Global Climate Change

[ydoaPs]

Do we need to know who is right?

[Phi for All]

What I don't get about his grid is why would the costs spent on solutions cause global depression if they weren't needed, but wouldn't cause global depression if they were? Whether they are needed or not, it's still a cost no matter what. Do we miss a depression just because we're happy being right?

 

I agree that the only responsible action is responsible action, but I felt his logic break down there.

[ydoaPs]

What I don't get about his grid is why would the costs spent on solutions cause global depression if they weren't needed, but wouldn't cause global depression if they were? Whether they are needed or not, it's still a cost no matter what. Do we miss a depression just because we're happy being right?

How can you be depressed if you're happy?

 

It doesn't really change the outcome of the chart, though. The extreme cost of that side would be depression either way, but no global cataclysm.

[Phi for All]

It doesn't really change the outcome of the chart, though. The extreme cost of that side would be depression either way, but no global cataclysm.

So the possible outcomes of our decisions on global warming are a) Global economic depression due to costs of mitigating global warming, b) Status quo, or c) Cataclysmic disasters made worse through unpreparedness. I still agree that action needs to take place but this argument is going to lead most people to choose b).

[ydoaPs]

His point is, you can't pick any outcome. You can't even pick your row. You can only pick your column. So, you can't just pick B. You can pick either A or take your chances of B and C and hope you get B.

[Realitycheck]

This video was released very recently. It has lots of new data contained in the video, mainly showing hot spots and daily pollution activity in a series format. Looks pretty convincing to me. 1500 ppm CO2 over much of the country in the raw morning hours.

 

[D H]

Do we need to know who is right?

 

Yikes! Global warming meets the Prisoner's Dilemma!

 

What I don't get about his grid is why would the costs spent on solutions cause global depression if they weren't needed, but wouldn't cause global depression if they were? Whether they are needed or not, it's still a cost no matter what. Do we miss a depression just because we're happy being right?

I have a problem with that, too. Not only that, he assumes that the preventative measures work. People will be doubly depressed (economically and mentally) if we put ourselves in a global economic depression and fail to cure AGW in doing so. of preventative measures don't work.

[swansont]

I have a problem with that, too. Not only that, he assumes that the preventative measures work. People will be doubly depressed (economically and mentally) if we put ourselves in a global economic depression and fail to cure AGW in doing so. of preventative measures don't work.

 

Right, there's a missing option in the grid — GW is real but not anthropogenic in origin. So you get the catastrophe no matter what action you take.

[bombus]

Measures to prevent global warming could lead to increased prosperity due to employment in new sustainable technologies. Think (for example) how many people could be employed in the windfarm/solar/tidal/geothermal/biomass/nuclear industries, and how much shares in those technologies would be worth, and how much business that leads to, etc etc etc.

[bascule]

Do we need to know who is right?

 

As much as I'd like to agree with this guy (who, judging by his attire, is a fellow Sports Racer) his argument is rooted in a logical fallacy: namely a false dichotomy.

 

He examines only the absolute worst extremes in making his decision making, when in fact there's a continuum of possibilities between either endpoint and the probability curve favors something closer to the middle, with the extremes being rather unlikely.

 

By that same reasoning, we shouldn't build particle accelerators, because scientists may accidentally create a black hole that destroys the entire Earth! We don't want to destroy the Earth, do we?

 

I think the end result of this reasoning would be following whoever can dream up the worst nightmare scenario. In the end that doesn't matter nearly as much as how likely the particular scenario actually is.

[Chris C]

I think the gaps between the dichotomies can be filled in rather easy, but my objection is that what if you apply this logic to many other things. Let me go steal my neighbor's knife he just bought, because he is a rather strange fellow. Worst case scenario- he uses his knife to stab someone; Best Case Scenario- he is just a good 'ol knife collecter. If I steal it, what's the worse that can happen? I either save someone, or I make him lose some money and make him disgruntled.

 

Taking the extreme precautionary principle quickly falls apart to absurdity, and you can think of others if you don't like my example. The real question is if Global Warming is a legitimate threat, and has the scientific support behind it to take action. The answer is yes. But we should take action because it is a threat and because the science says there will be consequences, not because I weighed out a bunch of "what ifs" and said I'd rather take the extreme of A rather than the extreme of B.

[waitforufo]

Taking the extreme precautionary principle quickly falls apart to absurdity, and you can think of others if you don't like my example.

 

A good and famous example of the precautionary principle is "Pascal's Wager."

 

"Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." - Blaise Pascal

 

I don't think this argument convinced too many people. Also, I can't image that those so convinced fill many collection plates or become famous for heroic action based on a faith so founded.

 

So okay I believe in Global Warming as long as you don't spend my money trying to fix it.

[SkepticLance]

My response to Pascal's wager is :

 

"What if all that praying and singing songs of praise actually annoys the crap out of the big fella? He gets all pissed off and sends those annoying pests to Hell when they die."

 

Rather often, dichotomies fail because there is a third, unrecognised, choice.

[Rev Blair]

I think the argument that acting will force us into a global depression is misguided at best. Such action is a really a shift in technology and there has never been a shift that didn't create wealth and leave us better off in the long run.

 

Those who say the costs are too high are very much like the Luddites who fought tooth and nail to maintain the old technologies instead of embracing the new.

[iNow]

I think the argument that acting will force us into a global depression is misguided at best.

 

So do they:

 

A Solar Grand Plan - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

 

On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

 

 

Their plan was amazingly conservative, indeed. I'd suggest it could be done faster, cheaper, and save more money in the long run.

 

From the link:

 

In extending our model to 2050, we have been conservative. We do not include any technological or cost improvements beyond 2020. We also assume that energy demand will grow nationally by 1 percent a year. In this scenario, by 2050 solar power plants will supply 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of total U.S. energy. This quantity includes enough to supply all the electricity consumed by 344 million plug-in hybrid vehicles, which would displace their gasoline counterparts, key to reducing dependence on foreign oil and to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Some three million new domestic jobs—notably in manufacturing solar components—would be created, which is several times the number of U.S. jobs that would be lost in the then dwindling fossil-fuel industries.

 

The huge reduction in imported oil would lower trade balance payments by $300 billion a year, assuming a crude oil price of $60 a barrel (average prices were higher in 2007).

 

 

Since the price per barrel of crude oil hit $114 last week, and all indicators suggest prices will continue on their climb, this will save more than just the environment, but a metric assload of money as well.

 

 

Without subsidies, the solar grand plan is impossible. Other countries have reached similar conclusions: Japan is already building a large, subsidized solar infrastructure, and Germany has embarked on a nationwide program. Although the investment is high, it is important to remember that the energy source, sunlight, is free. There are no annual fuel or pollution-control costs like those for coal, oil or nuclear power, and only a slight cost for natural gas in compressed-air systems, although hydrogen or biofuels could displace that, too. When fuel savings are factored in, the cost of solar would be a bargain in coming decades. But we cannot wait until then to begin scaling up.

[Pangloss]

The video in the OP neatly lays out (far better than I could) exactly why I support doing something about global warming, regardless of my personal hesitation and doubt about humans causing it.

[SkepticLance]

There is no doubt that action needs to be taken to control greenhouse gases. However, determining the best action is the question. I am deeply cynical of the actions surrounding Kyoto. We see foolish acts, such as countries in the EEC importing palm oil for biodiesel. This has led to vast areas of tropical rain forest being felled to plant oil palms. Greenhouse emission have increased more than 20 fold as a result.

 

Action needs to be carefully managed and planned. Urgent action leads to foolish action, and those who insist on urgent, even panic actions, are doing the whole world a disservice.

 

The first step is to decide what alternatives are currently available, and implement them. For example; the new generation of hybrid internal cimbusion/electric cars are about to be released. These cars will have larger battery storage and the capability of being charged at home from dometic electricity. Since most car trips are short, this will permit most car trips to be done on battery power, cutting fuel use and emissions dramatically.

 

Alongside this, we need far more electrical generating capacity, from non carbon emitting plants. My own view is that the world needs about 1000 new nuclear power plants, mainly in China, USA and Europe, and we had better get started!

 

After implementing what is currently or nearly available, we need to develop further alternatives and implement them as they come on stream.

 

The main thing is no silly urgent actions.

[swansont]

The first step is to decide what alternatives are currently available, and implement them. For example; the new generation of hybrid internal cimbusion/electric cars are about to be released. These cars will have larger battery storage and the capability of being charged at home from dometic electricity. Since most car trips are short, this will permit most car trips to be done on battery power, cutting fuel use and emissions dramatically.

 

Doesn't that assume that the electricity comes from "green" sources?

[iNow]

There is no doubt that action needs to be taken to control greenhouse gases. However, determining the best action is the question.

 

<...>

 

The main thing is no silly urgent actions.

 

Out of curiousity, have you read the article I shared at post #15? Do you have a response to their proposals?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I did not read your reference since I had already read the original article in the printed edition of Scientific American. What they claim sounds very good. Unfortunately, I have also seen data indicating that the costs of solar energy are likely to remain very high for a long time. Maybe that is wrong????? but it is also possible that SciAm are wrong.

 

Regardless, it seems to me that the best approach as of the present time is nuclear. Proven technology. Hardly any greenhouse gases. Reliable 24 hour generation. High energy density, meaning little land required (compared to wind power and solar energy, for example). Generating plants able to be put anywhere (ie not confined to where an energy source happens to be) meaning that reticulation distance can be minimised. Wonderful safety record. Including Chernobyl, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, fewer than 4500 deaths in its entire history. Problems mainly political, due to people creating a fuss where it is not justified.

 

Of course, what will actually happen is a wide range of plants. Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, wave power, hydro, geothermal. Sadly, it will include a lot of new fossil fuel plants also.

 

To swansont.

 

Did you not read my entire post?

[Realitycheck]

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

 

Less than the cost of the Iraq war. But why pay the electric co. when you can harvest your own sunlight, for free, well, uhhh, sort of.

 

I just did a work-up for a solar system for my apartment. It uses 250 sf of roof space, costs 23,000 dollars, @ 130$/mth for 30 years, one time $2,000 tax credit, I assume that it accommodates all electricity needs (does not clarify), in some places extra energy stored can be sold back to the electric co., and the break even point occurs in 13 to 21 years, which matches the figure that I saw on this documentary last night about solar heating.

 

http://www.findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme

 

To iNow

 

Unfortunately, I have also seen data indicating that the costs of solar energy are likely to remain very high for a long time.

 

Another thing that they pointed out on this program was this alternative to the normal products that go into the solar panels which really drive up the cost. This new product can be painted on shingles, printed out of inkjet printers, or tacked on as panelling.

 

 

The science goes something like this. When sunlight falls on an organic solar cell, the energy generates positive and negative charges. If the charges can be separated and sent to different electrodes, then a current flows. If not, the energy is wasted. Link cells electronically and the cells form what is called a panel, like the ones currently seen on most rooftops. The size of both the cell and panels vary. Cells can range from 1 millimeter to several feet; panels have no size limits.

 

The solar cell developed at NJIT uses a carbon nanotubes complex, which by the way, is a molecular configuration of carbon in a cylindrical shape. The name is derived from the tube's miniscule size. Scientists estimate nanotubes to be 50,000 times smaller than a human hair. Nevertheless, just one nanotube can conduct current better than any conventional electrical wire. "Actually, nanotubes are significantly better conductors than copper," Mitra added.

 

Mitra and his research team took the carbon nanotubes and combined them with tiny carbon Buckyballs (known as fullerenes) to form snake-like structures. Buckyballs trap electrons, although they can't make electrons flow. Add sunlight to excite the polymers, and the buckyballs will grab the electrons. Nanotubes, behaving like copper wires, will then be able to make the electrons or current flow.

 

"Using this unique combination in an organic solar cell recipe can enhance the efficiency of future painted-on solar cells," said Mitra. "Someday, I hope to see this process become an inexpensive energy alternative for households around the world."

 

"Fullerene single wall carbon nanotube complex for polymer bulk heterojunction photovoltaic cells," published June 21, 2007 in the Journal of Materials Chemistry by the Royal Society of Chemistry, details the process.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719011151.htm

[swansont]

To iNow

Regardless, it seems to me that the best approach as of the present time is nuclear. Proven technology. Hardly any greenhouse gases. Reliable 24 hour generation. High energy density, meaning little land required (compared to wind power and solar energy, for example). Generating plants able to be put anywhere (ie not confined to where an energy source happens to be) meaning that reticulation distance can be minimised. Wonderful safety record. Including Chernobyl, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, fewer than 4500 deaths in its entire history. Problems mainly political, due to people creating a fuss where it is not justified.

 

You can't really put them anywhere, since they need to go near water because of the cooling towers.

 

To swansont.

 

Did you not read my entire post?

 

Yes, I did. I'm wondering what you do in the ten (or possibly more) years it will take to build the first of these new nuclear power plants in the US.

[Pangloss]

The housing market is going to start recovering in the next few months, and new production is going to boom again. Now is exactly the right time to get new standards for home manufacturing in place. It's also a good time to be working towards how we can educate potential home-buyers about what numbers to look for in energy efficiency in a new or used home -- stuff that goes well beyond the old ratings systems that affect things like AC units, fridges and hot water heaters.

 

We need some kind of whole-house ratings system that takes into account everything from the thickness of the windows and the insulation in the walls and attic, to the appliances, all as one package. And create some sort of reason for consumers to want to look at that number.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, I have also seen data indicating that the costs of solar energy are likely to remain very high for a long time. Maybe that is wrong?????

 

Yes, that is wrong. I'd like to see your source. I work for a company who's activity will significantly drop the cost per watt of solar.

 

The easiest way to think about what is happening is to recall the VCR. They were more than $1,000 when they first came out. Then, manufacturing costs dropped and now you can get a VCR for around $50.

 

The manufacturing cost of solar cells is dropping in much the same fashion, so I think you'll be hard pressed to argue that, "the costs of solar energy are likely to remain very high for a long time."

[Pangloss]

The thing I can never understand about solar is that if you look around at all the buildings around a city, they typically have flat rooves that are mostly just... empty. All that surface space just totally going to waste. Granted a solar array can't serve all the building's energy needs, but it's more or less established now (is it not?) that a solar array will more than pay for itself, actually lowering a typical building's energy cost dramatically over its lifetime.

 

So... why doesn't every building -- EVERY building -- have a solar array on the roof? Surely they should.