|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Global warming....etc. (4/9/2007 4:17:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
FirmKY-thanks for the thoughtful and cogent response- If I may address some of your points-and restate in my own words to make certain that I understand your viewpoint-
1) Your viewpoint is that we need a fundamentally sound scientific reason to alter our infrastructure in the dramatic fashion often espoused by global warming alarmists since it will be expensive as shown by the abortive attempts in the '70s.
2) The science does not back up the oft shrill assertion that global warming will lead to tremendous disruption in the near future.
The science of global warming isn't really all that tough to understand on a theoretical basis.
...
So is the science rock solid- like the theory of gravity? Nooo, but it's probably as good as the CFC hypothesis which seems to have been accurate.
Good summary, sam. I don't disagree in any way about your points.
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
Now to point #1- the economic consequences. My grumble with economists is that often when they can't calculate a cost- they simply ignore it. Some of the other posters have made the point that the current oil industry receives a magnificent subsidy in the form of a military force to ensure access to oil for the global market. Since oil is a globally traded commodity, the fact that the US doesn't buy oil directly from Iraq is disingenuous at best.
It's a fungible asset.
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
Clearly one could also point out that the war may have been unnecessary since oil production in Iraq has fallen since the invasion. However, what is clear is that there is NO current economic cost for emitting CO2 in the US in terms of power production.
There is a massive economic penalty for one country to make such a change unilaterally, while others do not, especially if there is no pressing need to do so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
You comment that the spending on alternatives in the 70s was largely wasted money since no practical industries sprang out of it -certainly a valid viewpoint.
That's not my viewpoint. The money spent was not wasted. But trying to transition the US or world economy to any of the alternate energy technologies in the 70s would have been a very expensive and disruptive proposition, at a time when the apparent need was much higher than the actual need.
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
From my perspective- Reagan's cuts of NREL in the 80s may have indirectly lead to the Iraq war- if solar power were more advanced today, the political power of oil producing nations decreases. But of course it's hard to tell where research would have been 20 years ago- research depends on advancements made in other areas- there's lots of serendipity. There's a truism in science- if we knew what we were doing, they wouldn't call it research. Research does involve going down blind alleys- lots of them. So far we haven't found anything that works better though. My comment about the research done in the 1970s- if we had continued with the goal of energy independence, and actually written the checks for it through the 80s, the world would be a different place today. It's possible that our economy might have tanked with the additional tax burden- or it's possible that it might have grown stronger. Spending on Star Wars was clearly a waste- and if that money had been directed towards increasing our energy independence, well, instead we chose to buy cheap oil. Can we agree to disagree about how that's worked out?
I disagree that money spent on SDI was a waste, but - yes - that's a separate thread. But much of the funds were spent on the very basic research that you later argue for otherwise.
But excellent points about the serendipity of science, and research. And while wondering and conjecture about "what ifs" and "what might have beens" are interesting, they are not illustrative.
I can only make an observation about the states of technologies in the early 70's versus now, in the end of the first decade of the 21st century.
Computer technology as an example for instance, but more importantly, the changes in materials technology and our understanding of physics. The term "information society" had no meaning at the time, and nano-tech wasn't even in science fiction.
Ever heard of Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns?
And research on the specifics of alternate energy generation didn't end. It has been ongoing ever since - just not with high US government subsidies.
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
The chemical industry may provide a useful analogy to the hypothetical high costs of reducing CO2 emissions.
...
What the chemicals producers found was that the plants were more efficient- and in the long run, proved to be more economical to operate than the previous generation of plants with large waste streams-as long as the cost of the waste stream was included.
...
If you need a second example- look at automotive mfg.
...
What does this have to do with power generation? Well, since most of the power plants in operation have been around for awhile and have a fair amount of inefficiency- DOE figures show maybe 30% efficiency for power generation- there's clearly room to improve.
FirmKY- it sounds like you're betting that those improvements in efficiency are going to be expensive. I'll agree that they'll cost more now- but I'll bet in the long run, they actually drop the cost of power as well.
Well reasoned, and on point. Great argument and well supported. We rarely see this level of discourse here, sam.
I really don't disagree with you at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
Hence, by not doing anything, the US will be faced with more expensive power in 20 years than the countries that are making these investments now. But I'll be the first to admit- this is a guess, based largely on the track record of what's happened in other industries. It's certainly possible that power generation will prove to be an exception.
My concern is the method and time scale of any transition to alternate energy sources and power generation methods.
Most of the popular, and many of the political people who wish to see such a transition based simply on the "disaster" of global warming serve a valuable purpose in moving the discussion forward.
However, many of them are also relying on junk science, propaganda, and claims of absolute knowledge that skew the required time frame, and present a less than accurate picture of what is happening.
Bad information almost always leads to bad policy decisions. The amount of bad and misinformation about "global warming" is amazing. How can you make reasonable and effective decisions in an atmosphere of hysteria?
You can't, and you won't.
Some points of discussion:
1. I conditionally accept that there seems to be a world-wide temperature rise.
2. I conditionally accept that increased levels of CO2 are having, and will have an impact on the continuing temperature rise.
Now, almost everything else is speculation, theorizing and hysteria.
There is, in the popular imagination, pictures and talk of the ice caps melting, and the entire world flooding (see the Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning thread), the temperatures of the world rising to such an extent that the entire world becomes a desert.
Some questions I have:
3. If all manmade CO2 production stopped immediately ... would the temperature rise stop? Decline? Level out? How long would any of these take?
4. How much of an impact does the manmade CO2 actually have?
5. Has the world ever had the same levels of CO2 that is projected to exist in 100 years? If so, what was the world's weather like?
6. What is it, exactly, that we are trying to stop or reduce with a reduction of manmade CO2? (yes, the "greenhouse effect", I know. I'm talking about what changes can we reasonable see in terms of human impact on a massive reduction of manmade CO2 output?).
7. Who has a long term plan, based on current technology and CO2 output, that can tell us how we can go about reducing that output, and the likely effects it will have on the lives and economies of the majority of the earth's inhabitants? What are the trade-offs?
Some of these questions you may point me to the IPCC reports as answers to. However, I believe that their conclusions, levels of certainty and reliability have become infected with political agendas, and are therefore basically worthless (another thread, but I can give you plenty of examples).
My point in response to your argument about making power generation more efficient is that I don't disagree with you, except for the "rush" to make a decision - any decision - when the people making the arguments that they are required immediately do not have my confidence.
I want to join your arguments about efficiency and mine about timing to illustrate a point that you might be missing.
If the US had lead a massvie "manhattan" style government program to convert to alternate energy sources during the 70s, we would currently be stuck with an outdated, inefficient and expensive hybrid system.
The nations of the world who had not made that investment would have continued to use older technologies, and advanced economically, while the US would have spent a large part of it's capital in such systems, and not reached it's current economic point of growth.
As newer and more efficient technologies became available, then the US would have had to once again, spend the massive funds to do it all over again, while the other nations would have only had to make the investment once, and learned from our errors.
At some point, yes, it will have to be done. But done with massive waste of human, material and financial resources that a "fix it right now!" plan calls for, or one in which allowing the market to integrate it without a massive penalty, and as knowledge and technologies grows and allows better solutions?
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
