Global Warming...the true facts ?

[TedTheLed]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

using electric vehicles instead if gas combustion has another advantage; you don't burn to death.
the story of the Pinto seems to illustrate the problems with 'progress' in a microcosm:

"
Pinto Crash Test

The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit.
"..
In 1972 the NHTSA had been researching and analysing auto fire causes for four years. During that time, nearly 9,000 people burned to death in flaming wrecks. Tens of thousands more were badly burned and scarred for life. And the four-year delay meant that well over 10 million new unsafe vehicles went on the road, vehicles that will be crashing, leaking fuel and incinerating people well into the 1980s.."

http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm

 

[ikendu]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Ah, the vegetable protein diet.

Bill is quite correct about that.

It takes 10 pounds of corn to create 1 pound of beef.

Actually (since this is a global warming thread), livestock production only makes greenhouse gases worse. Livestock expell methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas). In the end, our ever growing populations and western meat centered diet are important contributers to greenhouse gases too. Over consumption of meat is also linked to various cancers by many studies.

Although, I'm still a little more worried about our eventual competion with China for those last dregs of petroleum. A big confrontation with China is likely to cause all sorts of expensive and undesireable consequences for the people of the world. Sure would be nice to "plan our future" to avoid some of that. I can pretty well assure you that none of those potential future consequences are being considered much in our "free market" boardrooms.

 

[greenLED]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

GreenLED: I'll bring the martinis if you bring the olives!

You like those shaken or stirred?

 

[BB]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

using electric vehicles instead if gas combustion has another advantage; you don't burn to death.
the story of the Pinto seems to illustrate the problems with 'progress' in a microcosm:

"
Pinto Crash Test

The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit.
"..
In 1972 the NHTSA had been researching and analysing auto fire causes for four years. During that time, nearly 9,000 people burned to death in flaming wrecks. Tens of thousands more were badly burned and scarred for life. And the four-year delay meant that well over 10 million new unsafe vehicles went on the road, vehicles that will be crashing, leaking fuel and incinerating people well into the 1980s.."

http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm

Much on that link appears to be a mashup of many different facts all--sort of pointing a damming finger towards Fords and Pintos (I have no great love of either--but I do try to reduce the spread of urban legends)... And, please note that the drawing from the FordPinto link above was drawn by a Byron Bloch... Read down through the quote below and see what appears with his name...

From this link (which much better summarizes my understanding--admitingly not that vast--of the Pinto issues over the years):

Remarkably, the affair of the "exploding" Ford Pinto--universally hailed as the acme of product liability success--is starting to look like hype. In a summer 1991 Rutgers Law Review article Gary Schwartz demolishes "the myth of the Pinto case." Actual deaths in Pinto fires have come in at a known 27, not the expected thousand or more.

More startling, Schwartz shows that everyone's received ideas about the fabled "smoking gun" memo are false (the one supposedly dealing with how it was cheaper to save money on a small part and pay off later lawsuits... and immortalized in the movie "Fight Club"). The actual memo did not pertain to Pintos, or even Ford products, but to American cars in general; it dealt with rollovers, not rear-end collisions; it did not contemplate the matter of tort liability at all, let alone accept it as cheaper than a design change; it assigned a value to human life because federal regulators, for whose eyes it was meant, themselves employed that concept in their deliberations; and the value it used was one that they, the regulators, had set forth in documents.

In retrospect, Schwartz writes, the Pinto's safety record appears to have been very typical of its time and class. In over 10 years of production, and 20 years that followed, with over 2 million Pintos produced, no more people died in fires from Pintos as died in fires from Maximas...

The supposed design flaw of the Pinto, according to Byron Bloch, was that in a heavy enough rear end accident, the front of the gas tank could come in contact with a bolt on the differential, rupturing it, and allowing fuel to spill out, with the potential for a fire. it is, however, extremely hard for the gas tank to come in contact with any bolts that might be abole to accomplish this, unless the car is hit from behind at over 50 mph. And as was shown in the autopsy for the intital accident in '78 that started this controversy, teh occupants died from teh impact, not from teh fire (caused by an inattentive driver in a chevy van driving onto the shoulder and hitting their parked, but running Pinto from behind at over 50 mph).

In June 1978, at the height of the Ford Pinto outcry, ABC's 20/20 reported "startling new developments": evidence that full-size Fords, not just the subcompact Pinto, could explode when hit from behind. The show's visual highlight was dramatic. Newly aired film from tests done at UCLA in 1967 by researchers under contract with the automaker showed a Ford sedan being rear-ended at 55 mph and bursting into a fireball.

"ABC News has analyzed a great many of Ford's secret rear-end crash tests," confided correspondent Sylvia Chase. And they showed that if you owned a Ford--not just a Pinto, but many other models--what happened to the car in the film could happen to you. The tone was unrelentingly damning, and by the show's end popular anchorman Hugh Downs felt constrained to add his own personal confession. "You know, I've advertised Ford products a few years back, Sylvia, and at the time, of course, I didn't know and I don't think that anybody else did that this kind of ruckus was going to unfold." You got the idea that he would certainly think twice before repeating a mistake like that.

If ABC really analyzed those UCLA test reports, it had every reason to know why the Ford in the crash film burst into flame: there was an incendiary device under it. The UCLA testers explained their methods in a 1968 report published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, fully ten years before the 20/20 episode. As they explained, one of their goals was to study how a crash fire affected the passenger compartment of a car, and to do that they needed a crash fire. But crash fires occur very seldom; in fact, the testers had tried to produce a fire in an earlier test run without an igniter but had failed. Hence their use of the incendiary device (which they clearly and fully described in their write-up) in the only test run that produced a fire.

The "Beyond the Pinto" coverage gives plenty of credit to the show's on-and off-screen expert, who "worked as a consultant with ABC News on this story, and provided us with many of the Ford crash-test records." His name was Byron Bloch, and his role as an ABC News consultant was to prove a longstanding one; over the years he brought the network seven different exposes on auto safety, two of which won Emmys.

If the name is familiar, it's because the very same Byron Bloch starred as NBC's on-screen expert in the ill-fated Dateline episode about teh GM sidesaddle gastanks, that landed the network in serious trouble. More on that in a bit. Bloch was present at the Indiana crash scene, and defended the tests afterward. ("There was nothing wrong with what happened in Indianapolis," he told Reuters. "The so-called devices underneath the pickup truck are really a lot of smoke that GM is blowing to divert you away from the punitive damages in the Moseley case.") And he played a key role in assuring NBC the truck fire had been set off by a headlight filament, providing a crucial excuse for not mentioning the igniters. (A later analysis for GM found the fire had started near the igniters, not the headlights.)

In 1978, as in 1992, Bloch wore two hats. One was as paid or unpaid network consultant, advisor, and onscreen explainer. The other was as the single best-known expert witness hired by trial lawyers in high-stakes injury lawsuits against automakers. To many, NBC's Dateline fiasco seemed a freak, a bizarre departure from accepted network standards. Would any half-awake news organization have helped stage a crash test that was rigged to get a particular outcome? Or concealed from the public key elements--the hidden rockets, the over-filled tank, the loose gas cap? Or entrusted its judgment to axe-grinding "experts" who were deeply involved in litigating against the expose's target? Or, after questions came up, refused to apologize no matter how strong the evidence grew?
...

Hmmmm....Another "expert" selling his sole to "big trial lawyers" and "big news"?

And just an (admitedly stupid) point that electrical fires are not unknown either:

During a typical year, home electrical problems account for 67,800 fires, 485 deaths, and $868 million in property losses. Home electrical wiring causes twice as many fires as electrical appliances.
...
In urban areas, faulty wiring accounts for 33% of residential electrical fires.
...
The home appliances most often involved in electrical fires are electric stoves and ovens, dryers, central heating units, televisions, radios and record players.

Just to show that old equipment and improper maintenance will cause fires (and deaths) wether in the home or in the "electric" car.

Now back to your normally scheduled program on Global Warming...

-Bill

 

[James S]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

best Pinto gag ever was in the movie "top secret" when the whole cast in a deuce and a half military truck have just driven through everything but when seeing a pinto stalled in front of them they all scream and slam on the breaks only to kiss the pinto's bumper with a sound effect "ding!" after which it explodes in a fashion only hollywood can provide

If you want to know why there are geologists that comment on the expense of mining uranium when it's actually very easy and can be done by pumping carbonated water down wells rather than strip mining, ask yourself what industry employs almost every geologist without a gig at a school...

 

[hank]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

The video makers have been busted --- they stretched the charts, someone took the NASA chart and did an 'artistic' version of it to fit the story they were making up.. This is all over the web by now, this morning, I found it at half a dozen science-watch websites in the first few minutes.

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32125&sid=ff3edd7b046f639e7683cd388ef9e531#32125

http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/#comment-6

http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

And if you don't want to look at the science, because your politics say global warming is inconsistent with what you believe

--- "just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side"

Martin Durkin, who made the movie, claims to be a Marxist -- from the "Revolutionary Communist Party" group. They get libertarian support by flat out lying. Works for them.

That third link points out:

"The writer and presenter of the programme was Martin Durkin. Although it was written in a highly personal and opinionated style- speaking freely of 'lies', and the 'shrill frenzy' of 'scare stories' – we never saw Durkin or discovered his personal credentials. As George Monbiot has revealed Durkin is closely affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party which has a strong ideological opposition to environmental science (more on Durkin and the RCP.

"In 1997 Channel Four was forced to issue a humiliating public apology over a previous series of anti-environment programmes directed by Durkin called 'Against Nature'. The Independent Television Commission found that 'the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing' and that they had been 'misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.'"

Here's the reference on that:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/


You can look this stuff up.

If you haven't looked up that "Sara Brady" gun quote, by the way, do -- it's bogus too.

 

[Quickbeam]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

:lolsign: Just goes to show you what people will do to further their agenda! It's rampant on both sides of the debate.

I'll bet the TV station had great ratings and got a lot of money from it's advertisers during that program.

Is global temperature rising? I think that's a given. Is it the fault of humans? No one knows for sure, and anyone who claims to have a difinitive answer one way or the other is probably selling something.

Again...

 

[BB]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Fair enough... The Channel 4 show's science is on par with "An Inconvenient Truth" then?

-Bill

 

[hank]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." --- Richard P. Feynman

 

[ikendu]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

If you look at the ice record, CO2 levels have gone up and down 5 times in the last 650,000 years. As of 1940, the levels reached the highest they have been in all that time.

Since 1940, CO2 levels are 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

It is only these last 200 years that mankind has been burning coal, oil and natural gas at prodigous rates.

These facts are as close to science facts as I think you can get.

Is there any way to prove absolutely to the satisfaction of everyone that this is human caused? I don't think so. :shrug:

 

[Quickbeam]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

...and the CO2 levels and temperature right now is nearly the lowest it's been in 275 million years - the Earth goes through these big swings in tempertature and atmospheric CO2...

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html (scroll down to "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time " chart.)

That's funny - I'm feeling like Deja Vu...

 

[jayflash]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Legalize marijuana. The seeds would provide bio diesel fuel, ethanol from the rest of the plant, cheap strong fiber for clothing, rope, etc. , inexpensive medicine for pain, and mood enhancement (as opposed to expensive suicide inducing prescription drugs). The savings to our "system of justice", by not imprisoning non violent drug offenders would provide billion$ to advance energy research and efficient dwellings.

Remember that there is only one reason pot possession is a crime and it's not because the government is protecting us...it's because drug laws get politicians elected.

 

[hank]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

>nearly the lowest it's been in 275 million year

Now, how do you feel about evolution as a subject?
Most of that 275 million year period was ... different.

Consider that the plankton responsible for the base of our (the planet's) food chain -- the ones that make shells of calcite and aragonite ---- only appeared about 100,000 years ago --- and changed the atmosphere.

The pteropods gave us our current atmosphere -- and are threatened by the change in CO2 in the oceans that's happening --- unnaturally fast, right now.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMOS24B..08O

"e we show with ocean data and models that due to this anthropogenic acidification, some surface waters will become undersaturated within decades. When atmospheric CO2 reaches 550 ppmv, in year 2050 under the IS92a business-as-usual scenario, Southern Ocean surface waters begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of CaCO3. By 2100 as atmospheric CO2 reaches 788 ppmv, undersaturation extends throughout the entire Southern Ocean (<60oS) and into the surbarctic Pacific. Meanwhile, Weddell Sea surface waters also become undersaturated with respect to calcite, the stable form of CaCO3. These transient changes are much larger than seasonal, interannual, and decadal variability. They threaten high-latitude aragonite secreting organisms including cold-water corals, which provide essential fish habitat, and shelled pteropods, i.e., zooplankton that serve as an abundant food source for marine predators...."

That's a problem independent of global warming, it's plain chemistry.

We don't want to go back to the old atmosphere, eh? It wasn't favorable to intelligent life.

But we are, rapidly, going back to that old, higher level of CO2 --- without knowing the result.

We know it's fossil fuel burning-- there's no carbon-14 in fossil fuel.
See the AIP History article for how that's figured, if you aren't up on the science.

Seriously, look at the science.
Don't just pick at things that might help support your political point of view.
Read the rest of the page.


David Brin's really good on this:

".... many are capable of believing in science, in human improvability, and in tomorrow. My suggestions cater to neither liberal dogmas nor conservative ideologies. They are pragmatic. They serve the Enlightenment. Comments and criticism is welcome at my blog:

" davidbrin.blogspot.com

"None of the observations that I just offered can be made to fit the most pervasive, misleading and mind-numbing political metaphor of all time -- the left-right political axis ...."

and

"I have referred to this repeatedly, because I think it is the key problem before us. In order to end the culture war (instead of getting suckered into waging it) .... good luck to the genuine and sane Americans -- of all parties, including sincere, future-oriented conservatives -- who are joining in this revolution, this counter-attack against a new wave of would-be feudal masters.

"Remember, the American Experiment was never about dogmas and incantations. It was about eager and pragmatic problem-solving, using all kinds of consensual and market tools, a gradual and gritty but powerful process that involves relentless negotiation with our neighbors, in a spirit of good will.

"Dogmatism is an enemy, wherever it arises, even among our friends!"

 

[Josey]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

I recently read a column that said something like 76 percent of college-educated Republicans do not believe in global warming, and just the reverse for college-educated Democrats. I think the problem is that we, as people, are basically tribal. We support our tribe, regardless of the facts. When politics (tribalism) collides with science, politics almost always wins.

But whether or not you believe that global warming is caused by man and threatens our future, you cannot deny that the vast majority of scientists believe that the case is proved. You may think science is wrong, but you cannot say that science isn't united on this issue. You can say that 99 percent of the scientists are wrong, but you cannot say they are not united after carefully examining the actual evidence.

 

[hank]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

The one scientist included who's actually working in this area now says he was duped by the film's producers.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434

End of story. Fool me once, shame on me, these people have fooled a lot of people twice now.

There are crap artists on all sides of any issue. Our task is to find facts by checking claims.

 

[DieselDave]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

After making hurricane predictions and re-validating their predictions from Dec. 2005-May 2006 the weather experts weren't even close.

2006 they predicted 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher
2006 what really happened 10 named storms, 5 hurricanes, 2 of Category 3 or higher

They predicted an 81% chanvce a major hurricane would hit the US, didn't happen. No hurricane of any category hit the US in 2006 and only 2-3 tropical storms hit.

Even in the borader sence they predicted a well above avaerage season and it was only average. It was the least tropical activity since 1997.

If they can't accuratly predict the next 6 month's weather why would we think they can predict the next 10-20-30 or 100 years or know what causes it?

Don't get me wrong, I am THRILLED they were wrong. It just shows you how little we really know about our climate.

Science thinks it has the answers because "we are so much smarter than we were 50 years ago and our equipment is so much better." Don't you think the same thing was being said 50 years ago about the previous 50 years and don't you know it will be said again in 50 years. Once they get smart enough they can keep the humidity below 60% here in the summer I will finally be a believer.

 

[hank]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Chuckle.
May I ask who you rely on for your information, and why you trust your source?

El Nino always moves the storms from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as happened in 2006.
You may recall hearing about the storms --- hitting Australia.

The total -- global --- was about average; the action was in the Pacific, as always during El Nino years.

The weather guys (Gray, at Colorado) didn't predict the El Nino. Climatologist James Hansen did, early in 2006.

I'm real curious to track down the sources claiming there was a low total number of hurricanes in 2006, so I'd really appreciate a pointer to wherever this is coming from, if it's a science site.

If it's one of the PR sources -- they're entitled to their own opinions, but I'll argue for facts I can confirm rather than rely on anyone's opinion.

Here's a source for facts that is well checked out and all 'sides' of the political discussion use:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectives.html

 

[Led_Blind]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts. **the flying spaghetti monster is to blame**

:Comment with out reading the entire thread:

What really p's me off about all climate change debate is the politicization. As we all know politicians need a single scape goat they then focus on one "root cause". Oh, its CO2, no its the sun... no wait it really IS the flying spaghetti monster!!! Whatever....

I saw that show to, but please, it looks like another production by the "intelligent design" campaigners

- the one graph that actually showed the warming far exceeding what would be expected by the sun alone was onscreen for less than 1\2 a second and then ignored.... Hmm i smell something funky.

- CO2 and 20th century does not match... isnt that due to sulphates, what they didnt talk about them. Really??

- Troposphere warming should be faster but its not.... wait weren't there measurement issues with the satellites... what, that was not discussed either?! That smell is getting stronger.

- clouds are formed from cosmic rays (intelligently designed cosmic rays)... wow, i thought water vapor formed on particulate in the air.

- What is all this crap about global warming being a political tool to stop 3rd world countries from developing. As far as i know the Kyoto agreement specifically exempts developing countries. (Damn that smell sure is strong)


Now my biggest gripe, what general pollution? Its all fine and dandy if we reduce our CO2, politicians pat each other on the back. But what about all the other crap we pump out, the stuff that is killing of species including us…..

 

[ikendu]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

DieselDave wrote:

If they can't accuratly predict the next 6 month's weather why would we think they can predict the next 10-20-30 or 100 years or know what causes it?

+++++++++++++

I think this is a key point. So many people want to "do the right thing" but how can we be sure what that is?

For me, it helps to break this into two parts:

1. The cause for renewable energy
2. The need to eliminate excessive CO2 emissions

I used to think about them as one and the same. Indeed, #1 (renewable energy) supports #2 (reduced CO2). Whether Global Warming is right or not doesn't really change the importance of getting off of imported oil. Even if GW is completely wrong, we are still WAY too dependent on imported oil. It puts our economy and our national security at great risk. Some of you are old enough to remember the recessions triggered by the Arab Oil Embargo or the loss of oil from Iran when their revolution getting rid of the Shah threw Iran into chaos. We were only importing 28% of our oil then ...now it is 65%.

The problem is, human nature being what it is about "I don't want to change until I have to", we won't naturally prepare for a sudden lack of importable energy. We'll wait until there is a break in the supply which will throw our economy into a tail spin. Meanwhile, the balance of trade issue of importing so much energy is slowly bleeding our economy to death.

I conclude that the case for switching off of imported oil is clear; very clear.

Now, how about #2; reducing excessive CO2?

A good example for this part is our use of coal. Coal produces a huge amount of CO2. If Global Warming theory is right, we should stop emitting that CO2 as soon as possible. Either by simply stopping coal consumption or by burying the CO2 in the deep ocean or underground in geologic formations. That will be expensive and we aren't even sure it won't create a danger of sudden CO2 releases. We should likely build a demonstration power station that does this to see how well it works. The DOE (Department Of Energy) plans just such a "FutureGen" plant for 2012.

So... maybe if GW is wrong, we should jump into this?

For myself, I've decided this. Even coal is finite. We will need to switch away from coal eventually anyway. I know some people hope that cold fusion or hot fusion or "something" will come along that makes this simple and easy. I'm not so convinced that this new, "other" technology is out there.

I do know that we have a lot of wind energy we could be harnessing. Wind farms are going up and they are working. The more experience we get with them, the smarter we are about the designs and management of the turbines. Wind energy keeps getting more efficient and more effective.

So... what holds us back? Even just two states have enough wind for the whole U.S. (North and South Dakota).

Two things; where the wind is and the profile of when it provides energy.

"Where the wind is" goes like this:
- Off shore up by New England
- Off shore in the Great Lakes
- Narrow spine up the Appalachian Mountains
- Broad band from west Texas up though the Dakotas
- Rocky Mountains
- Areas down the west coast mountains from Washington, Oregon and eastern California.

There is plenty of wind but it isn't always where we need it for our population centers. We'd need to build "transmission corridors" to bring the wind electricity to where we need the energy.

And... wind energy is not "dispatchable".

Our need for electricity is pretty predictable. We have a big peak around 3 pm every day when businesses and schools are all running. This is especially true during air conditioning times. Then we have a big dip in demand about midnight until 6 am.

Wind, on the other hand, blows when it does and that is not always when you need it. Natural gas generators are extremely dispatchable. They are like jet turbines and can sit there waiting until needed, then fire up quickly and fairly quickly shut down later when not needed. Our big thermal plants like coal and nuclear are not nearly so nimble. They are slow to start up and slow to shut down. Which is why night time electricity can be pretty cheap to buy if you have time-of-use billing.

Hmmm... so, lots of wind but not very dispatchable.

We'd need to store the energy from wind if we really want it to satisfy our need for dispatchable power. Some amount of wind would work even without storage; something on the order of 15-20 percent. Denmark has 20% right now but has to sell off some of it when they've got it at the "wrong times". The U.S. has less than 1% wind now and should be building out wind farms like crazy even now to get started.

How to store the energy?

Three ways:

A. Pumped water (we have 25 such facilities in the U.S. right now)
B. Compressed air (one facility now, a few more planned)
C. Hydrogen (low density storage, hard to pipeline)

All of these have losses of one kind or another. Pumped water is about 78% recoverable and is fairly low tech. All three add in more cost to our electricity.

A fourth way would be batteries in Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) or EVs. But even then, the wind may not always be blowing when you want to charge up those batteries. When you flip the switch, you want electricity, right? So... even with PHEVs or EVs, "dispatchability" is desireable.

So... should we create energy storage facilities?

Well, even our existing coal and nuclear plants would benefit from storage. I suppose that is why we already have 25 of the pumped water facilities.

If GW is right, we'll need them.

If GW is wrong, we still create a lot of pollution from burning coal and a lot of mining and nuclear waste pollution from nuclear. In fact, unless we adopt plutonium cycle reactors, there might only be about 50 years of economically recoverable uranium left right now (I'm still looking into this). Plutonium cycle reactors introduce all sorts of risks for nuclear terrorism and plutoinum is extremely toxic just from a poison point of view.

I'm beginning to believe that we should develop these energy storage solutions and transmission corridors whether GW is right or not. They would represent public works projects that will stimulate the economy. They'd help insulate us from world energy pricing spikes or dwindling fossil fuel resources. Similar projects like Grand Coulee Dam, Boulder Dam and the TVA all stimulated the economy. This wouldn't even have to be done as a federal program. It could all be done with private industry with the right combination of incentives and policy.

Sorry for the long post...

GW might be right or it might be wrong. There are still good reasons to agressively pursue renewable energy. We'll need to de-commission our fossil fuel use anyway at some point. Why not be ahead of the game?

 

[Darell]

Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

First... may I say how proud I am to see that this thread hasn't devolved into the political gutter! Good on (most of) you!

Second, let me get a pet peeve off my back. There is NO SUCH THING as an "untrue" fact. The whole idea of calling something a "true" fact just bugs me. There are facts, and then there is everything else. And there are very few facts in this matter.

1. We use energy.
2. We import much of that energy (speaking for the US here)
3. Our current traditional fuel energy sources are finite.
4. We pollute when we use traditinal energy sources.
5. Pollution is bad for us.
6. Climate has always changed...

Blah, blah.

As for the rest of the stuff - will we ever know the facts? Does human pollution effect climate? I don't know. And for the most part, I don't really care.

What seems clear to me is that we have far more compelling reasons to change our ways because of dangers we face in the short term: Too many world powers are going to want an ever increasing piece of the finite world energy pie. Many of us would like clean water and clean air. Even leaving the climate discussion out of the equation - I see compelling reasons to chang the status quo. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to change, and the bigger hit our security and economy will take.

Fact? Don't know. Reasonable? I think so.