Wed 22 Aug 2007
New Energy Technology consumes more energy than it produces
Posted by markcrobinson under PV AlternativesNo Comments
I recently read about a new energy technology thet produced power by igniting salt water. The technology was being debunked by the writer because it took more energy to ignite the salt water than it produced. Here is my reply…
Every form of of creating power takes more energy than it returns. That’s a law of physics.
The energy required to produce fossil fuels; gas or coal, requires large amounts of solar energy over a huge amount of time… the theory being that it’s economical to use it because the ‘more energy it took to produce it’ was consumed long ago.
And as far as gas and coal, we don’t even take into account the political energy and human energy it takes to produce it with wars, lives, etc.
Fuel is about taking energy that it stored somewhere and releasing it for use now. If the cost of releasing the energy is greater than the value of the energy then we have a problem until the cost of energy increases… which it is doing every day.
Fact is, we have all the energy we need. It’s abundant and omnipresent. We just waste almost all of it. The two most important technologies are storage and efficiency.
Storage: During times of peak electricity use (summer 4-6 pm), we use at least 5 times more electricity than at night. The concept of ’spinning reserves’ means that utilities are producing huge amount of electricity that go nowhere just in case everyone turns on their air conditioning at the same time. It’s like idling your car with the clutch disengaged so you can zoom off if you have to. If we could generate energy at night and store it (efficiently) for use during the day we’d be on track to a solution.
Efficiency: The California small appliance efficiency standards enacted about 15 years ago leveled consumption during a huge high-growth period. Refrigerators, Air Conditioners were required to become more efficient… and did… while reducing retail prices of the products. We could do everything we are doing now at a fraction of the power. The barriers are economic, not technological.
Conservation: (Oh No! Not That again!). Grocery Stores that enclose coolers, public air conditioning systems set at reasonable levels (Airports: Brrrr), occupancy sensors on lighting, Variable Frequency drives on motors… please don’t get me started (too late). Conservation is the ultimate good news because the very day we wake up to the need we can probably trim our energy use by 10%. It’s our built-in buffer.
We have the technology, just not the desire.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
There is nothing that can be done to end global warming if it is caused by the position of the earth with respect to the sun. If the sun has greatly increased sunspot activity as it has had recently and that is the cause of global warming, there should be signs of it on other planets. The Mars probe shows that there is warming on Mars too. So, asking people to “stop global warming” is harmful because it diverts the efforts of coping with global warming.
[Comment from Mark C. Robinson: I would be very interested in any astronomical references that suggest that the warming is being caused by the position of the Earth in relation to the sun.]
April 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
You bely your own bias by attempting to “mitigate the damage” of Stossel’s comments. Remember, a good debate/debater entertains and encourages opposing viewpoints in order to flush out the truth of the matter being discussed. There is plenty of contrary scientific evidence in the “global warming” debate. Anyone who is dogmatic in stating a position either way with regard to global warming has either an economic or political agenda to complete or is ignorant of the scientific process.
As an engineer, I work with applied science. It is important for me to be convinced that whatever science is actually proven to be true science is what I use. Physics is physics and chenistry is chemistry. However, poiltics can misstate both and get away with it. I can’t and neither should anyone interested in a true scientific debate, which is all we have at this point in time. There is nary enough data to truly establish the “fact” of global warming.
This does not mean we ignore certain trends or problems evident in our environment. We need to be proactive in our pursuit of truth and technology that enables us to understand and protect our planet.
[Comment from Mark C. Robinson: You are correct. I am biased. But I believe my bias to be based on facts that have been presented over the last 10 years and not disputed. I’m glad to look at new information but statements like “CO2 will be good for the desert strike me as irresponsible ’science’.]
April 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
From The US Department of Energy
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/wpa/wpa_factsheet_myths.pdf
Wind Energy Myth: Wind turbines kill birds and thus have serious environmental impacts. Bird kills have caused serious scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (<1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat, as well as the environment and human health.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
To be clear: calls for STARTING a debate about global warming are fair… if you are living in 1980. However, since then, the scientific debate has been 1. started, 2. engaged by thousands of scientists and 3. largely concluded with agreement on the most important points. It’s happening, it’s largely caused by people, and if left unchecked, it’s gonna cause significant damage. The precise extent of damage is obivously not known (in the same sense that we can watch a hurricane moving toward the gulf coast, but can’t predict ahead of time exactly how much damage it will cause.
The short answer: the jury is in, they’ve got the data, and the relevant debate to be having now is the one about how to most appropriately avoid and cope with the damages. This is a policy debate about how much to do and how to do it, NOT a scientific debate about whether global climate change is real. For that debate, please see the last 25 years of science.
The best place on the web to catch up on climate science is probably realclimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ which, with its conversational format, allows pretty clear explanations (if you’ve got plenty of time to read it).
April 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
This is so spectacularly awful, it’s almost impossible to know where to begin.
Probably the best example of Stossel’s level of seriousness is #5: “Building solar panels burns energy, as does trucking them and installing them. Not to mention taking them down again to repair them.”
Of course building, installing, and repairing solar panels takes energy–who in the world ever claimed otherwise? The only question is how much energy and CO2 do they save (gross savings minus expense of the hardware) over the life of a typical installation. If even that simple a piece of analysis is beyond him, then why in the world should anyone trust him on global warming instead of, say, the thousands of real scientists who worked for years on the IPCC reports and then got practically the whole world to sign off on their work?
[Mark C. Robinson Comment: Does it take more energy to manufacture a solar panel than it does to extract oil; drilling, transporting, and fighting the necessary wars?]
April 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Logical counterpoints to each:
1) Global warming “may be benign” but it just as well may be catastrophic. Joel Swisher, of the Rocky Mountain Institute compares the chances involved with rolling two dice, not the flip of a coin (simply good, or bad). There’s a good chance (rolling 6, 7, 8) that the scientific consensus is right on, and a small chance (2,3 or 11,12) that the consensus is too optimistic or pessimistic. Just because there’s a small chance of being benign, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything to help in case the consensus is right, or too optimistic.
2) As far as I know, plants aren’t starving for CO2 now-they have quite enough to happily do their business. The weather may change favorably for the desert, but with that change will come droughts in other, more highly inhabited places.
3) Point 3 is purely an opinion and cannot be logically argued as presented.
4) Nuclear power is the worst alternate-in addition to waste issues, it is the most expensive energy source we have, and only survives through subsidy. Instead, we should use renewables: every renewable (solar, wind, ocean, geothermal) has the ability to provide at least 1 to 20 times our total world energy needs, cleanly and safely.
5) The scientific and engineering community knows that renewables are not free of carbon footprint, but over their lifetimes, they are much less carbon-intense than anything else, and are much cleaner in terms of other pollutants that are major health risks.
6) Why is it nonsensical? I don’t even understand your argument. Renewables would definitely reduce all energy-related pollutants.
7) Hundreds of times more birds are killed by flying into windows than by windmills each year. Yes, we need a lot, but they have a very small footprint on the ground, and can be put on farms, with major profits for farmers.
8) The decimating blow of Kyoto? Studies said we’d need a carbon tax of $50/ton to meet Kyoto. Increases in gas and oil prices over the past few years have been equivalent to a carbon tax of more than $80/ton. We’re still surviving-simply exporting that money to our enemies instead of keeping it at home.
9) Why is it more responsible to slow it and not try to stop it? Should you slow your car before you hit the child in the crosswalk, or stop it? We can easily stop it, and we should.
10) We are used to, and dependent on the crops that farmers grow. Having us change our lifestyles based on what they would now grow, and uprooting farmers will have a greater impact on our lives than stopping climate change would.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Not to mention the fact that there are a million things we can do better that have no downside.
Production of solar panels has a cost alongside the positive effect of using them. Properly siting new buildings (for example)to take advantage of passive solar and breezes for passive cooling adds NOTHING to cost of the building or to the production of materials and this gives you a more efficient and more comfotable building that costs less money to operate.
I spend less money taking garbage to the transfer station when I recycle and compost, and my garden is beautiful.
I say even if the climate change issue is still in discussion (which I, personally, find hard to fathom) the financial and health benefits of working WITH our climate and environment win out.
Who cares if it’s real or not (I care)- all of the excellent research, progess, and re-discovered respect for resources that has come out of the debate is very cool.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Set aside the question of warming…the CO2 alone could be our undoing. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher now than in the past 400,000 years. Higher CO2 is already exacerbating asthma (plants produce more pollen) and dissolving our coral reefs (One quarter of the world’s coral reefs are gone and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is predicted to be gone by 2050). These are just two examples of the myriad ecological and health problems posed by increasing CO2 concentrations. The only non-suicidal response is to lower our contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. See the following studies. http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0321022.htm
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060121005225data_trunc_sys.shtml
April 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
From: Klaus Schiess PE, CEM
First some thoughts of mine or sayings that often surprise listeners.
Don’t worry about global warming, the earth will survive, perhaps we won’t, so what?
Or alternatively:
Global warming is the fever mother earth has to endure to get over the human virus.
The question is are we humans influencing global warming or not, and if yes to what extend. How we deal with it is a different story. Do something about our influences and try to reduce it or adjust which is also an answer. Perhaps the Sahara Desert may become a forest again, who knows?
Are we influencing global warming? I certainly believe so for some reason that to my surprise has not yet been published or introduced enough. Solar heat is our basic heat source now that the planed has cooled down enough that the internal heat does not have the marked effect it must have had when the surface was still hotter.
If we take the earth as a house and we consistently heat up our house by burning fuel that took probably million of years to store the solar energy and contain it in oil and gas, it just has to warm up the surface eventually. If in addition CO2 affects the radiation balance which we had before then of course there are two effects warming up the planet.
Heat is the lowest form of energy and thus every energy we use lands up eventually in the form of heat. If we burn oil, coal or gas it turns into heat and eventually our “house” will get warmer. If the effect of a few degrees can decide if we are going to have a hot planet or in the other direction an ice age, then of course we can just kiss our placid feelings good bye when we think the earth as being a safe place to live.
Stoessel’s contribution may be fueled by sensationalism but it may just get the discussion going which in itself is a good thing.
As an energy engineer trying to do energy conservation I have nearly reached the conclusion that Stoessel’s item #9 ( If the world is warming, it is much more reasonable to adjust to it, rather than try to stop it) . may just be the only way we have because and this is another slogan of mine:
In spite of all the hoopla about saving energy we have, especially in America, only done
ENERGY CONVERSATION rather than ENERGY CONSERVATION.
Klaus Schiess PE, CEM
KSEngineers
April 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
After studying the “global warming” hypothesis for more than year now I don’t see anything to worry about.
Burning coal isn’t a good idea for lots of reasons but not because of the CO2 produced.
If you really want to make a difference raise a couple of million dollars so Dr. Robert Bussard can do his proof of concept for his Inertial Electrodynamic Fusion reactor. Then we can all stop worrying about burning coal, solar cells and windmills.
Mike
[Comment from Mark C. Robinson: In studying the CO2, did you find that the graphs that show an exponential increase in concentrations are correct? I’d would be interested to know how you came by your conclusions.]
April 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
These are simple truths. We will respond with character and vision, or suffer our stupidity:
1) Global warming is happening (and human industrial activity is contributing) to a rate of change unprecedented in human history. Global temperature measurements, rapidly changing sea temperature and current patterns, receding glaciers and melting sea ice, increase in atmospheric CO2 and the production of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The ‘debate’, at least on the effect, is between a generally monolithic scientific knowledge base, and knowledge-free (stupid) people.
2) “The sky is falling” is hyperbole. The problem is that we cannot predict where it will go. There are certain to be changes and those changes will occur more rapidly than at any other time in human history. For every “forest in the Sahara” there may be floods that displace tens or hundreds of millions of people who will face disease and starvation. It may well be these things won’t happen. If I decide to take my bike down a fast decent from memory with my eyes closed, I may not wrap myself around a tree either. But I keep my eyes open. Maybe I’m just being alarmist.
3) Patterns of agriculture have long been established based on relatively well understood weather patterns. Food supplies will likely suffer greater transient fluctuations due to sharply modified weather patterns and more severe and unpredictable weather damaging crops. It’s not “the end of the world”. It’s increasing stress added to an increasingly stressed system. There are simply more breakdowns.
4) Much of our consumption of non-renewable resources is not only unnecessary, it’s pointless. “Running across town” (23-30 miles) for some trinket encased in wads of plastic, driving 90 mph on the interstate in an SUV with fat, low pressure tires, driving 3 miles to work instead of biking (and reaping rewards of good health and mental clarity) just don’t make sense. Conserving lowers consumption, industrial output, and the production of greenhouse gases while opening opportunities to develop new ‘industry’, locally grown produce, small renewable energy projects, and smaller, socially connected communities. Wouldn’t that just suck?
5) We are past global peak oil. This means we will be paying more and more for oil (and gas) and this simple fact makes conservation and development of renewable sources of energy inevitable as the economics evolve. It’s not even a debate. It’s just that the change fearing stupid people are going to have to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
Here’s a global warming analogy for your knuckle-dragging friends: It’s like a freight train going down hill. As long as you keep the speed down, and keep steady, firm pressure on the brakes and the engines, you’re fine. But if your speed gets too high it’s all over. The brakes and engines won’t work anymore, there’s too much inertia. You’re gonna derail.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:42 am
From:
Tom Nevin
South Africa
John Stossel’s claims refers
The world needs people like John Stossel. Not because he might be right or wrong about his dampeners over global warming, but because we need another view to stop us from becoming sheep. We really do need to consider the other side of the coin and, having done so, then make up our minds. Simply because 90% of the people on the planet take a position on a subject doesn’t necessarily make that position right.
The hysteria generated by global warming makes me nervous. It’s a human condition to jump on bandwagons simply because they’re rolling by - and just as quickly disembark when the novelty wears off or the topic becomes passe on the cocktail circuit.
A lot of people earn a lot of money by propelling intriguing causes, especially those that have a universal scare element. Forgive the cynicism, but people build careers and means of a living by stoking such fires of hype. An important part of their working day is to pump up the passion. I saw a headline to an article in a respected magazine the other day. “Chicken Little II”, it proclaimed, “A modern fairy tale about how environmentalists make a living by running around yelling that there’s a hole the sky”. It’s sad that an important issue must be so scorned, and stimulating that the feature will provoke discussion.
You will recall that about a decade or so ago, ‘desertification’ was all rage rage as a natural phenomenon that should be a worry. Then a research team at Uppsala university in Sweden obtained ten years of photographs taken by a satellite on a permanent orbit that took in the Sahara Desert.
Study of the photographs showed that the desert advanced in very dry times and retreated when the rains came, as they surely and eventually did. Unsurprisingly, the revelation caused little more than a ripple in the popular press but the uproar over the threat of encroaching deserts died away. You don’t hear about ‘desertification’ these days.
Media penetration today is more powerful and far-reaching than it was ten years ago and it must have a corollary in the numbers and intensity it can provoke. That is also a good thing because it allows for easier and deeper scrutiny and invites more voices.
So, if you’ve miss this particular hayride, don’t fret, another will be along by and by.
Tom Nevin
South Africa
[Reply from Mark C. Robinson:]
I’m wide open to disagreement and very much in support of ’shake-em-up’. If someone can contest the science that has been presented then I am willing to reverse my stand.
It is the points that Stossel is standing on here that bother me. They have all been thoroughly discussed and discarded.
The science behind the dangers of rising CO2 levels, pollution, deforestation, environmental toxins, and more has not been disputed. Suggesting that increased levels of CO2 may be good for the environment is no more reasonable than suggesting that cancer is good for a body. The only difference is that we haven’t seen any planets die of CO2 yet.
Comparing windmills to Cuisinarts does not present science, but is hype in itself, media-presented to sell books and television ads, borrowing the costs from our future generations.
[End Mark C. Robinson Reply]
[Tom Nevins]
Yes, I have seen Al Gore’s documentary, and my viewpoint holds. Al must have his say and
bring whatever evidence to the table he thinks necessary, just as Stossel has. I think there is no sight more tragic than grown people standing around agreeing unthinkingly with one another.
Open the debate.
Tom
[End Tom Nevins]
April 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am
In his attempts to substantiate point # 6 (solar is no solution), Mr. Stossel presents the example of the 300-acre Epcot Center theme park. He states, quoting the USDOE, that it would take 1000 acres worth of modules to produce all the electrical energy used by the park.
He’s only off by a factor of almost 10. It is easy to work up the numbers: with today’s most efficient modules, and given the solar resource of Florida, it would take roughly 110 acres worth of panels to supply the energy used by the park: about the size of their parking lots, walkways and buildings.
Mmm…this is not very good journalism. Have all the 20/20s that I watched over the years been similarly flawed?? This “stossels” it for me with ABC-20/20.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
from: Jeffery D. Wolfe, P.E.
Chief Executive Officer
grosolar Solar
Where do I begin? I’ve been trained in Gore’s slideshow, and have answers to all of these questions. Here’s a few brief answers
1. The fundamentalist doom mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign.
Scientific consensus is 100%. no PEER REVIEWED science is saying the effects are benign. Watch the show, and ask if there are any scientific papers shown, and research, or just a lot of “hot air”
2. CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
How does warmer weather end droughts? The elevated temperatures will evaporate more water from the ocean, causing more precipitation in some areas. BUT ALSO, the elevated temperatures will cause the moisture to evaporate faster from soils. The soil moisture slides from the research are compelling for the US. More severe droughts AND more flooding occurs. Moisture release (rain) is more dramatic, as increased evaporation leads to over saturated clouds and heavier rain events. And this is what we’re seeing. More heavy rain events. not anecdotal. Hard numbers in graphs of events per decade in every region (US, Europe, Asia)
3. The fuss over Kyoto is absurd.
Kyoto is a treaty. Kyoto is not global warming. That’s changing the debate. Maybe the “fuss over Kyoto” is absurd. The question Stossel is addressing is “Is global warming real”. He’s not addressing “Is Kyoto the right solution for global warming”. this is simply classic misdirection.
4. Nuclear power is the most practical alternative
What do we need alternatives for if global warming is not real? See number 3 above. If we’re into the debate about how to stop / address global warming, great.
5. Building solar panels burns energy, as does trucking them and installing them. Not to mention taking them down again to repair them.
Building nuclear plants takes energy too. In fact, building any type of plant takes energy. However, renewable energy plants of any kind have the ability to generate more energy than they took to be created. no fossil plant has that ability, as you have to keep dumping fossil energy in to them. And nuclear, from the best numbers I’ve seen, takes 17 years to pay back the fossil energy of plant construction and fuel refining / processing, to say nothing of decommissioning or long term storage. PV panels take 1 to 3 years to pay back their energy consumed in construction.
5. To think that solar energy could stop the predicted temperature increase is nonsensical.
Again, are we beyond the debate that global warming is happening? If so, I agree, solar energy alone is not enough. We need a portfolio of power. And what is the “fact” in this statement? Why is using solar power nonesensical? If we’re going to debate, let’s debate facts, not emotions.
6. Windmills are giant bird-killing Cuisinarts, and we would have to build lots of them to produce significant energy.
Emotions again. If you look at birds killed per MW generated, fossil fueled plants and extraction are higher. And if these wind turbines are so great at grinding up food, perhaps it becomes another food source for Mr. Stossel. Conventional plant cooling towers, with their huge fans, oxygen excluding hot plumes, etc., kill birds. Changed temperatures in cooling water in streams kills fish. Extraction technoogies (like mountain top removal) destroy habitat, which yes, kills birds, and reduces future generations as well.
7. Kyoto would decimate just about every Third World country’s economy, and deliver a catastrophic blow to our own.
Global warming is already decimating economies. How will Bangladesh’s economy run with much of the country submerged? Fighting global warming can be a huge economic engine. That’s why companies like Duke Energy, Alcoa, BP, and others have signed on asking for carbon controls. But again, are we talking about solutions, or about whether it is real? Yes, ExxonMobil, if it does not change it’s business, will lose. But other companies are winning. I believe that the fight against global warming will transform our economy in overall positive ways. One example of what not to do. The auto industry has successfully fought mileage standards for years, contributing to global warming. But we’ve been “protecting” our economy by doing that, in theory. But look at the market caps of major auto makers. In the last 18 months Toyota and honda are up 10 to 35%. GM and Ford are DOWN a similar amount. So by destroying the earth, using it a sa purpetual dumping ground and taking the profits, has resulted in WORSE business and more harm to our economy.
8. If the world is warming, it is much more reasonable to adjust to it, rather than try to stop it.
So is he agreeing that it’s occurring? If so, we can then debate how to deal with it.
9. Farmers can plant different crops or move north.
move north to where? The Artic ocean? Not much land there… It’s not just the heat, it’s the soil drying. Well up into Canada. Yes, some areas might grow crops better. And I’m sure that it’s no big del to move our entire agricultural sector into another country, and I’m sure those silly farmers would be willing to move anywhere, like they did during the dustbowl. And I’m sure that the other country would be glad to let us control that land, get that food, and have that economy as part of ours. Of course, asking ExxonMobil to change their business practice would be un-American, unconstitutional, and not possible. But move all the farmers, sure.
Oh, who tells them where to move to, and who pays for the economic impact?
For answers to climate questions, go to www.realClimate.org
I will cross blog with you on this and direct folks to your web site. blog.groSolar.com
Thanks for spearheading this. Particularly troubling after ABC had a GREAT Earth Day piece on with Diane Sawyer, with seeming truth and conviction. Now for the network to do this 2 weeks after Earthday, we should somehow BLAST the network.
Jeff
Jeffery D. Wolfe, P.E.
Chief Executive Officer
groSolar, What the World Needs. NOW
601 Old River Rd, Suite 3, White River Junction, VT 05001
800-374-4494 x3097 802-295-4417 Fax
Jeff@groSolar.com
www.groSolar.com
April 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Mr. Stossel has not seen these reports by climate researchers. Of course, they were not published in the US corporate media.
**********
Our worst fears are exceeded by reality.
1] Review of the year: Global warming, The Independent UK, 12/29/06
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2110651.ece
**********
….the change “is happening so extremely fast, much much faster than we have
seen in thousands and thousands of years.”
2] Arctic Region As Global Warming Barometer, AFP, 1/25/07
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Arctic_Region_As_Global_Warming_Barometer_999.html
**********
Surge in Temperature Astounds Climate Researchers in the U.K.
3] This year will be Britain’s warmest since records began, say scientists, Guardian,
12/14/06
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1971637,00.html
**********
“These changes are surprisingly rapid.”
4] Experts warn North Pole will be ‘ice free’ by 2040, London Times, 12/11/06
**********
“Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere much faster than scientists
expected….”
5] Surge in carbon levels raises fears of runaway warming, Guardian, 1/19/07
environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1994071,00.html
**********
“…the rapid melting is at a ‘tipping point’ beyond which it may not recover.”
6] Collapse of Arctic Sea Ice ‘Has Reached Tipping Point’, The Independent UK,
3/16/07
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2362744.ece
**********
“….. in recent years the rate of melting has accelerated and the sea ice is
showing signs of not recovering even during the cold, dark months of the
Arctic winter.”
7] Global December-February Temperature Warmest on Record, NOAA Website, March
2007
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm
**********
“It’s like it waited until conditions were just right and then it decided to get up
and run, not just walk.”….
8] Tundra Disappearing At Rapid Rate, Science Daily, 3/7/07
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305140830.htm
************
World’s Hottest January Ever Recorded
9] Tokyo sets snowless record, AFP, 2/11/07
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070211/sc_afp/japanclimatewarmingweather
***********
Sea levels are rising even faster than scientists predicted….
10] World’s sea levels rising at accelerating rate, Guardian, 2/2/07
environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004718,00.html
***********
11] Ten years left to avert catastrophe, The Independent UK, 2/2/07
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2208257.ece
***********
12] Is the New UN Global Warming Report Too Conservative?, Monthly Review,
2/17/07
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/cf170207.html
**********
13] Climate Change Impact ‘underestimated due to undeclared emissions’,
The Scottsman, 2/19/07
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=265432007
**********
14] Nasa scientist accuses White House of global warming cover-up, New Zealand
Herald, 3/20/07
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10429750
**********
15] Testimony by Dr. James Hansen: Political Interference with Government Climate
Change Science, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 3/19/07
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23642
April 29th, 2007 at 1:39 am
John Stossel is abusing his position as a public media figure. His claims are not scientifically supported, and most of all, very irresponsible. Furthermore, he should be ashamed of his poor reporting.
There is lack of research and support for his claims and worst, not even a glance at the other side. Mr. Stossel grabs onto one-liners such as “CO2 MAY actually be good for plants”, and uses this to support a broad claim that we do not need to be concerned with global warming.
What a shame. He has used none of his background in journalism or economics to develop a convincing or even somewhat valid claim.
He has also failed morally and ethically when he claims that the renewable energy industry is all about the money. As is the media these days, John.
Not to even mention the oil industry here is poor journalism - poor coverage of the energy issue. As is his exaggerated myths: “Signing the Kyoto Treaty Would Stop the Warming.” If someone actually made this claim as the end-all, be-all solution then they are obviously not someone educated in or respected on the subject. This is just data-mining - I’m sure you could find many outrageous statements on global warming to refute, but you are not doing your story or position any favors. Get some real data and information, and start from there.
His solutions include moving inland and having farmers just grow different crops and move north. Genius, John, just genius. If this was possible we wouldn’t have something called structural unemployment. We have endless lists of subsidies and other non-tariff barriers to protect these farmers that have no other skills, including learning the complexities of growing a completely different kind of crop. I hope the farmers that are global-warming naysayers realize that this is his solution.
Lastly, even if global warming is not 50% as bad as scientists or ‘doom mongers’, as he calls them, claim - and this is generous - then isn’t there STILL a point for advocating use of renewable energy and environmentally friendly practices? Even if our earth is not warming, our water levels are not rising and our air quality is not deteriorating, shouldn’t we still be aware that this CAN happen, or is happening on a smaller level, and what we can do about it? Farms and islands in Asia are flooding, while people in Africa can’t get drinking water. China is the fastest growing economy in the world and one of the largest producers, but entire cities don’t have access to electricity. The US is in an expensive (money and lives) war over energy, and it won’t solve the issue or be the last. Isn’t it our responsibility to take care of the Earth that we live off of? Shouldn’t we do a better job of educating our children than our parents did? What is so wrong with understanding how we can make the Earth a cleaner place?
I’m not sure what the cost to Mr. Stossel is of broader environmental education that he feels the need to refute it, but I hope he eventually realizes that he can use his position for some good. He doesn’t have to believe the world is going to end unless he puts solar panels on his roof, but I at least hope he is recycling, or taking some responsibility for himself - since he’s trying to convince others to live more recklessly.
Mr. Stossel, I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Ashamed of yourself for spreading such nonsensical opinionated material, and for doing such a poor job researching the subject.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Global warming due to the consumption of fossil fuels will eventually take care of itself as fossil fuels will not longer be viable ten years from now. Just look into Hubbert Peak Theory and discover that the reason to switch to alternative energy is not for the sake of global warming, but for the sake of the survival of modern human society. The earth will be fine, it is us who will be going back to become hunter - gatherers. As George Carlin said, “The earth is going to shake the human race off like a bad cold,”
April 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Global warming deniers, many funded in part by the oil industry, like to make the claim that computer modeling can’t possibly predict the effects of rising CO2 levels, a point reiterated in Stossel’s article. Meeting the Kyoto targets will not stop the warming, its only a first step in slowing it down before it becomes catastrophic.
Contrary to what the article states there are countries who will meet their Kyoto targets and still maintain thriving economies. There are presently solar power plants supplying power to over 100,000 homes in the US which use technology that is over 10 years old.
Just think what the potential could be as the technology and the political will to implement it improves.
Does John Stossel want to stop the construction of high rise buildings and telecommunication towers which contribute more to the death of birds that any wind-turbine? I would suggest that the change in climate on the east coast in the past five years has killed more birds than all the wind farms in North America combined. Extremely wet and windy springs , combined with lower temperatures due to cloud cover and strong Atlantic breezes have contributed to reductions in migrating songbird populations.
The US may have financial ability to build dikes to prevent ocean intrusion, I’m not sure that is the case for Bangladesh and the poorer nations. Didn’t seem to work for Katrina however, and I’m not sure when the Netherlands last got hit by a category 4 hurricane. I guess the chances improve with continued warming.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
The benefits to crop production cited by John Stossel are certainly true in some areas, and definitely not for others. The benefits are what keep us from going completely out of control in our climate. The change is rapid and much of mankind is not ready or equipped to adapt. This is when extinction becomes a possibility, after all consider the polar bears. What is amazing to me is that in this day of technological power that Stossel can come to such an atogonistic conclusion, but that journalism is it?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
This is a email I sent to John Stossel:
Dear Mr. Stossel-
I read that you are going to claim that wind turbines are nothing but bird killing Cusinarts in your report Friday night.
While there may be some truth to that with old wind turbine technology, it certainly is not true for the current technology of wind turbines.
Old turbines were much smaller - often 30 feet in diameter. All “propeller type” wind turbines operate at a relatively fixed range of blade tip speed to wind speed ratio of somewhere between 8:1 to 12:1, depending on the design. For example, if the wind speed is 20 mph (1,760 feet per minute), the tip of the blade on 8:1 machines will be moving about 160 miles per hour (or 14,080 feet per minute) . With an older 30 ft diameter blade, the circumference (distance at the tip per revolution) would be 94 feet, which yields 149 revolutions per minute. Using the much larger, more modern turbines with 200 foot diameter blades, the tip speed will still be 160 miles per hour (14080 feet per second) but it will only take 22 revolutions per minute to yield that with the larger circumference.
It is thought that with the old, smaller turbines, birds could not see the blades due to the high rpm. Bird kill rates are way down with the larger turbines. Also, the towers the older machines were mounted on were often made of a lattice construction, which gave the birds a place to roost, then they would start flying right into the blades, whereas the new ones have tubular towers with no real perching places.
Another issue was that when counts were done of bird kills, they did it by walking underneath the towers and counting the carcasses. They didn’t do a count on similar terrain without wind turbines, which would reflect the deaths from other causes, then subtracting that figure from the data under the wind turbines.
So yes, there were bird kill problems with first generation (1980’s) wind turbines, particularly golden eagles in the Altamont Pass area of California. Those sites in the Altamont Pass area are being re-powered with larger turbines, and the county zoning board did place some restrictions based on golden eagles flight characteristics. But modern turbines are doing a much better job, and relative to other causes of bird kills, they are relatively insignificant.
While you’re at it, are you also going to knock roads, buildings, communication towers, cats, and power lines for their bird kills? If you go to this web site:
http://www.focusonenergy.com/data/common/dmsFiles/W_RI_MKFS_Windturbinesandbirdsv0207.pdf
they talk about one TV transmission tower in Eau Claire, Wisconsin that killed at least 1,000 birds a night for 24 nights in a row, and an astounding 30,000 birds in a single night! So are you going to recommend that ABC shut down broadcasting and take down their towers? And what about all the birds killed by the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez? Are you going to stop buying oil products? That web site claims that 5,000 to 10,000 birds are going to be killed by other human causes for each bird killed by wind turbines. So even if we increased our wind power 20-fold, it would be a relatively small cause of bird mortality.
As the Audubon Society said when they came to the position of supporting wind development “With a coal-fired power plant, you can’t count the carcasses, but it’s going to kill a lot more birds.” See http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46840
In the states from Montana to New Mexico, Texas to Minnesota, we have enough wind resource to provide the equivalent of six times our national electrical needs. Doesn’t it make sense to tap into this clean power that has come down in price to be competitive with coal?
Steven Herr
Kenosha, WI
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
John Stossel’s statements of opinion are utterly absurd. The answers posted here are well researched and stated, especially by Jeff Wolfe. And D. Beck’s links are very informative.
Apart from the climate change issue, simply on the basis of energy sustainability, investing in renewable energy in non-oil producing countries is a national security issue. The U.S. military is investing in and installing renewable energy for security reasons. By NOT funding war and terrorism with our petro-dollars, we gradually wean ourselves off foreign oil.
In response to his Myth #3
Just published today in the Chicago Tribune. “The first refugees of global warming, Bangladesh watches in horror as much of the nation gives way to sea.” By Laurie Goering
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published May 2, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705010817may02,1,7033000.story
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:23 am
From Eric Pfeiffer
At this point, discussion needs to end over whether it
exists or not to mobilizing resources to adapt.
I argue that the first and substantial ‘tipping point’ came
around 1985 with the effective end of the arctic oscillation as
it had been for decades. The rapid and accelerating warm up
in the northern latitudes began with that event. Further tipping
points are on hand but we will recognize them decades after they
have passed.
Global warming theory is falling apart as formed the basis of
Koyoto. We need to depoliticize that research and find others
without bias to revisit the theory. Proponents and opponents need
to recognize it as science theory and allow it to evolve. The most
recent data showing the arctic ice cap melting much faster than
warming theory predicts and Greenland melting faster also warrants
a new search for missing components.
With peak energy production already upon us, ideas to curb
warming that require vast new expenditures of energy are
not realistic, and in fact will be doomed by rapidly increasing
costs, and declining finances to fund them.
Moving food production northward is a myth. The recent
removal of glaciers in the those far northern latitudes means
little or no topsoil exists, just bedrock with some minimal soil
in drainage areas.
Again, I argue that this entire debate is pointless. It is a
means of avoiding reality. The earth is changing and we must
also. Our best recourse involves learning to grow food in warmer
climates. We need to focus on life without winter. The earth has
been there before and is headed there again. It is not doom,
just a different lifestyle. The time for “why” has passed.
Eric
May 8th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Having moved to Maine 30 years ago based on a belief our climate would warm up and make life here more bearable; I have embraced the uptick in temps., the longer growing seasons, and the enormous energy savings and many other benefits–like cold weather related health problems.
As an organic gardener, I am able to stretch the growing season by two/three weeks in the spring and the fall; and can now double crop and plant varieties that were a stretch a few decades ago–peaches anyone?…… WHEEEE!
Car maintenance and fuel consumption has been reduced considerably; wearing fewer clothes is another benefit.
I started writing about the coincidence in the rise of temps over the N. Hemisphere over the past 50 years and the rise in jetplane traffic & H2O emissions into the greenhouse layer five years ago, after being alerted to their impact by UK and Swiss climatologists.
Deafening silence ensued!…I’m known by carbon traders as the ‘jetplane guy’.
I smugly quote research findings; but nothing but ‘crickets’ from the ever greedy carbon traders secure in their non-profit castles.
Since the science on this is largely settled, I turned my attention to the topic which drew me into air pollution 40 years ago and that was the impact of the urban environment on air pollution and heating patterns.
Go GOOGLE “urban heat plume” to bone up on the impact urban development has had on warming….now add in suburban parking lots and lots of black roofs and you have an enormous heat sink.
Nowhere have I found anyone integrating the impact on climate of this enormous paving of America and construction of high-rise buildings!
Just the uncessing drum beat to limit C02 emissions!
Time to scrutinize the role carbon traders have had on public policy and I congratulate Stossel for serving as a lightening rod for climate warming skeptics.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Thanks! After showing “An Inconvenient Truth” as a “wrap-up” to our environmental science unit to my gifted 7th graders, I received marked pages from John Stossel’s book on the topic of Global Warming from one of the parents. As promised I read the exerpt, but had “environmental friendly” fuel to respond with by reading this blog.
June 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
It’s not just that waterhead John Stossel. There are too many global warming deniers out there, it seems like more and more every day, calling the anti-emissions movement a global swindle and hoax, a myth, a conspiracy of depopulationists, global government types, and self-serving politicians like Paul Watson, Maurice Strong and Al Gore; and saying that we believers and activists are zealots of some new “Ecotheist” religion; that we are dupes, victims of pop-culture hysteria - and worse! They seek to obscure the facts and deny the consensus about the most critical issue of our time and the direst threat ever faced by our precious Mother Earth!
I would love to see a skilled writer tackle some of these books and review/debunk them. These books distract from the fact the debate has long been over and the time for action is now. We are running out of time to get the populace fully behind this. We can’t just ignore these heretics and traitors. Everyone who is concerned about this issue should read some of these books to see what their enemies are up to.
[From Mark C Robinson. Thank you for this great booklist. All these titles are available here: The Energy Grid Bookstore]
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher C. Horner.
“Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming”, by Patrick J. Michaels
“Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years”, by Dennis T. Avery
“Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”, by Patrick J. Michaels
“The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming”, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.
“The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World”, by Bjorn Lomborg
“The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change”, by Henrik Svensmark
“Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”, by Ronald Baily
“Global Warming - Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology”, by Marcel Leroux
“Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming”, by S. George Philander
“Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming”, by Thomas Gale Moore
“It’s the Sun, Not Your SUV: Co2 Will Not Destroy the Earth”, by John Zyrkowski
“Global Warming: The Truth Behind the Myth”, by Michael L. Parsons
“Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial”, by Mihkel M. Mathiesen
“Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints”, by Tamara L. Roleff
“Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?”, by Dixie Lee Ray
“Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate”, by S. Fred Singer
“Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming”, by Christopher Essex
“Apocalypse Not: Science, Economics, and Environmentalism”, by Ben Bolch
“Silencing Science”, by Steven Milloy
“Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds”, by Charles Mackay
“State of Fear” by Michael Chrichton
June 13th, 2007 at 6:14 am
A well-done study of bird kills by a wind far is documented here:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48900
It shows, clearly, that the number of bird kills is minimal… It is comparable to the bird kills of a large, clean, plate-glass window or a housecat.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Global warming is World wide. Data does not indicate an end.
The dinosaurs were wiped out and we may be on our way.
To prepare we must minimize the burning or use of carbon, life or
fossil.
Intermediate stages will use other sources for power.
Atomic power is omitted until the waste problem has been solved.
This means go solar, wind, wave, and biomass in power. There is not
enough land to replace fossil energy sources with ethanol and we need
the forests. Use under 6V LEDs, become more vegetarian, recycle.
Use other than corn and stop the tariff on Brazil’s biofuel.
References:
www.eia.doe.gov Government data on energy.
www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ data on glaciers and graphs of
temperature from 900 CE.
www.thebulletin.org/columns/toshiyuki-toyoda/20070212.html
From The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
65.108.108.197/ Solar cooking, minimizes gas
and electricity consumption.
www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9441785
10% to 25% of the CO2 from planes.
www.eartharchitecture.org/ Eliminates wood and transportation.
www.organicconsumers.org/organic/norm071805.cfm
Uses less water and energy.
www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova.sun/contrail.html Possible effects of contrails.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Of course, this is old news by now, but on principle, I must correct a minor error I made in my previous comment. Wind and solar have the potential to provide far more than 1 to 20 times the energy we will need in 2050. Ocean, geothermal, and hydro can not individually provide all of what we need, but they can each provide at least a sixth of the energy pie in 2050.