What do you make of the article written there? Hi Paul,

I don’t know if you have seen the following site:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

What do you make of the article written there?

]]> By: Chris http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9501 Chris Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:15:32 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9501 Hey Bob, Well summarised, I think. Some interesting articles have popped up recently with ideas about how to combat global warming on a, well, global scale. These range from altering the surface of our oceans (quite ambitious) to layering the space around the Earth with energy-reflecting particles (VERY ambitious). Regardless, it's going back to what you mentioned about one all-encompassing solution; that is to say, I don't think we'll be able to implement one in time. Certainly not if that time is 2050. On the other hand, even multiple solutions with an acceptable combined efficacy could be murder to try and implement across the globe. The worst of the "polluters" don't really seem to see eye to eye in any case. If you think about it, it's quite impressive that Koonin managed to make all this seem optimistic, isn't it... Regards, Hey Bob,

Well summarised, I think.

Some interesting articles have popped up recently with ideas about how to combat global warming on a, well, global scale. These range from altering the surface of our oceans (quite ambitious) to layering the space around the Earth with energy-reflecting particles (VERY ambitious).

Regardless, it’s going back to what you mentioned about one all-encompassing solution; that is to say, I don’t think we’ll be able to implement one in time. Certainly not if that time is 2050.

On the other hand, even multiple solutions with an acceptable combined efficacy could be murder to try and implement across the globe. The worst of the “polluters” don’t really seem to see eye to eye in any case.

If you think about it, it’s quite impressive that Koonin managed to make all this seem optimistic, isn’t it…

Regards,

]]> By: Jonathan http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9496 Jonathan Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:28:22 +0000 http://langabi.name/blog/2007/10/05/the-energy-challenge#comment-9496 Very good post. Given the political will in the world at present, the future looks quite gloomy. It does help to have sound and clear explanations from authoritative speakers - particularly ones who can make the complexity relatively simple. Very good post. Given the political will in the world at present, the future looks quite gloomy. It does help to have sound and clear explanations from authoritative speakers - particularly ones who can make the complexity relatively simple.

]]>