Global Warming and all that stuff.

[CapelDodger]

"Do more than is expected of you... and they'll expect you to do more."
-- Ziggy

"Give them a homily, and they'll say they'd prefer an epigram." CapelDodger

 

[CapelDodger]

Does that mean the twin mantras of raise taxes and fine the nasty capitalists and industrialists.... might not work?

You're quite right, nothing substantial has changed. The real issues remain, as they have since FDR, taxes and the restrictions on capital and industry that have so impeded their progress since the Great Depression. If it hadn't been for the New Deal, we'd all have jet-packs by now.

Big Government is the problem, and they've latched onto AGW as their latest raison d'etre. It's scarier than the War on Terror. And hey, they're not mutually exclusive. So we've got both. It's tragically predictable.

Bush's talk of "encouraging the new technologies necessary ..." simply means federal subsidy for things companies would do anyway - at taxpayers' expense. A common Big Government ploy, buying itself into economic sectors that it has no business being in.

 

[Harpoon]

I wonder who's the largest global contractor for constructing levees, dikes and breakwaters. Well, no matter. Their stock likely is priced above earnings now.

Still, one thing to be said for the U.S. government, when it throws money at something, it throws a lot.

 

[mhaze]

From a cynical point of view (on which I'm an expert) it's better not to persuade people to plan for AGW, since they'd be competing with us. Better to hold the high ground (so to speak) when they discover they need it. And there are indeed business opportunites. I'm sure many businesses have acknowledged the reality of AGW and are planning on that basis, to the extent that they can. (The top Exxon echelon may well not believe the propaganda they push.)

Probably more businesses assume no significant change from the status quo - we've seen the "End of History", after all. Journey's end. AGW, Peak Oil - wha'?



GoogleEarth for Cardiff, UK, if you're unfamiliar with its location. For a time, about 1850-80, the busiest port in the world by bulk. (London was the busiest by value, obviously. Cardiff imported bananas, molasses, rum and tobacco, not silks and spices of the Orient.)

My house is at 10m elevation, two-story, and stone-built. It can be proofed against the occasional flood, but my garden would suffer mightily. Salt-water flooding, not good. All the same, it should see me out.



Go short on dollars. Go long on minerals. Steer well clear of complex leveraged financial instruments - get into what you can clearly distinguish from high-falutin' woo-talk with graphs. (Not advice you really need, of course.)

There could well be a dot.con-like frenzy in the alternative-energy sector at some point, which would we worth riding if you get out at the right time. Once that's over, the reality-based AE market will probably be under-priced, a good time to get in on a carefully considered basis. You'll have more evidence to go on by then.

While your capital is soundly parked and earning, you could consider punting some high-falutin' AE technology with graphs and charts and PowerPoint, oh yes. A scientifically-proven sure thing that just needs development capital. The next MicroSoft. Nothing so crass as free-energy, of course. Something plausible.

They say poachers make good gamekeepers. Who better to do the woo than we ?

Pretty good comments; short on $ is iffy unless the term was picked right, that trick I'd like to know.

I'd try to stay out of mutual funds as they should be an upcoming house of cards to fall. Index fund instead, if you have to. Asset allocation. someone once (15th century Florentine, I think) said 1/3 cash, 1/3 property, 1/3 investments...A lot could be learned from that era...

 

[Schneibster]

My house is at 10m elevation, two-story, and stone-built. It can be proofed against the occasional flood, but my garden would suffer mightily. Salt-water flooding, not good. All the same, it should see me out.

100 feet, and close to a good supply of water and a good supply of food. My garden is safe.

Go short on dollars. Go long on minerals. Steer well clear of complex leveraged financial instruments - get into what you can clearly distinguish from high-falutin' woo-talk with graphs. (Not advice you really need, of course.)

There could well be a dot.con-like frenzy in the alternative-energy sector at some point, which would we worth riding if you get out at the right time. Once that's over, the reality-based AE market will probably be under-priced, a good time to get in on a carefully considered basis. You'll have more evidence to go on by then.

Yep. Good advice all.

While your capital is soundly parked and earning, you could consider punting some high-falutin' AE technology with graphs and charts and PowerPoint, oh yes. A scientifically-proven sure thing that just needs development capital. The next MicroSoft. Nothing so crass as free-energy, of course. Something plausible.

They say poachers make good gamekeepers. Who better to do the woo than we ?

That really deserves a

 

[Harpoon]

My house is at 10m elevation, two-story, and stone-built. It can be proofed against the occasional flood, but my garden would suffer mightily.

100 feet, and close to a good supply of water and a good supply of food. My garden is safe.

You both seem secure from weather and water. Your only problems would be human caused: either state or rabble.

But I truly don't expect an apocalypse will overtake us. Your turnips are safe from the clutches of strangers.

There will be serious challenges, however. I think the next century or more will finally force us to face our impact on the earth. We better get around to it. We're heading toward the exits. Maybe an atmospheric tiff by the planet will make us address our species' errors in toto.

I am optimistic. Of course I was weaned on cheap SciFi paperbacks where the scientists were the good guys with all the answers and always got the girl.

 

[mhaze]

You both seem secure from weather and water. Your only problems would be human caused: either state or rabble.

Gee... with those two problems what else do you need?

I am optimistic. Of course I was weaned on cheap SciFi paperbacks where the scientists were the good guys with all the answers and always got the girl.

Bransen's 25M prize would help in that respect.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am optimistic. Of course I was weaned on cheap SciFi paperbacks where the scientists were the good guys with all the answers and always got the girl.

I was weaned on post-apocalyptic SciFi of the 50's and 60's - the colder days of the Cold War. The Day of the Triffids, The Death of Grass, A Canticle for Leibowitz, stuff like that. The Postman, which is a far better book than the film would suggest. By the time I was 15 I could ride, grow food, shoot a bow, make a bow ... The whole survivalist schtick before it became a bad word.

My readings in History have taught me that this is just another period of tumult between longer periods of stability. I subscribe quite strongly to the Great Wave concept, periods of stable, but exponential, growth that terminate in the crises from which the next stable system emerges.

This is, I think, the first crisis on a global scale. But the scope of crises has increased in the past, we've just arrived at the maximum scope possible before we get firmly established off-planet. A bump in the road for humanity. Horror for a lot of humans.

So it goes.

 

[mhaze]

Good article on upcoming bottlenecks in nuclear plant construction - 30 orders are now in process from 16 suppliers.

 

[CapelDodger]

Good article on upcoming bottlenecks in nuclear plant construction - 30 orders are now in process from 16 suppliers.

From the Nuclear Energy Institute pirece :

After more than a decade since the last U.S. reactor began operation, 16 companies and consortia are preparing to submit applications to build more than 30 new plants.

Which is not quite the same thing. Plants may not be built even where applications are granted, given that circumstances are changing quite rapidly.

In the UK such planning applications take years, and I doubt it's much quicker in the US. Even if your plans are speculative, it makes sense to get the application in while you mull it over. It's not that expensive, since you have lawyers on-staff anyway that need something to do.

A granted application is worth something in itself. It can be held as an asset and sold on when someone does decide to build a plant, as quickly as possible.

To sum up, this is not 30 nuclear plants that people intend to build. It's 30 applications that people are thinking of making. There are lots of applications for coal-powered base-load plants that are already in process, from what I've read.

 

[Ceritus]

What I fail to understand is that, the warmer the atmosphere gets (to a certain point) the more water vapor is in the atmosphere. Water vapor traps in heat as well if not more than CO2 but there is an equilibrium that will have to be met simply because the more watervapor in the air the more cloud cover and the more cloud cover there is the more of the suns rays being reflected back into space.

 

[Ceritus]

double post

 

[Harpoon]

...There are lots of applications for coal-powered base-load plants that are already in process, from what I've read.

We've two coal-fired power plant projects in the works in our county. And it's causing quite a dust up between the Greens (environmentalists) and the Greens (economic development).

The senior project, being built by a private company, has cleared the state air-quality process but still is being roasted during the federal drafting of the environmental impact statement. It's scheduled to go to construction sometime next summer.

The junior project, three years behind the other, is a proposal by the state's largest utility. Both projects claim to be environmentally superior to the other.

Tomorrow our governor is to meet with eight other western governors in Deadwood, South Dakota, during the Western Governors' Association's Annual Meeting.

They're to be briefed by the "nation's top energy technology experts ... from a wide range of fossil power generation and CCS technology developers." The briefing is sponsored by NextGen Energy Council. NextGen also will release the results of a nationwide "survey of energy technology developers." I think a few coal-industry folks are involved.

This is to "shed light" on various technologies under development -- integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants and different schemes for CO2 sequestration -- all a little jaunt down the road yet before they have commercial potential.

Our governor says he supports building the first plant here for local economic reasons. He's still silent on the second one.

Sen. Harry Reid talked today about green energy in Nevada. He said "maybe" coal isn't the best way to proceed with the plant(s) in our county. He suggested geothermal or wind (a wind farm already is part of the first plant's plan).

Reid clammed up when asked about nuclear power. "That's too controversial," he said, "and shouldn't be a part of this conversation."

How do you leave nuclear out of an alternative-energy conversation? Reid's fought the high-level, nuclear-waste repository plan at Yucca Mountain since he was elected to the Senate in 1986. His primary argument has been why should Nevada have to take other state's waste when we don't have nuclear power ourselves?

I believe he's about to be hoist on his own petard. Las Vegas needs more power desperately. Reid's going to fight coal and nuclear?

My hope is as the carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, it will help reduce the politicos' hyperventilation.

 

[Schneibster]

What I fail to understand is that, the warmer the atmosphere gets (to a certain point) the more water vapor is in the atmosphere. Water vapor traps in heat as well if not more than CO2 but there is an equilibrium that will have to be met simply because the more watervapor in the air the more cloud cover and the more cloud cover there is the more of the suns rays being reflected back into space.

It's a matter of the quantity of heat retained by the extra water vapor (and CO2, and other greenhouse gases) vs. the quantity of heat reflected by additional cloud cover. The additional cloud cover doesn't balance the additional heat retention, at least not at any level we're likely to see before things get very uncomfortable.

 

[Schneibster]

Sen. Harry Reid talked today about green energy in Nevada. He said "maybe" coal isn't the best way to proceed with the plant(s) in our county. He suggested geothermal or wind (a wind farm already is part of the first plant's plan).

Reid clammed up when asked about nuclear power. "That's too controversial," he said, "and shouldn't be a part of this conversation."

How do you leave nuclear out of an alternative-energy conversation? Reid's fought the high-level, nuclear-waste repository plan at Yucca Mountain since he was elected to the Senate in 1986. His primary argument has been why should Nevada have to take other state's waste when we don't have nuclear power ourselves?

I believe he's about to be hoist on his own petard. Las Vegas needs more power desperately. Reid's going to fight coal and nuclear?

Reid is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The no-nukes NIMBYs in Nevada are mostly his constituents, and he also has to get along with other Democrats in the Senate whose constituents are "environmentalist" no-nukes rather than NIMBYs. Meanwhile, Nevada needs power, and it's coal or nuke- choose your poison. Personally, at this point, I think environmentalism is about to split in two: the nukers, and the no-nukers. If I was him, I'd be waiting for the other shoe to drop before I ran my mouth. He might get some Republican votes if he swings nuke- the question is, will they be enough to offset the NIMBYs?

My hope is as the carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, it will help reduce the politicos' hyperventilation.

With any luck.

 

[Ceritus]

It's a matter of the quantity of heat retained by the extra water vapor (and CO2, and other greenhouse gases) vs. the quantity of heat reflected by additional cloud cover. The additional cloud cover doesn't balance the additional heat retention, at least not at any level we're likely to see before things get very uncomfortable.

I understand that, I guess if I were to put my question into better words it should have came out more like this.

At what temperature would there be a hypothetical equilibrium from reflected energy and heat retention. What temperature is considered uncomfortable and why? Lastly how far beyond the comfortable temperature threshold would it be when this equilibrium occurs.

From what I have seen and read if the global warming that is actually occurring right now is because of a natural cycle of things then everything will eventually go back to "normal". However if this warming trend has actually been influenced by human industrialization than it is basically too late and a run away global warming effect is already taking place. I ask about this equilibrium simply because I am actually leaning towards the opinion now that we may have something to do with this warming trend as bad as I had liked to disagree with it before there is far too much authority agreeing that AGW is taking place.

I am not sold on the fact that global warming will be a bad thing in the long run at least not yet.

 

[Schneibster]

I understand that, I guess if I were to put my question into better words it should have came out more like this.

At what temperature would there be a hypothetical equilibrium from reflected energy and heat retention.

That would depend upon the amount that cloud cover increases as a function of temperature. I do not know the answer, and I suspect that finding it would be a very time-consuming venture and might well lead into modeling of questionable veracity. I do know that it isn't sufficient to keep the Arctic from melting, since it appears to be doing so and the cloud cover doesn't seem to be increasing.

What temperature is considered uncomfortable and why?

It appears that the temperature that it's likely to be in a decade or two will be uncomfortable for anything living year-round on the ice in the Arctic, since there won't be any in the summer. How uncomfortable this will be for the human race remains to be seen, but I suspect that there will be both expected sea level rises and unexpected and therefore unquantifiable effects of other kinds. A great deal of the problem is that we don't know for sure what will happen, we just know that how things have been for the last several millennia has been comfortable and now things are going to be different. If you're comfortable and things change, then most likely you're uncomfortable. How uncomfortable? Well, that depends on the nature and magnitude of the changes.

Lastly how far beyond the comfortable temperature threshold would it be when this equilibrium occurs.

I can only guess, but I strongly suspect a long way, considering we're already seeing continent-sized ice shelves fall into the sea in the Antarctic, and predicting the very strong likelihood of complete melting of all the ice in the Arctic in summer in the next decade or two based only upon visible evidence as opposed to models.

From what I have seen and read if the global warming that is actually occurring right now is because of a natural cycle of things then everything will eventually go back to "normal". However if this warming trend has actually been influenced by human industrialization than it is basically too late and a run away global warming effect is already taking place. I ask about this equilibrium simply because I am actually leaning towards the opinion now that we may have something to do with this warming trend as bad as I had liked to disagree with it before there is far too much authority agreeing that AGW is taking place.

I will testify to the fact that you have previously derided AGW, though I see no point in searching up examples. You're being skeptical- the evidence is trending strongly against your former opinion, and your opinion is changing. This is a good thing, and it's happening for many people- we can only hope quickly enough.

I am not sold on the fact that global warming will be a bad thing in the long run at least not yet.

Keep the obvious physics of the situation in mind, and consider the raison d'etre of conservatism: if things are good now, then change is bad.

 

[Harpoon]

We used to talk about the balance of nature: the forage in a valley increases; the rabbit population multiplies based on the more abundent food supply; the coyotes now have more food and their numbers increase.

The over-nibbling of the greens reduces the food supply stressing the rabbit population, as does increased predation. As the rabbit population drops, so does the number of coyotes because of their decreasing food supply.

Cause and effect leads toward equilibrium.

Global warming, even AGW, won't "hurt" the earth. But as equilibrium develops out of new conditions, we will have to adapt.

Adaptation can be a bitch.

 

[Harpoon]

... Personally, at this point, I think environmentalism is about to split in two: the nukers, and the no-nukers. If I was him, I'd be waiting for the other shoe to drop before I ran my mouth. He might get some Republican votes if he swings nuke- the question is, will they be enough to offset the NIMBYs?

Reid's performance has earned him an approval rating right up there with Scooter Libby -- but that's for a different forum.

Reid will never support a nuclear power station in Nevada until such time as a different method of dealing with nuclear waste is settled upon. Las Vegas (not Nevada) needs more power immediately and can't wait for nuclear any way.

I suspect the governor will return from Deadwood with all these coal-industry platitudes about how coal can be clean. People don't need solutions; people just need a good story.

Looks like the spector of rising sea levels is about to drown the no-nukers, however. All the other alternative sources of energy look to me like they will only be able to supplement the power grid. Nuke seems like our best bet to take fossil-fuel generation off line the soonest (not soon enough, likely)

The NIMBYs will be with us forever, and I don't really mind people with the attitude. I just don't want them in my back yard.

 

[CapelDodger]

Tomorrow our governor is to meet with eight other western governors in Deadwood, South Dakota ...

Will there be tinned peaches ?

(Reference to HBO's Deadwood. Best. TV. Ever!)

Reid clammed up when asked about nuclear power. "That's too controversial," he said, "and shouldn't be a part of this conversation."

How do you leave nuclear out of an alternative-energy conversation? Reid's fought the high-level, nuclear-waste repository plan at Yucca Mountain since he was elected to the Senate in 1986. His primary argument has been why should Nevada have to take other state's waste when we don't have nuclear power ourselves?

I believe he's about to be hoist on his own petard. Las Vegas needs more power desperately. Reid's going to fight coal and nuclear?

However rational nuclear power might be, this is the kind of situation that exists on the ground. Going nowhere fast.

A minor quibble : Las Vegas doesn't need more power, it wants more power. There's a distinction, IMO.