"Progress" on Reducing Carbon Emissions

I could have stated it clearer - as you clear forests and arable land to feed and house a growing population the ability of the planet to remove CO2 from the atmosphere decreases. As an engineer I tend to visualize in equations with the constant on the removal capacity side being a non-linear function with a negative sign.

I didn't say it had no impact, only that we don't know what it is. Attempting to implement a particular solution to solve a problem that you can't define is not a particularly good strategy. It sounds good to say that we are going to do something before it becomes a problem; however, without a good definition of the problem, and frankly all system involved in the solution, can we be sure that our solution will not do more harm than good? Can we be sure, for example, that the solution that we may find to long term high energy storage batteries will not require another scarce resource that is not replaceable? How about the byproducts of production of those batteries? If we have put all of our eggs in that basket, what do we do then?

Again, my point, as I have stated many time in this forum, is that in order to effectively address the situation we need to understand enough about the next step we are going to take in order to be sure that we are 1) actually making progress in solving the problem and 2) not creating unintended consequences that lead to an equivalent, or more significant, problem. It is not enough to just be doing something, we need to be doing something that actually has a positive effect on the issue, even if it is only a bridge to buy sufficient time to fully research other solutions. I'm not for inaction, but for action that will have a chance of success since we can't afford to do everything, and we can't do it only in this country.

The only thing I would comment regarding models predicting global temperatures accurately is that I have yet to see an accepted standard for measuring the temperature of the earth, so I don't know what the model results are being compared against. Further, the relationship between global temperature and ice melt seems to be even more tenuous. Again, I'm not suggesting that models are not valuable, I do use them all the time; however, so long as a model requires a correction factor to conform output to measurements there are significant questions regarding just how much faith we should place in the model, while at the same time giving us some direction in terms of where we need research to sharpen our understanding.

 

You're stalling... The problem has been well defined. It is a crisis. And your, take-it-easy, let's-not-rush-into-anything approach is to put it bluntly, wrong-headed. We have no time to lose and we know what needs to be done: Put an increasing price on carbon.

I also don't like the way you frame the problem:

In post 14, you say that CO2 is a small constituent of the atmosphere and therefore the planet should be able to absorb any excess.

That's clearly a wish on your part, and not a conclusion shared by climate scientists. For example, the southern ocean is becoming saturated with CO2 already. ENVIRONMENT: Southern Ocean Nears CO2 Saturation Point

Then you cast doubt on the idea that human activity is causing climate change and the validity of climate modeling...

Climate models, if anything, have erred on the side of being too conservative: Study: Arctic sea ice melting much faster - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

For some reason you are satisfied with the status quo. Think about how much economic activity could be generated in mature economies with new, clean technologies and industries and selling that to the rest of the world.

And yes population is a concern, but you don't have over-population problems in developed countries (in fact the reverse is a problem). To control pop growth we need more economic growth in poorer nations. And economic growth (new, sustainable technologies and industries) will be a direct result of combating climate change.

And as 100s of millions of developing world citizens become "middle class" over this century, leading to a corresponding drop in fertility rates, do you want them all driving cars with ICEs or electric motors? Do you want them using electricity generated by coal or wind?

Over population can't be solved by ignoring climate change or sticking to the same old energy policies based on yesterday's technologies.

Furthermore, if we don't address climate change, 100s of millions of desperately poor refugees may overwhelm the developed nations.

THINK! With energy demand going way up, how much you will be paying for food, transportation and other essential goods in 20 years if we don't have non-fossil fuel based transportation/energy alternatives?

We need policy and regulatory changes NOW, a price on carbon and an investment in clean alternatives. (And it would help if the Chevy Volt didn't suck).

 

Why do you say it is a crisis? Despite the increasing level of atmospheric CO2, global temperatures have been flat to declining for nearly a decade. Ocean temperatures have been declining over the past few years, not increasing as would be expected. Sea level increases were slower in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th C than in the first half and are running at around 2-3 mm / year (hardly Algore's dire prediction of 7 meters). The Antarctic has more ice and lower temperatures than ever in documented history. And the decline in Arctic, Greenland, and West Antarctic ice extent have been documented to be due largely to changes in wind and/or ocean circulation changes. Where is the "global warming" "crisis"?

 

I suppose I would respond to this if there was anything valid, either in terms of your perception of my position or of reality. However, seeing that there is nothing valid in either, have a nice day.

 

If that's all you can come up with after 8 days then I am declaring myself: VICTORIOUS!

 

The difficulty in using allegory in a scientific situation is that it has little or nothing to do with reality. My points, very simply are:

1. Assuming that excess human produced carbon is really a cause of global warming (in my mind that claim currently has the status of a hypothesis and not a proven fact), the greatest danger is the reduction in the natural vegetation that removes carbon from the atmosphere as part of the natural system. This decrease in removal capacity is being caused by the exponential increases in human population.

2. Since the total amount of man made CO2 is only 1.5% of the total that is produced naturally (and removed naturally) any significant reduction in nature's ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere empirically far outweighs any possible change on the production side, i.e. just remove 1.5% of the removal system and you will have effectively doubled man's contribution of CO2 to the total greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere.

3. From my perspective it is beyond idiotic to base all future attempts to deal with this "cause" on technologies that have not been proven or that simply can not be implemented in less than a generation while ignoring the larger potential causal factor.

4. It is not possible to replace the functionality of individual vehicles (autos and trucks) with anything else given our current land use patterns and existing infrastructure. It will take an enormous investment and a significant amount of time to change land use, acquire right-of-way and build railroads, etc., to prepare for alternative transportation modes to allow the ratio of vehicles to population to decline.

5. Battery technology is currently not sufficient to produce a vehicle that will allow the utility of a current internal combustion engine powered car or truck. The range is simply too low and the recharge period too long to produce a usable replacement. We may develop that technology someday, but we are not there yet and we don't know what resources, or byproducts, will be needed for or produced by those batteries. For many reasons they may never prove to be feasible; however, we should press forward with research to determine whether they are an answer. Then, keep in mind that in this country alone there are 250 million registered cars and trucks. Think about the number that will need to be replaced when a technology might become available.

6. CNG is a proven, and less carbon producing, replacement for petroleum based fuels. Also, existing internal combustion engines can be retrofit to utilize CNG and a relatively extensive natural gas distribution system is currently in place. It is a physical possibility to convert large numbers of vehicles as a bridge to buy time while research can be completed on battery, fuel cell, or as yet unknown power sources that will provide sustainable solutions.

7. Non-carbon methods of producing electricity are available today. Nuclear, hydro and geothermal are proven technologies and can be implemented fairly quickly if environmental regulations are rationalized. Solar and wind energy are at least in the large scale testing phase. Using currently proven methods to replace oil and coal in grid production while increasing the research necessary to improve the ability of solar and wind to eventually replace nuclear (or most nuclear installations) makes a great deal of sense.

I believe that all of these changes are necessary whether or not human production of CO2 has anything at all to do with climate change. The fact is we are eliminating the Earth's ability to naturally remove CO2 and are not removing any of the natural sources. This will eventually become an issue if man produced no carbon whatsoever.

It is also reality that fossil fuels are a limited resource. They will run out if we do not develop alternatives. I simply believe that it amounts to sheer stupidity to "change" without any rational plan or to base decision making on unproven technologies. We can certainly solve the issue of feeding an exponentially growing population if we can mass produce Star Trek's replicators, but we will probably need to either wait until we can create matter, or change its fundamental form, and I doubt if I will see that in my lifetime. If we wait for it, I doubt if we can survive as a species. Likewise, if we go down the path of putting all of our eggs in an unproven technology's basket, will we have time to take another course if that technology proves unworkable?

I am NOT suggesting that we don't take action. I AM suggesting that we understand the outcomes of the policy decisions we make, at least to the limit of current scientific (hard science, not political science) understanding. I AM suggesting that we develop a coherent plan for dealing with the issue since the investment required to change such fundamental elements of our daily environment is so enormous that we need to recognize the time frames involved and plan to act rationally over that period. If you want to see environmental change far more significant than we ever dreamed of, go off on a crusade without any plan or rational understanding of the investment, time and technology to accomplish that plan.

 

Electric vehicles have enough utility for most people and will improve in short order. Electric vehicles are more energy efficient from a wells to wheels analysis. Electric vehicles are cheaper to maintain. Electric vehicles improve urban air quality and reduce noise pollution. Conclusion: Having electric vehicles on the market only makes sense, whether or not they save us from AGW.

 

With that I can agree. But I'm still in violent disagreement that AGW is any sort of crisis. But at the end of the day, maybe it doesn't matter. We are both in favor of energy conservation and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

It is luxurious to discuss these global issues sitting at our computers from our various vantage points accross North America or even the world.

A curious variable that needs to enter this conversation is the impact of low cost technology.

While it indeed may be cleaner for someone to commute from their suburban home in an electric car that benefit is probably lost on a kid in Asia or Africa riding a donkey or water buffalo to the fields.

That little oil consuming cheap car or motorbike probably has much more appeal to that kid.

Lowering oil prices, inexpensive technology for ICE powered transportation/power and a rapidly growing population all contribute to a western centric dilema. I'll call it the Oil/Environmental Conundrum:

As the developed world reduces consumption of oil (due to environmental efforts) oil becomes an even more attractive energy source for the larger part of the world population. The transfer of low cost oil powered technologies to the developing world may negate, from a global perspective, environmental advances.

Or said another way: With some economies relying on the production of oil, infrastructure in place to deliver oil and cheap/abundant technologies to consume oil any "progress" on reducing carbon emissions in the developed world may be negated by increased oil consumption by the rapidly growing populations of the developing world.

 

While most would agree that there is nothing wrong with having electric vehicles on the market (some; however, would suggest that disposal of the batteries is a significant issue that is not fully understood or adequately addressed) it is ridiculous to say that they have sufficient utility for most people or that their utility will improve in short order. Frankly, those for whom today's version of an electric car has utility can probably use mass transit and don't need a vehicle at all and having one will only add to delay and congestion. Secondly, an increase in utility is hoped for, but to say that it will be here in short order is scientifically naive. So by all means sell electric cars as they exist today. If there is a sufficient market, and a sufficient number of folks who can use them they will be a commercial success and will continue to be sold. What makes you think I am suggesting that they not be sold? I simply do not know whether they are the long term solution, or even part of it.

 

Quite true, particularly considering that the cheap, low fuel consumption vehicles popular in the developing world are significant emitters of many pollutants, including CO2. Spend some time in Taiwan watching all of the scooters whose riders wear masks because the air is blue with emissions and you can understand the issue in an instant!

My only quibble with your first statement is that some of us are engineers specializing in transportation, making these issues very real and we need to address them on a daily basis.

 

The people that say that don't know what they are talking about. Li-Ion and NiMH are both recyclable and non-toxic.

I don't know how you missed it but I've seen it quoted dozens of times the stat that 78% of people in the US drive less than 40 miles in a day. Electric cars of 10 years ago could do at least double that.

Again you haven't been paying attention. Silicon nano wires from MIT, ultracapacitors from EESTor, an improved NiMH battery from Toyota/panasonic, BYD's E6: Introducing the BYD E6 Electric Car : TreeHugger., etc...

Ask darreldd if driving his 90's RAV4Ev (100 mile range) doesn't add utility over taking the bus.

You warn about unproven technologies possibly "causing more harm than good." You constantly advocate for the status quo. I think the status quo in transportation stinks. There is no reason not to begin to change it. I have outlined the many benefits of electrification. Other GW deniers at least agree with that: Robert Lutz - Wikiquote Why not you?

 

Really? Check again.

Wow, that is quite an assertion you make. The number of times that stat (78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day) has been used, and you're the first one I've ever seen say that it isn't close to being realistic/useful.

I refer you to your statement in post 31 where you imply that taking the bus is just as useful/convenient as using an EV vehicle.

Like me...:target:

I'm all for banning/tolling vehicles in downtown cores, and I'm sure CNG will have a role to play in reducing emissions. I'm not blocking "real change" as you define it. My point is, if you're going to have cars at all, they better be EVs or PHEV's.

In previous posts I've countered your attempts to deny climate change, shed doubt on climate modeling, and downplay the benefits/utility of EVs.

Readers can judge for themselves who is right. I, meanwhile, have to be moving on, to other threads and other dead horses.

 

Yep!

 

My problem is really with the ideologues who see a unitary solution and know better than anyone else how to solve the problem (you may have noticed one or two on the board who fit this description). An underlying issue is that everyone neglects the 800-lb gorilla in the room, world overpopulation, because no one wants to talk about the issue or its effects.

I don't have any problem with folks developing, building or buying EVs. It is a good individual action. I own a Prius as an EV will not work for me and I could afford to change my vehicle type rather than simply converting to CNG. My concern is that travel demand does have a relationship to population and we can not assume that the developing world will rely on donkeys and camels forever. The magnitude of the problem is, frankly, overwhelming and simply exacerbates the issues with the availability of raw materials, manufacturing, etc. The real problem with electrical storage is that the power density of storage is very low when compared with the power density (even assuming a very inefficient use) of petroleum based fuels. Li-Ion batteries are less than 10% of the effective power density of petroleum based fuels, and capacitors as currently proposed are just over 10% and hoped to be improved to as much as 25%. This simply raises questions regarding whether electrical vehicles based on stored energy are the long term answer. Perhaps an alternative solution would be bio-fueled hybrids since the fuel source would be renewable and the vehicle would not have the utility limitations of EVs (but would also not be zero emission).

Then, no matter what the propulsion system is, think about what happens if the ratio of vehicles to people reaches European or Canadian levels (I don't even want to begin to think about what happens if US levels are achieved). That would be more than 3.5 billion vehicles (one heck of a lot of storage devices). That represents a lot of lane miles of roads and bridges that don't exist. Very significant congestion that demands added infrastructure investment and construction. The issue is simply too large to march off with a single solution, driven by a no emission standard based on a climatological hypothesis, that has no proven technology that will result in a vehicle with comparable utility to that which is common, and expected, today. Obviously, there are fundamental changes required in transportation, both personal as well as commerce and the distribution of goods and services, to deal with this increased population, that may, in turn, affect the objectives established for a propulsion technology. The bottom line is we don't have a plan and we are unwilling to address the 800-lb gorilla since it is an issue no one wants to acknowledge from a political perspective.

I don't really disagree with anything you say other than we want to get to the same place. The fact is that I don't know where that place is, or if it even exists given the magnitude of the problem. I only know that the only way to get to a solution is continued research, using existing resources as wisely and environmentally safely as practical as a bridge until a workable solution is identified and can be implemented. That bridge needs to use every tool in the toolbox and not be limited by the fact that some of the tools are imperfect in the minds of some.