The past few weeks and years have seen a bushel of papers finding that the natural world, in particular perhaps the ocean, is getting fed up with absorbing our CO2. There are uncertainties and caveats associated with each study, but taken as a whole, they provide convincing evidence that the hypothesized carbon cycle positive feedback has begun.
Of the new carbon released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, some remains in the atmosphere, while some is taken up into the land biosphere (in places other than those which are being cut) and into the ocean. The natural uptake has been taking up more than half of the carbon emission. If changing climate were to cause the natural world to slow down its carbon uptake, or even begin to release carbon, that would exacerbate the climate forcing from fossil fuels: a positive feedback.
The ocean has a tendency to take up more carbon as the CO2 concentration in the air rises, because of Henry’s Law, which states that in equilibrium, more in the air means more dissolved in the water. Stratification of the waters in the ocean, due to warming at the surface for example, tends to oppose CO2 invasion, by slowing the rate of replenishing surface waters by deep waters which haven’t taken up fossil fuel CO2 yet.
The Southern Ocean is an important avenue of carbon invasion into the ocean, because the deep ocean outcrops here. Le Quere et al. [2007] diagnosed the uptake of CO2 into the Southern Ocean using atmospheric CO2 concentration data from a dozen or so sites in the Southern hemisphere. They find that the Southern Ocean has begun to release carbon since about 1990, in contrast to the model predictions that Southern Ocean carbon uptake should be increasing because of the Henry’s Law thing. We have to keep in mind that it is a tricky business to invert the atmospheric CO2 concentration to get sources and sinks. The history of this type of study tells us to wait for independent replication before taking this result to the bank.
Le Quere et al propose that the sluggish Southern Ocean CO2 uptake could be due to a windier Southern Ocean. Here the literature gets complicated. The deep ocean contains high concentrations of CO2, the product of organic carbon degradation (think exhaling fish). The effect of the winds is to open a ventilation channel between the atmosphere and the deep ocean. Stratification, especially some decades from now, would tend to shut down this ventilation channel. The ventilation channel could let the deep ocean carbon out, or it could let atmospheric carbon in, especially in a few decades as the CO2 concentration gets ever higher (Henry’s Law again). I guess it’s fair to say that models are not decisive in their assessment about which of these two factors should be dominating at present. The atmospheric inversion method, once it passes the test of independent replication, would trump model predictions of what ought to be happening, in my book.
A decrease in ocean uptake is more clearly documented in the North Atlantic by Schuster and Watson [2007]. They show surface ocean CO2 measurements from ships of opportunity from the period 1994-1995, and from 2002-2005. Their surface ocean chemistry data is expressed in terms of partial pressure of CO2 that would be in equilibrium with the water. If the pCO2 of the air is higher than the calculated pCO2 of the water for example, then CO2 will be dissolving into the water.
The pCO2 of the air rose by about 15 microatmospheres in that decade. The strongest Henry’s Law scenario would be for the ocean pCO2 to remain constant through that time, so that the air/sea difference would increase by the 15 microatmospheres of the atmospheric rise. Instead what happened is that the pCO2 of the water rose twice as fast as the atmosphere did, by about 30 microatmospheres. The air-sea difference in pCO2 collapsed to zero in the high latitudes, meaning no CO2 uptake at all in a place where the CO2 uptake might be expected to be strongest.
One factor that might be changing the pressure of CO2 coming from the sea surface might be the warming surface waters, because CO2 becomes less soluble as the temperature rises. But that ain’t it, as it turns out. The surface ocean is warming in their data, except for the two most tropical regions, but the amount of warming can only explain a small fraction of the CO2 pressure change. The culprit is not in hand exactly, but is described as some change in ocean circulation, caused maybe by stratification or by the North Atlantic Oscillation, bringing a different crop of water to the surface. At any event, the decrease in ocean uptake in the North Atlantic is convincing. It’s real, all right.
Canadell et al [2007] claim to see the recent sluggishness of natural CO2 uptake in the rate of atmospheric CO2 rise relative to the total rate of CO2 release (from fossil fuels plus land use changes). They construct records of the atmospheric fraction of the total carbon release, and find that it has increased from 0.4 back in about 1960, to 0.45 today. Carbon cycle models (13 of them, from the SRES A2 scenario) also predict that the atmospheric fraction should increase, but not yet. For the time period from 1960 to 2000, the models predict that we would find the opposite of what is observed: a slight decrease in the atmospheric fraction, driven by increasing carbon uptake into the natural world. Positive feedbacks in the real-world carbon cycle seem to be kicking in faster than anticipated, Canadell et al conclude.
There is no real new information in the Canadell et al [2007] analysis on whether the sinking sink is in the ocean or on land. They use an ocean model to do this bookkeeping, but we have just seen how hard it is to model or even understand some of the observed changes in ocean uptake. In addition to the changing ocean sink, drought and heat wave conditions may change the uptake of carbon on land. The infamously hot summer of 2003 in Europe for example cut the rate of photosynthesis by 50%, dumping as much carbon into the air as had been taken up by that same area for the four previous years [Ciais et al., 2005].
The warming at the end of the last ice age was prompted by changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun, but it was greatly amplified by the rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The orbits pushed on ice sheets, which pushed on climate. The climate changes triggered a strong positive carbon cycle feedback which is, yes, still poorly understood.
Now industrial activity is pushing on atmospheric CO2 directly. The question is when and how strongly the carbon cycle will push back.
—–
Canadell, J.G., C.L. Quere, M.R. Raupach, C.B. Field, E.T. Buitehuis, P. Ciais, T.J. Conway, N.P. Gillett, R.A. Houghton, and G. Marland, Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, doi 10.1073, 2007.
Ciais, P., M. Reichstein, N. Viovy, A. Granier, J. Ogee, V. Allard, M. Aubinet, N. Buchmann, C. Bernhofer, A. Carrara, F. Chevallier, N. De Noblet, A.D. Friend, P. Friedlingstein, T. Grunwald, B. Heinesch, P. Keronen, A. Knohl, G. Krinner, D. Loustau, G. Manca, G. Matteucci, F. Miglietta, J.M. Ourcival, D. Papale, K. Pilegaard, S. Rambal, G. Seufert, J.F. Soussana, M.J. Sanz, E.D. Schulze, T. Vesala, and R. Valentini, Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003, Nature, 437 (7058), 529-533, 2005.
Le Quere, C., C. Rodenbeck, E.T. Buitenhuis, T.J. Conway, R. Langenfelds, A. Gomez, C. Labuschagne, M. Ramonet, T. Nakazawa, N. Metzl, N. Gillett, and M. Heimann, Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink due to recent climate change, Science, 316 (5832), 1735-1738, 2007.
Schuster, U., and A.J. Watson, A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North Atlantic, J. Geophysical Res., in press, 2007.
Re 391
#330 J.S. McIntyre: There is no real data to support this opinion.
“Of course there is. “
===============
Really? Am I the only one that noticed you offered none, only rhetoric (and you missed my clarification a couple of posts down, as well)
————
1. re 324
“it’s the refusal to speed the migration to nuclear that will ultimately cause us to remain stuck on oil.”
I wrote there was no data I was aware of to support this.
I should have elaborated. There is nothing to suggest this is limited to an either/or situation, as your statement suggests.
==============
You wrote: “Take a hard problem. Give a reasonable path out. Block that path due to something “scary”. Watch the stalemate result in the status quo.
Problem: Need for clean, cheap power.
Solution: Nuclear.
Scary Thing: Meltdowns and leaks.
Hope: Move to alt fuels.
Result: Stay on coal.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Social security reform. Health care. And on and on.”
Again, empty rhetoric, of the very kind you would attempt to paint the critics of nuclear power with, sans any data whatsoever to suggest you really have an argument.
“Blocking the most obvious path (nuclear) will again cause us to stay with conventional energy sources.”
As I said, you’ve set a precondition sans anything to suggest it has any merit. Obvious to WHO, matt? Proponents of nuclear power?
There is nothing “obvious” to it, no one or the other solution. Again, I direct you to Dr, Brice Smith’s interview which actually addressed your facile criticism of both the reasons alternatives (and efficiencies) outweigh a worldwide move to nuclear.
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/06276q2j38877333/fulltext.pdf
The problems revolving around nuclear power are far-ranging and growing. While – as I understand it – reactor design is much improved over those last built in the U.S., there remain problems, deep, long-term problems that have yet to be adequately resolved. We still do not have an adequate storage facility for the spent fuel we do have, and it has already been seen that even in the case of secondary contaminated equipment that has been stored in New Mexico with the guarantee that they are adequately sealed that the opposite is true – there are consistent and worrisome leaks. Again, I direct you to Alan Weisman’s discussion of nuclear storage in “The World Without Us”. The data is rather compelling.
“Here’s an interesting figure: Since 1980, US coal plants have dumped 53.9 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. What if we had gone nuclear in the early 70’s? Could we have reduced a chunk of that? France sure did.”
Question begging. More empty rhetoric. What’s your SOURCE, Matt? (And I believe the amount of CO2 from coal burning is MUCH higher). If we (the U.S.) had gone nuclear in the early 70s, odds are the amount of pollution would have been lessened, but we’d still have the problem of dealing with the waste.
Speaking of which, note that the French has been sending its waste to Russia and Germany; they have only temporary waste facilities in their own country. The cost of dealing with that waste is climbing.
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php
Now try to imagine a world where all the nuclear plants people want built are constructed. Where does all the waste go?
Nuclear energy may sound like a good idea on the surface, but like anything, it’s the hidden costs that are the real cause for concern. Of course, if you are selfish, short-sighted and don’t give a damn about the world your kids and their kids inherit, I’m sure these things aren’t important.
There is no such thing as a quick or easy fix.
re 392
“Wow, participating here is a part time job! ”
Yeah.
I’ve been wondering just how much they’ve been paying you.
#394 BPL: Who says? Where did you get this figure, and what makes you think it’s accurate?
IPCC TAR gives a figure of 1.8mm/year based upon tidal measurements from 1900. Looking at (1) it has been pretty consistent since about 1910. Recent data from 1990 indicates it has been speeding up.
Looking at the top graph of (1), if the 1910-1960 data can be assumed to be natural rise, then that’s about 12 cm over 50 years or 2.4mm/year.
So, using IPCC TAR of 1.8mm/year, in 389 years the water has risen 0.7m.
Using 8 mm/year, we reach that 0.7m level in 88 years. Note this is very much towards the high end of the IPCC (IOW, as written they expect less). However, many here argue this figure isn’t high enough.
Presumably, even if we completely solve AGW tomorrow, we STILL have to mitigate in 389 years anyway.
My central point is that from a city planning perspective, whether you have to do something in 80 years, or 390 years is almost the same. Cities can’t even plan for 10 years away as it’s outside of election cycles.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
re 390
“I really admire his ability to present technical material is a disarming way. It’s a skill most of us work our entire life on, and seldom succeed.”
==========
You left out “disengenuous”.
“The day someone wants to show me the math on how we get off of oil, skip nuclear, and head into the sunset running on alternate fuels, I’m all ears.”
There we go! The old “you have to give me all the facts now, dot your i’s, cross your t’s and say “Mother, may I?” three times before I can possible consider this” rhetorical garbage.
I’m sure this was what was said to Fermi and Oppenheimer, to the managers of the Space Program, to researchers everywhere.
Not.
Matt, it is going to cost a lot, both in terms of capital, and in terms of giving up things.
And if you live long enough, you are going to help pay for it, either in trying to prepare, or trying to catch up
Joe Duck quoting Lomborg: “For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold.”
If this utter clap trap is a typical example of Lomborg’s analysis then I wouldn’t trust a word the man has to say.
Two hundred thousand Europeans die each year from heat stress and dehydration?
Or do they die from respiratory diseases exacerbated by poor air quality amplified by elevated temperatures and inversions?
One and a half million Europeans die each winter from hypothermia and exposure?
Or do they die from influenza and other diseases that are easily transmitted among populations in close proximity in enclosed spaces with poor air filtering?
This isn’t cherry picking, this is misrepresentation, pure and simple, if not deliberate disinformation.
Re #390: […those that sincerely believe detroit and japanese engineers can make more efficient cars, they are just opting not too.]
I don’t have to believe this: I’ve got one of those more-efficient cars (Honda Insight, 70.7 mpg average over the four years I’ve owned it) parked in my driveway, so they obviously can be made. Toyota likewise seems to be selling all the Priuses it cares to build. If other automakers not only don’t build such efficient cars, but spend billions of dollars on advertising to persuade consumers to buy the markedly less efficient models they do make, it’s evidently not because they can’t, but because they choose not to.
Re 385 Rod B: “Good accurate recitation of the history. None-the-less, singling out Bush for skewering over the Kyoto treaty is one hellacious stretch.”
How so, since Bush is the current, as opposed to past, resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and the buck for his policies of denial and obfuscation stops in his office, not his predecessor’s?
Re $396: [The nuclear “path” is “blocked” in the USA by the complete refusal of private industry to pursue it…]
This is not the case. If you look at the period in which the last US nuclear plants were built, you’ll find that many of them were in fact blocked by legal & political actions, which when they didn’t arbitrarily prevent construction entirely, inflated the price far beyond competitiveness. See for instance perhaps the most notorious case, Shoreham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Now it may be that if those legal & political obstacles were removed, private industry still might not pursue nuclear power, but those obstacles guarantee that they won’t.
Re 390 Matt: “I really admire [Lomborg’s] ability to present technical material is a disarming way. It’s a skill most of us work our entire life on, and seldom succeed.
Think about this: Crichton stood on stage next to real climate scientists, and was able to sway a crowd his direction with a small fraction of the knowledge the scientists had. That is mental and verbal judo that you just don’t see very often.”
It’s called rhetoric. Salesmanship. Huckseterism. The fact that you find it admirable that they can so easily dupe people tells us much about your value system.
Matt opines
Yes, I do pause. Then I loudly start swearing … “liar!”.
Why do you admire liars? I was raised to believe that lying is despicable.
You’re right that many scientists aren’t terribly good debaters. Most scientists, when asked to talk about science, are going to be honest, and when confronted with an opponent who is willing to lie through their teeth, are immediately at a disadvantage.
So tell me. Does the fact that creationists who lie through their teeth are often claimed to beat scientists in debate convince you that the earth is 6,000 years old?
If not, why do you find lying anti-science (and non-scientist) people like Crichton and Lomborg convincing?
[[Blocking the most obvious path (nuclear) will again cause us to stay with conventional energy sources.]]
Fallacy of bifurcation.
Re # (Matt) “Looking at the top graph of (1), if the 1910-1960 data can be assumed to be natural rise, then that’s about 12 cm over 50 years or 2.4mm/year.”
It can’t be assumed to be natural. If you look a little further down in the Wikipedia page you referenced, you’ll find:
“The estimated rate of sea-level rise from anthropogenic climate change from 1910 to 1990 (from modeling studies of thermal expansion, glaciers and ice sheets) ranges from 0.3 to 0.8 mm/yr.”
“My central point is that from a city planning perspective, whether you have to do something in 80 years, or 390 years is almost the same.”
This is so ludicrous I still can’t believe you’re saying it. In either case, the sea-level rise is a continuous process – it doesn’t stay the same for 80, or 390 years, then jump: the rate of rise matters over much shorter periods than that. It is certainly the case that even the natural rise will be difficult to deal with, given the number of people living near sea-level and/or dependent upon agriculture near sea-level. Speeding this rise up will mean you have to do more every year than you would if you didn’t speed it up. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Matt @403: past sea-level rise is largely steric: the expansion of sea water due to rising temperatures. If we stopped global warming, this steric rise would eventually come to a halt.
Matt again opines:
Wrong. The Portland, Oregon metropolitan area put together a 50 year plan starting back in the early 90s.
And we’re following it.
re: debates
Debates are like Letters To Editor or even worse.
Given a constrained space, it is far easier and quicker to create confusion and doubt in most audiences than it is to create clarity, especially when one has words, not graphs. The obfuscatory side need only spray all sorts of ideas against the wall, and dispelling each tends to take more time, and all they have to do is to get many audience members to find one or two plausible to create doubt.
Debating tricks work there, where they don’t very well in normal scientific discourse. I’m sure that’s why Viscount Monckton (a debater from his undergrad days at Cambridge) runs ads challenging Al Gore to debates, and it’s fortunate that Gore knows better.
Several comments above suggest that acting now has about same costs as acting later. In general acting now is much more expensive, which is why most economists suggest that moderate mitigation is called for as we refine the optimal mitigation regimes.
It was suggested we should trust climate scientists more than economists to provide mitigation advice. Totally disagree. I trust Climate science to tell me about climate change scenarios and trust economics to tell me about how the climate scenarios will impact the economy. Armed with that, I want to make my own informed decisions on allocating my taxes and my time.
Also, as Matt notes correctly, nuclear has become an obvious excellent alternative to fossil fuels. Europe’s success with nuclear is an excellent guidepost for moving ahead much more agressively with nuclear power in USA and China.
J.S.: Just to be crystal clear, since the obvious may have eluded you: Of course I am not paid for writing here, and I have no association with the two controversial Oregon “skeptic” groups Junkscience and OISM.
[Response: I disagree. Most environmental problems cost far more to clean up than the preventative measures imposed ahead of time would have cost. Diamond’s ‘Collapse’ is full of such examples. This has been true for sulphate emissions, gold mine tailings, PCB in the Hudson, all the way on down. ‘A stitch in time saves nine’ remember? – gavin]
Re 385. Rod – You are really good at picking nits in order to mitigate any criticism of Bush. Or is it that you are simply good at misrepresentation in the same attempt? Either it is one of those two problems or your basic reading level is unable to deal with words like “all” and phrases such as “on down”. Would it have helped your comprehension if I had listed every politician and every pundit and every economist, etc., etc., etc., who has ever made a public statement against the Kyoto treaty?
Re 310. Joe – Nowhere in my comment about Lomborg and the price of oil did I call him a liar (with or without quotes). But, yes, I did question his credibility as someone who presents himself as an expert in analyzing and predicting future events and who does that, moreover, while implicitly claiming that he understands what is going to happen better than scientists or others with actual expertise in a field. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t fault anyone for a bad prediction—it happens. But here we have a prediction for what is going to happen 19 years later and in less than one-third of the time span, he is wrong by almost a factor of five. I should think that kind of abysmal showing would at least lead to some caution in how one regards his ability to predict future events, but I see no sign of that in your continual use of his statements and points of view to challenge other opinions held by scientists or informed laymen on this site. Matt has already told us he holds him “in high regard”.
Can you tell me where I said I agreed with Lomborg, except on a few commonsense points that I doubt anyone disagrees with (limiting coastal development, for example), because, wow, even on re-reading my post I can’t find them.
Insofar as opinions are concerned, what I was questioning was what evidence Lomborg was using to back up his opinion with regards to his statement that “We could spend all that money to cut emissions and end up with more land flooded next century because people would be poorer.” In the case of the article, perhaps we can ascribe the lack to the author or his editor rather than Lomborg, but it certainly fits with the general thrust of Lomborg’s position while the whys remain invisible. Beyond that, my disagreements with Lomborg didn’t really depend on either his or my belief in the degree of catastrophe that might result from global warming but rather on the fact that I found most of his suggestions for dealing with any potential harm, including at the level he himself acknowledges, to be impractical, absurd, illogical, or otherwise far short of a usable solution. Now, given that Lomborg isn’t here and you are, perhaps you can answer the questions I asked.
In my opinion, stating that “In my opinion discussing these issues as if Lomborg was the issue detracts from the very important questions of the day…” is, coming from you, a real jaw-dropper. You are one of the people that keeps bringing up Lomborg’s opinions, analyses, forecasts, and solutions as worthy of discussion. If someone responds and discusses the science, the disagreements are, in your opinion, “petty” and/or more about Lomborg than the evidence–no matter what is said, even if the person disagreeing cites specific scientific evidence that contradicts Lomborg or demonstrates exactly what he left out of his arguments. If someone responds and disagrees with Lomborg’s opinions, solutions, or some other aspect of his position, you misrepresent what the disagreement is and, once again, claim that it is Lomborg, rather than the opinion, etc., that is being attacked.
Aside from the fact that you are usually the person who inserts Lomborg into a discussion, the fact is that “…Lomborg [is] the issue….” Or, more correctly, he is one of the issues impacting discussion of “…the very important questions of the day – how much mitigation, how we do it, how do we minimize the cost and maximize the impact.” For some people, his very public views on climate change, its consequences, and what needs to be done are extremely influential. He makes suggestions and proposals that you and others think are correct. Given that, he is an issue—as you and Matt so ably demonstrate with all your praise and attention to his positions. If you don’t believe that his ideas should be discussed, then don’t introduce them into a discussion.
On another note…. I spent a good part of yesterday in a hospital waiting room where the television was tuned to Fox News. At one point the announcer began trumpeting that the originator of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, had come out with a statement that climate warming was a scam and that in ten or twenty years everyone would know just how much of a scam it was. He read a good part (all?) of the statment and went on about it for several minutes. Coleman is a meteorologist. Is this another Bill Gray situation or …? For those who are interested, the statement can be read at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/. Everyone who wasn’t already listening when this story began, BTW, looked up and paid attention.
Re 383
Thank you for your reply, Rod.
“I’ll get to agreeing with the post, but first a couple of checks:
I’m not sure of the (your) definition of “true” cost. Depending how it is defined and what’s loaded onto it, your $70/bbl might be right-on or off by miles.”
The figure “True” cost of $70.00 comes from my spouse, whose works for a large financial house. Nothing “official/true” about it beyond an informed observation by someone of knowledge I trust. Take it with however many grains you wish, but the bottom line is prices are more likely to go up than down, short and long-term.
Note: walked by a station in San Francisco yesterday AM selling at $3.99.9. Take from it what you will, but I am reminded the U.S. has been exceedingly fortunate in the years since the first Oil Crisis in that it’s been paying for cheap gas all this time while other countries end up paying more. If anything, this adjustment, if that is what it is, has been long overdue.
=================
“Other than Mexico production maybe having a nudge (but noticeable) effect, the others, except one of the five, are pretty much insignificant. Two are just political rants that snuck out of their box when nobody was watching. Taking refineries off line affects the price of gasoline, not crude. But your last point, sans the little oil company dig (you know Exxon-Mobil has less than 4% of world production — chances zero to none of manipulating oil prices.) is right on — see below.”
I disagree.
– Refineries are not limited to refining gasoline, and the effect of cost and supply of product from refineries is as broad-spectrum as the varied products produced, so any discussion of crude price is germane, particularly given it is the cost of crude going into the refineries that affects the cost of product coming out..
– I’m sorry, but dismissing the political effect on oil production as insignificant is a hand-wave. We are addicted to/dependant upon that region’s oil, an intolerable situation from any reasonable tactical sense, economically and militarily. It’s gotten so bad for us there that we’re powerless to do anything about the recent repression by our greatest tactical ally in the region, that staunch defender of Democracy, Pakistan.
The U.S. involvement in the region from the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iran by the CIA in the early 50s on through to the current mess has a unifying theme: to insure the flow of oil remains uninterrupted to the U.S. and, to a lesser degree, to our allies in the West. Iraq and Iran contribute greatly to the run-up in the cost of oil; much of the nervousness about continued supply running up the price of oil stems from concerns over the uninterrupted supply of it. And do not kid yourself; if the Persian Gulf destabilizes due to escalating conflict, the U.S. is going to find out just how tenuous its economic well-being really is.
-The competition for energy point is valid and becoming worrisome, not just in terms of supply, but what it suggests for the ongoing strategic ramifications for a world where demand continues to outstrip supple. Energy independence is going to be one of the top issues of this century, if not the top, whether you want to believe in AGW or not. The writing has been on the wall for years in this regard. Recall on the day after 9/11, Tom Friedman and other voices called on the President to engage the country in an alternative energy Manhatten Project to free us from our dependence on that region for energy and by so doing prepare us for the inevitable, post-oil world. Sadly, the wrong man was sitting in the Oval Office. (And this is not to mean I thought Gore would be a good president. I only suggest he would have saved us from great folly on this particular issue. And many others, for that matter.) It has been our bad luck to have potentially the absolute worst possible person in charge at this time.
-re Exxon Mobile et al…ever notice how when the price of Crude oil goes up, the price at the pump goes up immediately, even though the more expensive oil is around six weeks out, yet when the price goes down, it takes several weeks before the price goes down. Maybe this is unfair, maybe not, but after Enron, no energy company gets a free pass, particularly not the one with the highest corporate profits of any U.S. company, as noted above. Again, we’ve been getting over at the pump for decades all the same, but that doesn’t mean they get that free pass.
=====================
“…“Easy” oil production is becoming more a thing of the past …”
“Yes and no. I think increased production will not be materially more costly in the future (to a point). True, much (but not all) is being found in more remote/extreme places, but the technology of finding and drilling keeps improving. “
Consider: the oil in the Middle East is ideal for consumption: light, sweet crude. Much of the oil being found now is of increasingly higher sulfer-content, requiring more expensive refining. And the improved technology to get at more difficult to reach fields does not mean the price will go down or remain stable; oil production is passing the point where economy of scale will help bring prices down. Note also that as we see in San Francisco Bay this week, even a small spill (58,000 lbs of bunker oil) can have an increasingly negative effect on local ecology. As extraction grows more difficult, the likelihood of accidents increase, and with them the cost of clean-up.
Increasingly, it looks like some of the largest suppliers are starting to hedge their bets or look at alternative economic models. Like or dislike Hugo Chavez, if he stays in power, the efforts he is making to change the way South American do business with each other may bear some fruit, and part of that model is an increasing reluctance to engage in business-as-usual in terms of oil exports. The Saudis have been quietly retooling their economy to prepare for the day when their own supplies diminish, which should be seen as one of the biggest red flags for concerns re Peak Oil you can come up with.
==================
“Eventually, though, I agree — production costs will start to experience large quantum increases as drilling goes secondary and tertiary, let alone sand and shale. “
Elizabeth Kolbert has a piece in the current New Yorker on the subject of Shale. Haven’t read it, but the title suggests things are not working out in that department as some hoped.
==================
“The billions spent in Iraq is a diversion has no bearing other than a twit by some green eye shade CPA doing cost accounting,”
Oh, no, it has everything to do with the situation. Those billions are borrowed billions, money being spent on what is essentially a poor bet on our future, money that could have been better invested in a whole range of projects to benefit our future…if borrowed at all. We are deep in hock to a number of nations, particularly China, and it strikes me that sooner or later the bill will come due and when it does, we’re not going to be in a great position to make good on it.
Meanwhile, even though we maintain a technological edge, that edge is narrowing as graduating college students from other countries are electing to return home instead of trying to stay and get work here. If you look at the history of tech innovation in this country, a large part of it – some say a majority of it – was attributable to immigrants.
What this means for us is anyone’s guess; the forces of history, while instructive, do not do well in predicting the future. Look at the 1938 World’s Fair … there were all kinds of predictions – primarily economic ramifications of hoped-for scientific development that never came true. Forecasts of what humans will do in years to come is always fraught with uncertainty, though I am reminded of the Afterward in David Brin’s predictive novel, Earth, wherein he tried his own hand at projecting the next 50 years (he wrote it in 1989). The future he envisioned was bleak, with mankind pretty much at the edge in terms of maintaining its civilization. The thing was, he felt at the time it was the best future he could imagine for us and that, all things considered, it probably wouldn’t be so bright.
Re 416.
Gosh, Joe, so sensitive! Odd how you feel compelled to “make a funny” here-and-there in response to remarks but seem incapable of recognizing when someone is doing the same to you…
…put another way, whatever you say, Joe.
Me, I would have just ignored the comment, particularly if it didn’t have any relevance…
re 416:
” Europe’s success with nuclear is an excellent guidepost for moving ahead much more agressively with nuclear power in USA and China. ”
What success? Generation or waste storage? Distinctions matter…
Joe Duck,
Wouldn’t you agree that picking up on a particular experts take and adopting it without even a modicum of due diligence is at odds with being on this website in the first place? If all you’ve decided to take aboard are the conlusions of hand picked experts, then surely it’s not necessary to read any of the nitty gritty that goes on this blog or gets discussed in its comments. You know what you needed to know in something like one sentence without ever needing to click around here: there is this global warming, it’s caused by human emissions of GHGs, we should cut back GHG emissions very slightly and maybe more so in a generation or two and we will have approached this thing optimally. Done, end of story, what’s for lunch. So, please the court, what gives?
As you diffidently alluded to, I take a different approach. I concede there are a lot of experts out there with a lot more qualifications, a lot more smarts, and still more degrees than I have, but yet I have the temerity to believe in my own ability to make judgments, including one that says I should probably go deeper than which university affiliation I want my experts to have. Speaking of which, I gave you some reasons to question what lies at the heart of the economic study you have embraced without a trace of qualification, to say nothing of its author and his very public very curious very 180 degree reversal, and you’ve shrugged it off in so many words. Is it beyond your capacity for critical judgment, as you understand it, to evaluate even that public reversal and ensure that you are comfortable rejecting it as a a cause for concern? Is it beyond your capacity to note the potential relevance of the assumptions that some anonymous and irritatingly opinionated person is insisting on? Or is it really just as simple as ‘this guy is an expert, end of story’? Only a thought really- it’s your consciousness. Don’t mind me.
Slighty more related to the topic of this thread, today’s TNYT has a piece entitled Fuel Without the Fossil about some of the second generation biofuel approachess in the United States. This and earlier articles in The Energy Challenge series are to be found at
http://nytimes.com/energychallenge
Fyi, I just heard that the US Senate and House leadership is taking federal tax credits for solar energy out of the energy bill headed for President Bush in order to assure his support, (a cost that probably also includes ‘incentives’ for domestic fossil fuel production), though plenty of perks will remain for corn ethanol which according to one Yale professor has about the carbon footprint of gasoline, is eye-wateringly inefficient and is driving up grain prices which impacts most heavily on the cost of living/quality of life of the poor. What a wonder, it’s a Friday afternoon. Always the big news day.
PS A question of the brains again- if the generally accepted 3ºC climate sensitivity does not include loss of polar albedo or melting permafrost or any other of the highly uncertain very long term feedbacks, as I understand it does not, why not? If climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept, shouldn’t it be measured in terms of equilibrium in the neighborhood of temperatures we can expect in the next century? If it were, wouldn’t that also include these feedbacks or at least partially include them (again, timescale independent), and hence mean we should be talking about a higher sensitivity? Relatedly, could the implication of these feedbacks be significant? Could it not be? Is the science in any position to estimate what can be expected of the when and the contingencies around these feedbacks or is it totally speculative at this point outside of what can be understood from the paleoclimate record? These are all very relevant to cobbling together an appreciation for how the economics community is doing by the science community. I fear, not well.
[Response: Sensitivity includes changes of sea ice and snow (which affect polar albedo), but not changes in ice sheet extent (i.e. Greenland, Antarctica or small mountain glaciers). The way it is classically defined is a useful diagnostic of both models and the paleo-record, but it isn’t really the number that is important for the future – that number may well be larger due to the missing feedbacks in the normal definition. – gavin]
Matt (391) says: “…Since 1980, US coal plants have dumped 53.9 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. What if we had gone nuclear in the early 70’s? Could we have reduced a chunk of that?”
Not to mention that released atmospheric radioactivity might, possibly, also have been reduced…
Rod B (424) — Probably. Also mercury, cadmium, sulfur dioxide, NOx, etc. ad nauseum.
Coal is really dirty stuff. Biocoal is rather better.
Robert Mendelsohn: “The economics community involved in climate change generally agrees that it is time to start controlling greenhouse gases. The prevailing wisdom in this community is that we should start with a relatively modest program that gets more stringent over time (although there are a few dissenters to this conclusion).”
SecularAnimist> Whether that is in fact the “prevailing wisdom” in the “economics community” or not, it does not represent the “prevailing wisdom” in the climate science community…
If skeptics that do not accept the “prevailing wisdom” in the climate science community are called [climate science] denialists, is it fair to call people that do not accept the “prevailing wisdom” in the economic community ‘economic denialists’?
re 424
“Not to mention that released atmospheric radioactivity might, possibly, also have been reduced…”
Again, the question must be asked…short term vs. long term?
We already know there is no sufficient storage system in place for the constantly increasing stockpile of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
We know that the systems we do have, even those claimed to be sealed, are leaking radioactivity into the atmosphere. We also know (see the Brice Smith interview I linked earlier) that this stuff will actually become more deadly, not less, over time before it finally begins to lose its lethality.
Add to this understanding the fact this is something that will be around 100’s of thousands of years … and there is no structure made by man that has remained intact for a fraction of man’s history since the advent of agriculture.
And while the odds of an accident are low, the effect of an accident can be catastrophic and long-term, doing more damage that is hostile to human life to a widespread area in days what would take decades using fossil fuels.
And with an increase of nuclear plants comes a commeasuraete increase of such risk.
Let’s not be Pollyannas, kiddies…
There’s a much better reason to be an “economics skeptic” than a hard-science skeptic…
Steve Reynolds, Given that economists have managed to predict 10 of the last 4 recessions, I might suggest that economics is more worthy of skepticism than the physical sciences. Second, having looked at some of these analyses and seen what they leave out–crop failures, increased extreme weather, etc., I would suggest that the economists are not working with a full picture. In part this is because we just don’t know entirely what will happen as the temperature rises. Finally, there is the fact that there is nowhere near the degree of consensus on mitigation that there is on anthropogenic causation. Still, this is at least moving the debate in the proper direction–from “It’s not happening” to “What do we do to minimize the adverse consequences.”
Re. James, #406:
Worse still, they spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying against the introduction of regulations to improve fuel efficiency, which I find despicable.
Mary C, so your random nay-sayer selector just happened by chance on Bush, eh? O.K. by me.
Re #427 &c: [We already know there is no sufficient storage system in place for the constantly increasing stockpile of spent fuel and radioactive waste.]
I don’t want to raise the ire of the moderators by getting into long discussions about nuclear power again, so I will limit myself to quoting Mark Twain: “It ain’t what we don’t know that hurts us, it’s what we do know that isn’t so.”
re J.S. McIntyre (419, et al)
[edit – no generic political discussions – there are plenty of other places for that]
But I digress. I liked this post, too. I disagreed with some and fully agreed with much. But at this broad level, judgment and subjectivity play a large roll, and I just don’t want to grapple with it now. But — to repeat — good thoughtful post.
Majorajam (421), why do you accuse Joe D. of not doing what you (generically) expect us sceptics to do?
re 427
“….“Not to mention that released atmospheric radioactivity might, possibly, also have been reduced…”
Again, the question must be asked…short term vs. long term?…”
Good point, J. S. I was referring only to the operational emissions from coal vs. nuclear. Though those numbers are real; the long-term leakage numbers are fluffy and subjective — ‘will it leak or won’t it?’, though could be large.
Re 423. For more information about the 2007 Energy Bill and about actions you can take in an effort to support the development of solar and wind energy, check out the American Solar Energy Society site at http://www.ases.org/.
Gavin: Most environmental problems cost far more to clean up than the preventative measures imposed ahead of time would have cost
Yes, I also assume this is true but I would not choose to analyze it after the fact like that because that analysis won’t include the cost of doing things that had no effect – ie things that society thought would help but did not help or hurt or did not address the later problems. I’m not nitpicking here – the key mitigation point of contention is that massively reducing GHGs is very expensive and/or costly in terms of lost GDP. There will almost certainly be benefits, but will they exceed the costs? Again, most economist think that massive mitigation (as opposed to moderate mitigation as suggested by Mendelsohn) costs more than it delivers. Also I think I’d want to include benefits from projects that created unintended but positive consequences – e.g. many suggest massive mitigation will spin off a lot of great alternative energy projects. This would make an excellent and valuable study.
Majorajam: Not ignoring you. In general I like to assume the consensus science views are right and move from there. Thus I accept GW as virtually certain, AGW as extremely likely, and the optimal mitigation regimes as “moderate”. I feel that many physical scientists say things that imply they have a better sense of optimal resource allocation than the economists, and I challenge that. Ultimately however politics and advocacy will determine how we allocate resources, which is why I’m worried about how superficial and misguided the debate about climate and economics seems to be, and also why I’m compelled to participate in the debates over all this.
*
Mary C. First, sorry for pissing you off. I’m going to take Ray L’s excellent advice noting that Lomborg riles people up and thus may detract from important conversations. (hmm – and conservations?) I won’t be saying anything more about, ummmm, you know who…. in this thread which means I’m backing out on earlier promise to post “Cool it” source and posting more about extinction quotes though I will review that stuff eventually.
David wrote,
“The ocean has a tendency to take up more carbon as the CO2 concentration in the air rises, because of Henry’s Law, which states that in equilibrium, more in the air means more dissolved in the water. Stratification of the waters in the ocean, due to warming at the surface for example, tends to oppose CO2 invasion, by slowing the rate of replenishing surface waters by deep waters which haven’t taken up fossil fuel CO2 yet.”
Wikipedia states,
“It should also be noted the Henry’s Law is a limiting law that only applies for dilute enough solutions. The range of concentrations in which it applies becomes narrower the more the system diverges from non-ideal behavior. Roughly speaking, that is the more chemically different the solute is from the solvent.
It also only applies for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which rapidly forms hydrated carbon dioxide and then carbonic acid (H2CO3) with water.”
Seems to me Henry’s Law can not be used to describe the process you described.
Also, as a side note, I appreciate that it is difficult to write about science without being dry and boring, and I believe, as far as this point goes, that RC does a very good job at making your articles readable and enjoyable. However, the use of terms like, “…because of the Henry’s Law thing.” and,”But that ain’t it, as it turns out.”, make you sound less like a scientist of note and more like an uneducated rube, IMHO.
[Response: Henry’s law assumes thermodynamic ideality, and the real world is non-ideal, but only slightly so for CO2 in equilibrium with the atmosphere. If you want to sound like an educated rube, instead of an uneducated one, you can refer to the fugacity of CO2 rather than the partial pressure, but the number is the same in either case, 380.E-6. Henry’s law works well enough for the purpose to which I put it. David]
Joe Duck, please do not back out on your earlier promise to cite what you posted in 339.
This is classic stuff, and you’ve been delaying, but you claim you actually bought the book to find the source. Please do.
You wrote:
> “Here is a real Lomborg quote about a point of substance
> where he’s making the point that alarmism is focusing attention
> on heat deaths and simply ignoring deaths from cold:
>
> For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess
> heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die
> annually from excess cold.
And if it is a real Lomborg quote, that’s one thing.
If it’s from the website where you say you found it, a pointer to that would do.
If it’s just your memory, you can say you were wrong and move on.
Don’t just drift away from it please. Clarify.
#401 J.S. McIntyre:Nuclear energy may sound like a good idea on the surface, but like anything, it’s the hidden costs that are the real cause for concern. Of course, if you are selfish, short-sighted and don’t give a damn about the world your kids and their kids inherit, I’m sure these things aren’t important.
I doubt I will convince you that we could ever store this safely. Sounds like once you have made up your mind on something, there’s no changing it.
So, JS, how about you explain what technology you would use to to deliver 800B watts across 8 hours, which was the US peak demand last year. Remember, you can’t have it available if only if the sun is shining brightly. You can’t have it available only if the wind is blowing. It has to be there with 99% certainty. Additionally, the annual need is 3.6T KWH over a year.
Germany will get to 25% alt energy, but that must always be backstopped with something that is omnipresent. What is that in your mind? Germany will use natural gas, some biomass. I don’t think others have that luxury.
I eagerly await your numbers.
396 SecularAnimist: Nuclear power is the most expensive, most dangerous and least effective path to addressing global warming. Even a massive world-wide expansion of nuclear power — well beyond the wildest dreams of the nuclear industry — would have only a very modest effect on reducing GHG emissions.
Well, we could take your word for it, or we could look what folks that actually have to bet billions are doing.
And incredibly, the French looked at all the economics and bet nuclear in the 70’s and beyond. Other parts of Europe bet nuclear in the 80’s. Japan bet nuclear in the 90’s. China has brought 6 reactors on line since 2002, and might have as many as 26 by 2020. These are new Westinghouse reactors.
I’ll help you with your answer a bit more.
Nuclear power install costs is a function of how much regulatory red tape is present. If there is a modest amount (France), then it’s quite reasonable. In fact, China is targeting an install cost of $1000/KW after the first few, which is on par (and potentially 10% cheaper) with what it costs to build a simple turbine farm.
Note that US plants in the 70’s cost $5000/KW to build. There have been amazing improvements enjoyed by countries that aren’t awash in red tape.
And the delivered cost of nuclear? Extremely competitive.
But again, don’t take my word for it. Just assume those that have the $5B or so to bet have actually done their homework. Now, this isn’t to say there have been massive investments in wind and solar. There have. But it won’t be an either/or in the end. To argue that nuclear is too expensive is just wrong.
And I’ll ask you same question I asked JS: What mix of technology do you envision to deliver the 800B watts of peak, and 3.6T KWH the US requires?
Joe Duck wrote: “In general acting now is much more expensive, which is why most economists suggest that moderate mitigation is called for as we refine the optimal mitigation regimes.”
Wrong. Delaying action will be much more expensive than acting now.
Joe Duck wrote: “It was suggested we should trust climate scientists more than economists to provide mitigation advice. Totally disagree. I trust Climate science to tell me about climate change scenarios and trust economics to tell me about how the climate scenarios will impact the economy.”
Economics based on incorrect information about climate change will necessarily be incorrect. Lomborg’s economic analysis is based on incorrect information about climate change.
It is essential to make deep cuts in GHG emissions as soon as possible to avert the worst outcomes of climate change. As long as we delay large emissions cuts, we continue to emit GHGs which will persist in the atmosphere for decades, causing irreversible long-term warming that later cuts can do nothing to mitigate.
That’s why mainstream climate scientists say that “CO2 emissions would have to peak by 2015 at the latest and then fall between 50 and 85 percent by 2050.” Emissions are currently not only increasing every year, but accelerating. To reverse that trend within 7 or 8 years, and then reduce global emissions by as much as 85 percent (which will mean reductions of 90 percent in the industrial world’s emissions) by 2050, will require an enormous committment to phase out fossil fuels and move to a global economy based on clean, renewable energy sources.
We need to begin that transition, urgently, immediately. The science tells us that we cannot afford to wait. Economic analysis that tells us, based on incorrect or dishonest science, that we cannot afford to start, is wrong, irresponsible, and harmful. And that’s what Lomborg and his ilk dispense.
J.S. McIntyre (419, 433, et al): They removed my political words, which is fine, but also removed my statement that you made a good point. I was originally considering just the radiation from operations of coal vs. nuclear, not storage and stuff.
ps to my 441, and now 435: I’m evidently confused and have no idea what I said when. Never mind.
#386 Gavin’s Inline: Response: Gore’s statement is factually true – some scientists clearly believe that current extinction rates are that fast. Given the nature of the problem – unknown actual number of extant species, and very limited monitoring of extinction rates of those – all estimates must be taken with huge error bars. For instance, instead of 15 Million species, there might be 30 (or 5) – literature estimates of the current extinction rate go from 100 to 11,000 times background (2 orders of magnitude) (IUCN), which itself is uncertain. The resulting error bars encompass all the estimates (including Lomborg’s). But all this is to miss the point. Lomborg consistently prefers the lowest of all possible estimates (sea level rise, temperature change, extinction rate) and he always contrasts that with the high estimates as if there was a rule that uncertainties always get resolved in the most conservative fashion. It’s a ’schtick’ that he uses effectively, but it’s devoid of actual scientific content – that’s why he gets criticised. – gavin]
Gore’s statement is factual? Do I have Gavin at NASA on record that as long as a public figure can find two crazy scientists SOMEWHERE in the world, that it’s OK for that public figure to repeatedly claim some absurdity? Are you really sure you want to concede that is OK?
Lomborg has NOT picked a low number here. He has picked a number that is 1500X higher than background, and you yourself claim the literature ranges from 100 to 11,000 times background.
Now I ask the question again…Who was most truthful with the layperson on this subject? Error bars are fine for discussing here, but that ignores the original question. I asserted Lomborg was being very honest with the known science here, and that it was others that were being alarmist. Most here said “No, Lomborg is a liar”. Now we are staring at the statements and the numbers. It looks like Lomborg is very squarely in the middle.
Let’s by very kind to Gore and assume there are 30M species total. This means we KNOW 1.5/30 = 5% of all species. And this means that Gore believes there are 0.05 * 36500 = 1800 KNOWN species going extinct each year.
This means Lovejoy believes there are 0.05 * 27500 = 1375 known species going extinct each year.
Of course, if there are only 10M species, then their figures become even more absurd.
Gavin, do you believe Gore or Lovejoy’s numbers of known species going extinct are close to truth?
Gavin, do you believe Lomborg’s figure of 0.7% over 50 years is within range of broad scientific consensus?
[Response: Get a grip. Al Gore is not a scientist and he doesn’t conduct scientific research. Instead, he quotes estimates and results from the literature. I have no particular insight into species extinction rates, and so I will defer to the people who study it, as should Lomborg. Nowhere in Gore’s statement is a statement of his belief and since I am not psychic I will not presume to know either what he believed in 1992 when he wrote that book, nor what he believes now with the benefit of a further 15 years of research. I have a lot more confidence that E.O. Wilson’s estimate about the consensus than Lomborg’s. – gavin]
re 438
“…However, the use of terms like, “…because of the Henry’s Law thing.” and,”But that ain’t it, as it turns out.”, make you sound less like a scientist of note and more like an uneducated rube, IMHO….”
True, but it also makes you sound less like a pedantic snob and more able to relate things in simple understandable vernacular. Can’t win either way, I guess.
J.S. McIntyre wrote: “Nuclear energy may sound like a good idea on the surface, but like anything, it’s the hidden costs that are the real cause for concern.”
An earlier and lengthy comment that I attempted to post about public financing and governance issues of nuclear power has not appeared, perhaps because it was considered too long and/or off-topic. So I will try to be brief here:
In the context of climate change, my real “causes for concern” about nuclear power are:
1. It has limited value in reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate anthropogenic global warming; even a very large worldwide expansion of nuclear power would only modestly reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation, which is only one of the major sources of emissions.
2. Whatever modest CO2 emissions might be achieved by even a large expansion of nuclear power would come at enormous cost in money and resources that could be more effectively applied to other GHG mitigation efforts, including efficiency and clean renewable energy;
3. An expansion of nuclear power is not needed to reduce carbon emissions; emissions can be sufficiently reduced by applying energy efficiency and clean renewable energy technologies, without an expansion of nuclear power.
If nuclear power were actually able to achieve large emissions reductions that cannot be achieved any other way, then it might make sense to move on to debating its well known dangers and risks; but it makes little sense to accept those risks if nuclear power’s capacity to reduce emissions is relatively small, and the same or much greater reductions can be achieved without it.
As I noted in a previous comment (#48), a recent report from the American Solar Energy Society found that full application of existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies (wind power, biofuels, biomass, photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, and geothermal power) could reduce US carbon emissions by 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, which is in line with what mainstream climate science indicates will be needed to keep CO2 levels below 450 ppm, which is generally considered to be the level below which we can prevent “dangerous” climate change. Those who are “skeptical” of the potential of energy efficiency and clean renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions while providing sufficient energy for economic well-being would do well to read this report.
On the other hand, I have never seen an analysis from nuclear advocates setting forth a plausible agenda for an expansion of nuclear power that would attain the carbon reductions that the ASES says can be achieved through efficiency and renewables. How many nuclear power plants would have to be built in the USA (not forgetting the electrification of personal and public transportation if nuclear is to have any impact on reducing petroleum use for transport fuels) to achieve the carbon emissions that the ASES says can be achieved with efficiency and renewables? Where’s the plan?
Not only is nuclear power not “THE obvious answer” to reducing carbon emissions — since there are clearly other obvious answers, primarily efficiency improvements — but it is not at all “obvious” that it is even “AN” answer.
re 440
“I doubt I will convince you that we could ever store this safely.”
All you need to do is provide me with the answers that suggest it can. So far, history, geology, what we’re seeing with the ongoing costs associated with Yucca mountain, the fact that since the idea of “mine storage” was proposed 50 years ago, there has apparently been no workable solution provided. From the Brice Smith interview you seem to be ignoring:
“The notion of mine repositories goes back to 1957—yet no one’s been able to implement this idea in the real world.”
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/06276q2j38877333/fulltext.pdf
“So, JS, how about you explain what technology you would use to to deliver 800B watts across 8 hours, which was the US peak demand last year. ”
Straw man. This argument is only valid if you were limited to keeping the energy production at that level, which you don’t. Here’s a consideration: energy production is based on central power providers (generating plants) involves pushing huge amounts of power through transmission lines. Do you know how much of that power is used up just pushing the power you use to your electric outlets? Quite a bit – I don’t know the exact figure (maybe someone who knows a bit more about electrical transmission can offer up the numbers) but I’ve heard as high as 50%. So let’s say 25%, conservatively, can be save simply by decentralizing power, having generation originate at home, not inj some power plants miles away. There’s a huge savings right there.
If you actually take the time to go back through what I’ve written here so far, much of it in response to you, you already know what I’m proposing: efficiency improvements, solar (passive, photovoltaic, thermal), wind chief amongst them. And amongst those proposals is the understanding that whatever we do, we – the U.S. – are going to have to give up a lot, change the way we do business.
This, in particular, is a real problem, particularly given the understanding so many of us think our consumptive ways are our birthright. Interestingly enough, the same issue of BOTAS addresses this particular issue:
“Thinking Past Ourselves”
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pv23n772p0g05160/fulltext.pdf
“It has to be there with 99% certainty.”
*grin*
Says who? Did you pick that number out of the air? What factors inform this insistence? If your doctor told you you had a 75% probability of developing diabetes if you didn’t stop over consuming sugar, would that be enough to curtail your use.
Here’s the faux problem you propose: that this is an either/or proposition, that whatever we do, we have to maintain the exact same conditions whatever we decide upon. This is, as I said, a straw man, woefully unimaginative, most kindly described as an inability to thing outside the box.
“I eagerly await your numbers.”
*smile*
Matt, you are trying to play “got’cha!” This doesn’t work to well, particularly given you have a history of ignoring anything inconvenient regarding numbers or anything else for that matter that doesn’t suit what you want to see.
Again, you offer up a rhetorical fallacy, another straw man, the understanding being that there is a long way to go in development (something I have been very clear and consistent about), but in the way you are trying to frame this, if it isn’t here, now, then we must dismiss it in favor of your idea. The irony of this proposition is the very thing you are suggesting we use – nuclear power – has been definitely shown to have negative drawbacks that, in the long-term, argue strongly against its implementation.
To elaborate, you ask for “my numbers” while at the same time making no effort of your own to suggest the negatives and the overall concerns regarding nuclear power I have brought up are not valid, or that there are fixes. Instead of addressing points raised (as almost everyone responding to you have done) all you (and Joe, for that matter) offer are fresh, faux arguments that do nothing to suggest you can offer a counterpoint of value. This act is reminiscent of the child in the playground yelling “Is not!” and “Prove it!” as if that were the level of sophistication necessary to carry on this conversation.
It is not.
Argument/debate is give and take, and works best if all parties concerned make an honest effort to BE honest in the manner in which they comport themselves. In my opinion, that is what the majority of people on this forum try to do. True, we all have our biases, but in the end, we also can acknowledge them, and acknowledge where they get us into trouble and, when shown we are wrong, we tend to own up to them. In my opinion, you have consistently not behaved in this fashion, and generally most discussions with you (and Joe, again) are reminiscent of Alice’s encounters at the tea party, though perhaps less meaningful and benignly malicious.
Understanding that, there really isn’t much point in this exercise, now is there?
Other than muddy the waters, of course.
Re #440: [I doubt I will convince you that we could ever store this safely.]
(Sigh) Maybe not, but let’s try. Oklo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor ) is an example of a natural nuclear reactor that operated about 1.5 billion years ago. The wastes have been safely in place ever since. They don’t seem to have made the Earth uninhabitable, or indeed to have affected life in any perceptible way.
We can compare that with paleontological examples of large increases in atmospheric CO2 (PETM, etc), which seem to be associated with extinction events. This certainly seems to suggest that the dangers of familiar CO2 emissions are in actuality much greater than those associated with nuclear wastes. It’s just the old frog boiling cliche in reverse. Nuclear seems dangerous because it’s unfamiliar.
re 435
“Good point, J. S. I was referring only to the operational emissions from coal vs. nuclear. Though those numbers are real; the long-term leakage numbers are fluffy and subjective — ‘will it leak or won’t it?’, though could be large.”
Rod, I recommend the Brice Smith interview to you, as well, as a good summation of the problems from someone of knowledge:
=========
BAS: Describe the risks that accompany nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain.
SMITH: They’re dependant on our ability to understand how the waste will migrate through the geology. And we are relying very heavily on human-engineered systems rather than natural geology. But even if you completely understood the geology, after you carve a big hole to make your repository, how will that engineered damage zone change the way things will migrate? The big uncertainty is time. The Energy Department’s projections for Yucca Mountain predict peak radiation doses will occur hundreds of thousands of years in the future. But trying to forecast what human population distributions will be like, what human behaviors and exposure pathways will be like, and predicting how radionuclides will actually move over timescales that are truly evolutionary in scale, introduced very significant uncertainties in these calculations. From a strictly technical point of view, it’s very hard to have a great deal of confidence in some of these assessments because of these uncertainties.
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/06276q2j38877333/fulltext.pdf
========
The Weisman book “The World Without Us” is also very good, not just in discussing the complex problems of nuclear waste, but the larger scale of the human footprint on the biosphere. The title is somewhat misleading, as while the book does focus on the world without us, in doing so it does a bang-up job of describing our effect upon it. In my opinion, this is important for anyone who really wants to get a handle on the incredible challenges that will be facing us in the years to come as we are forced to address these effects.
Beyond that, thank you for your kind words earlier.