Global Warming?

[Rob-D]

Local coop that I get my power from, is getting power from wind & Solar, they give $$ & Credits for installation and have a buy back program. Who is paying for it?? Me and other folks with Much, Much higher rates than those people in Tucson that get their power from coal. Yep its about 40%. I know this is hard for you to believe, but people in Tucson are not dying from acid rain or cancer from the coal plant. That coal is not transported 1,500 miles by the way. ADDRESS THAT.

Coal pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Coal pipelines are pipelines used to transport coal from where it is mined to where it is consumed. For very short distances, large trucks are used to transport coal, but trains and barges are preferred for long distances. In some cases it is more economical to move the coal by pipeline than by train or barge. This can happen when there is no suitable railway or waterway to transport the coal, or when it must be moved very long distances."

"Large coal power plants use a phenomenal amount of coal each day; enough to fill a hundred train coal cars carrying 100 tons each. Water used to transport the coal is likewise significant, particularly in arid regions like the Southwestern United States."

The people in Arizona are affected by acid rain and pollution just like the rest of us. Do people there eat fish from the oceans, how about tuna high in mercury? Where do you think that pollution comes from?

Rob

 

[Cat_Driver]

You and I must be getting our weather news from different planets. The planet I am getting my weather news from says last year, 2011 broke and set all kinds of new records. Even the great State of Texas was impacted. The same planet I get my weather news from is predicting another reecord year in 2012.

I love it when people CHERRY PICK data to enforce bad science. OH HEY LOOK, it was record high on last Tuesday, a month ago, so lets charge everyone on the planet $2,000 so we can not have that happen again. BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Thank you Al Gore.

How about some REAL facts from the GOVERNMENT:

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9ｰF since 1880 . These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present.

I just lowered my AC because that 0.9ｰF in 132 years is making me sweat.

For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22ｰF per decade near the surface and 0.27ｰF per decade in the mid-troposphere.

WOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS.......This report from the Government actually confirms that TEMPERATURES actually - GO UP.....and GO DOWN......

Gee whoda thought. WOW, that's some great science there Skippy. I'll betcha the cave men also realized .....that TEMPERATURES actually - GO UP.....and GO DOWN......


Wake up people, PALLEEEEZZZEEEEEE. There is no global warming, it's designed to take money out of your pocket. If you want money talked out of your pocket because of Junk science, just mail the EPA a check, and leave the rest of us with an actual brain in our heads alone - huh?

Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[Rob-D]

I love it when people CHERRY PICK data to enforce bad science. OH HEY LOOK, it was record high on last Tuesday, a month ago, so lets charge everyone on the planet $2,000 so we can not have that happen again. BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Thank you Al Gore.

How about some REAL facts from the GOVERNMENT:

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9??ｰF since 1880 . These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present.

I just lowered my AC because that 0.9??ｰF in 132 years is making me sweat.

For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22??ｰF per decade near the surface and 0.27??ｰF per decade in the mid-troposphere.

WOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS.......This report from the Government actually confirms that TEMPERATURES actually - GO UP.....and GO DOWN......

Gee whoda thought. WOW, that's some great science there Skippy. I'll betcha the cave men also realized .....that TEMPERATURES actually - GO UP.....and GO DOWN......


Wake up people, PALLEEEEZZZEEEEEE. There is no global warming, it's designed to take money out of your pocket. If you want money talked out of your pocket because of Junk science, just mail the EPA a check, and leave the rest of us with an actual brain in our heads alone - huh?

Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Global Warming Impact Zones | U.S. Alaska

"Melting ground and sea ice destroying villages

Since the middle of the 20th century, Alaska has warmed 3 degrees Fahrenheit and its winters have warmed nearly 6 degrees. The predictions are even more dire. By the end of the 21st century, Alaska's annual average temperature is expected to rise by about 8 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit compared to the 1960s and 70s if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated. The dramatic temperature changes in Alaska are already causing the landscape to change faster than anywhere else in the United States, threatening infrastructure, wildlife, and Native Alaskan culture."

"Alaskan villages, like Shishmaref above, are finding the land they call home literally melting out from underneath them. Warmer winters have allowed the once reliably frozen tundra, called permafrost, to thaw, causing homes and buildings to sink and foundations and roads to crack and warp.

Reduction in protective sea ice and rising sea levels makes coastal villages more vulnerable to storm surges and increased erosion. As global warming changes the contours of Alaska's coasts, whole villages are confronted with the necessity of relocating inland at a cost of tens of millions of dollars according to an Army Corps of Engineers analysis.

But coastal villages are not the only things at risk in Alaska. Water and sanitation infrastructure throughout Alaska is threatened by thawing permafrost. Structures such as roads, buildings, pipelines, and power lines built on top of permafrost may shift, warp, or collapse as the ground melts and softens. Damage from permafrost thawing, increased flooding and coastal erosion as a result of global warming could add $3.6 to $6.1 billion to costs of public infrastructure in Alaska by 2030."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/s...ls-climate-change-worries.html?pagewanted=all

But those calculations were deliberately cautious. A recent survey drew on the expertise of 41 permafrost scientists to offer more informal projections. They estimated that if human fossil-fuel burning remained high and the planet warmed sharply, the gases from permafrost could eventually equal 35 percent of today's annual human emissions.

The experts also said that if humanity began getting its own emissions under control soon, the greenhouse gases emerging from permafrost could be kept to a much lower level, perhaps equivalent to 10 percent of today's human emissions.

Nothing to break a sweat about! Everything will be fine..... or not!

 

[crash325]

This always amuses me,we want to get the government out of it. We went to the moon, that was tax dollars paying for technology, rich and poor and that technology has helped us all. Private enterprise just went to the space station and are going again next month.

Pollution is a real problem, acid rain from coal, has polluted our oceans and lakes, I have posted links here showing the devastation from that. I have posted links showing the massive pollution from coal fired electric plants that bring us 54% of our electricity, the leaking coal slurries in WV and NC, etc. These problems were being addressed and cured. That started a long time ago when it was found that a coal plant in N. AZ was causing a problem. It didn't take another 2,600 new regulations.

Whether we accept CC or not, world pollution is a real problem that we have to address.
So your solution is to get the government out of it? That's not a solution, a solution might be to find a way to have a low pollution foot print but you burn wood which is adding to acid rain and pollution. Wood wither burned for heat or left laying on the ground is going to emit the same amount of pollution.

We subsidize wars in the middle east to secure oil, are you against that too?
Yes, get out of the Mid East, let them kill each other.

We have no idea how much oil there is in the ground (Wrong, There are proven reserves. ) and if we did it wouldn't stop the polluting from that oil, the smog on our roads the sickness the World Health Org. states is coming from that pollution and the expense to everyone on this planet paying for the ill effects of that pollution. Hate to bust your bubble on this one. Without crude oil there would be no Highways to drive on. USA has auto pollution pretty much under control. With all things figured in electric cars add more pollution than conventional gas or diesel.

So, do you have a solution? A solution on the individual level that is actually subtracting from world pollution and not adding to it. I'm all ears. Open them and your eyes as well.

Rob

Go read my posts in the Pick EM Up thread. Every building there was made from used material. House that was moved out there is now over 100 years old. Without some TLC it would have fallen down and rotted long ago.

In the 1940's my family moved 2 houses and reset them on our property. They are still there and being lived in.

In the 50's my Grandfather started restoring the Court House in Tombstone. Windows were first on the list. Every window frame was removed and rebuilt. Where the wood was too rotted to save, it was cut out and replaced with similar old wood. It's now a museum.

The big house in town was remodeled in the 40's. The Adobe's were made right there in the yard. As much as possible all wood needed was used.

In the late 50's Grandad rebuilt the OK Coral. Wood and adobe's were from a building that had fallen down.

As much as possible everything that I build is made from used or natural material.

Without the steam engine and the coal to make it run, you could not be doing what you do. The industrial revolution did not happen because governments gave money & paid for it. Does your company make things to sell? Or do they need taxpayer $ to stay in business and pay your wages???

About 15 years ago I patented an invention. No company or government help. The injection machines ran off of 3 phase 440 volt electric. Might be a little hard to get out of a solar panel. I see you are pushing for DC current, I don't know of any 3 phase DC. Change all those motors??? Great plan there are millions of them, may pollute just a little.

As I have said before, since I don't fit into your ideas of taking care of the planet, it just does not count.

Glad that I can amuse you. You need a little hummer in you life.

 

[Rob-D]

Private enterprise just went to the space station and are going again next month.

Ike started NASA in 1958. We went to the moon on taxpayer dollars, NASA is a government org! How do you think "private Enterprise" got to where they are?

These problems were being addressed and cured. That started a long time ago when it was found that a coal plant in N. AZ was causing a problem. It didn't take another 2,600 new regulations.

Coal problems have not been addressed and cured. Do you make this stuff up or what?

10 Harsh Realities of the US Coal Industry


Excerpted from the Union of Concerned Scientist Clean Energy report

You can download a PDF version by going here: Facts on the pollution caused by the US Coal Industry

A typical-sized 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant in the United States puts out each year:

1. 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.

2. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.

3. 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.

4. 500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.

5. 220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don稚 burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.

6. 720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.

7. 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plantç—´ exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.

8. 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments.

9. Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOEç—´ Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.

10. A 500 megawatt coal-fired electrical plant burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone a year.

Wood wither burned for heat or left laying on the ground is going to emit the same amount of pollution.

What?? Where do you get this??? Absolutely wrong!

USATODAY.com - Hidden cost in wood burning: Pollution

"Scientists have long known that wood smoke contains carbon monoxide and cancer-causing chemicals. But research shows that wood smoke's major ingredient tiny particles of soot and liquid pollution worsens heart disease and triggers asthma attacks.

This "particle pollution," also emitted by diesel engines, kills thousands of Americans a year. Alarmed by such findings, and required by federal law to cut particle pollution, officials across the USA are trying to reduce the smoke from the nation's 37 million home chimneys and 10 million wood stoves."

Wrong, There are proven reserves.

The last great oil find was in the North Sea... the year we went to the moon!
In 2005 OPEC forced countries to only sell oil respective to their reserves. Oil reserves somehow miraculously tripled! We have no idea whatsoever how much oil is in the ground.

Hate to bust your bubble on this one. Without crude oil there would be no Highways to drive on. USA has auto pollution pretty much under control. With all things figured in electric cars add more pollution than conventional gas or diesel.

What?? electric cars are zero pollution. The only pollution they create is in their construction and charging and if you charge them from alternatives they have zero pollution. Construction pollution is negated because conventional cars also pollute when constructed.

Where's your data on this??

Half of global car exhaust produced by US vehicles | Environment | The Guardian

"Half of global car exhaust produced by US vehicles

Hummers and SUVs blamed for high emissions
Average US car does less than 20mpg, says study"

Glad that I can amuse you. You need a little hummer in you life.

Hummer? I didn't know they made "little hummers" but no thanks if they are like big Hummers they pollute too much! But you do amuse me!

Rob

 

[rsewill]

There is a tendency through ignorance to underestimate what the established generation actually does. It will never be tenable for utility company conventional generation to act as emergency backup for inconsistent technologies without those generators being adequately compensated for that role, nor should they have to handle and assure all the reactive power needs are met while others claim the proceeds of real power production.

I heard an interview on the radio of the manager of a wind farm. The interviewer asked about the practicality of an all-wind system because the wind doesn't always blow. The manager said that if he had excess wind capacity they could turn water into hydrogen and oxygen and pump the hydrogen underground to later be burned in a station. They did not have that capability at that time because it wasn't needed and I know of no farm that does. But it is practical not unlike carbon sequestration.

 

[Redneck in training]

There are several underground compressed air storage facilities. One is in Alabama (if I remember it right) in operation for many years, one is under construction in Iowa and there several more scattered around the world. Iowa facility is built specifically for excess wind energy storage. They are not completely pollution free but can smooth out wind variations. The air is pumped in depleted natural gas formations, salt caverns and similar formations using off peak power. The compressed air is then used as combustion air in a gas turbine powering a peak generator.
The off peak wind power can also be used to pump water to elevated location and use it to power generators during peak. There are quite few of those around the USA. They provide night load to coal burning plants during low demand (in example during night time) and supply power during high demand. Water pumping energy storage is virtually pollution free. Another advantage is the capacity can be brought on line within minutes. Blue Mesa in southern CO is one of them.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/compressed-air-plants/

 

[EE_Bota]

NASA was for military and geo-political purposes. Government is charged with defense and this was part of the cold war. The private sector was involved, but the tab was picked up by the government because it was a money hole, not a profitable venture. There were helpful offshoots, providing things we all appreciate, however.

The private flight to space had 300 million dollars of seed money from NASA. This could be substantial, and considered a subsidy, or it could be considered advance payment for the flight we just saw, I don't know which because I am not acquainted with the economics of space flight.

Off peak storage of energy via elevated water was in use with I was in engineering school, and that has been quite some time now. However, the compressed air underground is new to me. I hope the pressures are pretty low, else we may have the old "it is causing earthquakes" claim we are hearing about fracking.

 

[newbury]

My Solution is to get the government out of it, end all subsidies from gov or power co's.

if the technology is great & good it will stand on its own. People will go there of their own accord.

If you know history most major advances were greatly sped up by government funding. You may have heard of a place called America. Occasionally sighted by explorers but it really didn't kick off until the Queen of Spain funded Columbus.

Maybe you've heard of Radar?
The Panama Canal? Funding for transportation.
The computer? Navy funding to compute artillery tables.
The US interstate system?

Companies ignore technology if it is not profitable for THEMSELVES.

No one would have paid for the recent SpaceX if it didn't have a shuttle to go to and tons of government backed research before it.

I love it when people CHERRY PICK data to enforce bad science. OH HEY LOOK, it was record high on last Tuesday, a month ago, so lets charge everyone on the planet $2,000 so we can not have that happen again. BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Thank you Al Gore.

How about some REAL facts from the GOVERNMENT:

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9???ｰF since 1880 . These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present.

I just lowered my AC because that 0.9???ｰF in 132 years is making me sweat.

For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22?ｰF per decade near the surface and 0.27?ｰF per decade in the mid-troposphere.

WOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS.......This report from the Government actually confirms that TEMPERATURES actually - GO UP.....and GO DOWN......



Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

So you must be loving yourself to CHERRY PICK from a report that includes

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1ｰF.
The Earth鮴 surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ｺF/decade or 2.9ｰF/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.

At least you finally provided a reference from an organization that is scientifically respected.

 

[EE_Bota]

If you know history most major advances were greatly sped up by government funding. You may have heard of a place called America. Occasionally sighted by explorers but it really didn't kick off until the Queen of Spain funded Columbus.

Maybe you've heard of Radar?
The Panama Canal? Funding for transportation.
The computer? Navy funding to compute artillery tables.
The US interstate system?

Companies ignore technology if it is not profitable for THEMSELVES.

No one would have paid for the recent SpaceX if it didn't have a shuttle to go to and tons of government backed research before it.




So you must be loving yourself to CHERRY PICK from a report that includes

At least you finally provided a reference from an organization that is scientifically respected.

The examples you cite are either military or geo-political, well in the realm of defense.
Two things others debate as being at least a threat: Energy and our deficit/debt.