HOORAY FOR OBAMA!

[Darkmoon]

Cog and Alondro, watch your tone.

Nuclear power does provide "clean" energy, so long as you don't worry about that pesky nuclear waste. If they could figure out a way to dispose of the waste that didn't eradicate life (such as the current system of burying it does -- especially if the container holding the waste leaks, which invariably they do), then nuclear power would be truly viable. As it is, right now nuclear power is really only good on a short term basis, or in limited amounts.

Fusion is supposed to be better, if they could ever get it working. But then, if they could get it working, we'd probably have it by now.

[Valynth]

Actually, I think the French developed a method of re-refining the spent nuclear rods to extract the radioactive substances to create new fuel rods and the dust left over actually has less radioactvity than your average fist full of dirt.

And there's also research going on to make plants that use irradiated carbon as a fuel source.  The only problem with that is that the irradiated carbon has fluctuating radioactivity meaning you'd constantly need to adjust the amount of fuel, often very quickly.

[superluser]

It's for reasons like this that I'm warming to the auto bailout plans.  Specifically, if the Big Three automakers want to get a bailout, they should have to take measures to ensure that they will have 5% of their new car sales able to run on something other than gas within two years.  And then require something like 10% within four years.

Looks like Congress is having the same idea.

[Valynth]

The only thing I have a problem with is:

A.  The bailout in general.  Sure, the giants will go down, but then the little guys like you and me can step up into the resulting vaccum of power by studying how these companies went down and avoiding the causes.  That's how capitalism WORKS.

B.  The strings attached to the bailout would result in the Government essentially acting as a C.E.O. (determining what the company should invest in) And the government should NEVER be in direct charge of an economic force.  I'm not against awarding bonuses (in form of tax breaks) to companies who RESEARCH environmental tech (with yearly review boards to determine if the progress made is worth the bonus), but I AM against directly punishing those who feel the funds could be directed to other pursuits when the lives of Americans aren't in direct harm due to said practice. 

And no, losing a job is not a direct harm to your health.  You can go out and MAKE your own job if you need to.  How do you think all companies start out?  They begin with a man/woman who's will to go out on a limb and try something.  They then find that the process makes money.  They then organise people around them through jobs and before you know it, they're in charge of a company.  All you need to do is find the demand for what you can do and a means of satisfying that demand.

Oh, and for those of you espousing the Kyoto protocols as "good for the economy?"  You could be wrong on this one.

[Cvstos]

Valynth: That's actually the countries themselves getting fined. An indirect hit to the economy, at best.. The countries are the ones that need to live up to their own promises. It's why a staged plan is best. Start where you are now, and lower things bit by bit. In addition, put in policies and funding to help companies drop carbon emissions.

A larger response from me to the whole thing is coming later. I've been very busy with computer science major stuff lately, which is why I've been quiet.

[Valynth]

*sighs*  I hate when people think "CO2 ia a pollutant."  Not it isn't.  In fact, if you look at the articles I linked (and was promptly banned for pointing out in the manner I did)  you'd see that the global temp is, infact, dropping despite the claims that "CO2 is causing global warming!"  Heck, most of the "evidence" for global warming has been discredited or out-right lying for the sake of "getting the message out."  The fact that Al Gore is a galactic class hypocrit is just icing on the cake.

The graph of ice cores that Gore "revealed?"  Turns out, he looked for a matching line and placed them on top of each other disregarding anything else like the fact that the CO2 line was several hundred years BEFORE the temperature fluctuations.  Then there's also the fact that, with proper scaling, any set of data can be graphically matched with any other sets of data.  Couple these two facts together and his little "graph" fails to impress.

And lets not forget the guiding mantra of the "CO2 is evil!" crowd:
CO2=Global Warming, "Water World!"
CO2=Gobal Cooling, "Snow Ball Earth!"
CO2=No Global Fluctuation, "it's being negated by something else, but you still need to obey our rules to live in the future!"

[superluser]

And lets not forget the guiding mantra of the "CO2 is evil!" crowd:
CO2=Global Warming, "Water World!"
CO2=Gobal Cooling, "Snow Ball Earth!"
CO2=No Global Fluctuation, "it's being negated by something else, but you still need to obey our rules to live in the future!"

Okay.

Let's just try a little substitution here:

As=death
As=stops decay

Which is it, science?  How can it kill you and stop you from decaying?  How can it do two totally contradictory things?

I'll bet you're gonna pull that old chestnut about arsenic not being good to eat in any amount, aren'tcha?  Well, I'm wise to your shenanigans!  Now that I've disproven the media myth that Arsenic is poisonous, I think I'll go and eat some delicious and preservational rat poison.

[Reese Tora]

Turns out, he looked for a matching line and placed them on top of each other disregarding anything else like the fact that the CO2 line was several hundred years BEFORE the temperature fluctuations.  Then there's also the fact that, with proper scaling, any set of data can be graphically matched with any other sets of data.  Couple these two facts together and his little "graph" fails to impress.

I hate to disagree with ya and all, but this one's kind of major.  The global temperature increase was leading CO2 concentration increase by a few hundred years(an average of 800 years, in fact), not the CO2 leading the temperature by a couple hundred, which is evidence that global climate change might drive historic CO2 levels (as opposed to historic CO2 levels driving climate change, which was the point that Gore et all were trying to make) which is why the two graphs are generally desplayed one above the other as opposed to overlaid, where the disparity would be strikingly obvious.

Which is pretty much the point you were making, except you reversed which preceded which.

[superluser]

I hate to disagree with ya and all, but this one's kind of major.  The global temperature increase was leading CO2 concentration increase by a few hundred years(an average of 800 years, in fact), not the CO2 leading the temperature by a couple hundred, which is evidence that global climate change might drive historic CO2 levels (as opposed to historic CO2 levels driving climate change, which was the point that Gore et all were trying to make) which is why the two graphs are generally desplayed one above the other as opposed to overlaid, where the disparity would be strikingly obvious.

Which is pretty much the point you were making, except you reversed which preceded which.

This may not take into effect the feedback effect.  Increased CO2 makes the oceans less able to store CO2, which then makes the oceans less able to store the CO2 that they already store or from the atmosphere, which should result in a delayed increase in CO2 as temperatures rise.

[Reese Tora]

I hate to disagree with ya and all, but this one's kind of major.  The global temperature increase was leading CO2 concentration increase by a few hundred years(an average of 800 years, in fact), not the CO2 leading the temperature by a couple hundred, which is evidence that global climate change might drive historic CO2 levels (as opposed to historic CO2 levels driving climate change, which was the point that Gore et all were trying to make) which is why the two graphs are generally desplayed one above the other as opposed to overlaid, where the disparity would be strikingly obvious.

Which is pretty much the point you were making, except you reversed which preceded which.

This may not take into effect the feedback effect.  Increased CO2 makes the oceans less able to store CO2, which then makes the oceans less able to store the CO2 that they already store or from the atmosphere, which should result in a delayed increase in CO2 as temperatures rise.

While that is interesting, I'm pretty sure that the data sources used to determine global CO2 concentrations are not directly connected to oceans, and wouldn't likley be effected by oceanic CO2 absorption.  It wouldn't explain the fact that CO2 levels rise as quickly as temperature (with the delay) and slowly subside(the global temperature chages pretty quickly relatively sharply where the CO2 levels tend to decease in a mreo gentle slope), such that the periods of increased atmospheric CO2 are much longer than the periods of increased global temperature.

For reference, I'm looking at the chart from page 24 of the 4th IPCC report, showing, from antarctic ice core samples, temperature(as determined via the deuterium variation), CO2, CH4, and N2O.

[superluser]

While that is interesting, I'm pretty sure that the data sources used to determine global CO2 concentrations are not directly connected to oceans, and wouldn't likley be effected by oceanic CO2 absorption.

Well, the point is that the saturation of the oceans makes atmospheric CO2 more pronounced.  In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, you wouldn't expect to see this effect in the oceans, but rather only the atmosphere.

[Sunblink]

Totally irrelevant, but I just wished that I posted this in this thread when Obama won. DAMMIT I just missed an amazing joke.

As far as the energy-related debate goes, unfortunately, I know very little relating to that. I am ashamed. I'm just amazed at how this debate keeps changing subjects.

Also, I was such a pissant in this thread. Remind me to never read a debate thread when my blood sugar plummeted.

[Reese Tora]

Well, the point is that the saturation of the oceans makes atmospheric CO2 more pronounced.  In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, you wouldn't expect to see this effect in the oceans, but rather only the atmosphere.

I'm... not entirely sure what the point you're trying to make is, to be quite honest.

I think we both agree that Anthropogenic global warming is based on the assumptions that atmospheric CO2 is the major driving force in climate change, and that humans are driving an increase in CO2 with current consumption that will cause a major change in temperature.  The source of the CO2 is irrelevant for the question of whether or not CO2 is actually a driving force in global climate change.  If the effect you are talking about is valid (and I don't know enough about it from one article to say anything about that) it still only addresses a potential source for CO2.

To put it much shorter, it doesn't matter how it got there, the question is what effect does it really have, and the article you're talking about only addresses a source of CO2.

when you say it makes the stmospheric CO2 more pronounced, I'm not sure if you are saying that the oceans are giving up CO2 which raises the atmospheric CO2 levels, in which case it is irrelevant to the question of CO2 driving climate change, or if you are saying that this should have an effect on the measurements taken from the antarctic ice cores, which should cause a spike in CO2 after the temperatures decline as the ability to absorb CO2 increases, which we don't see, and which isn't related to the article.

(BTW, fun fact: snow only forms within a certain temperature band, above which the water doesn't freeze into snow and below which the air can't carry the water to create snow,  and Antarctica's temperature easily drops below that lower threshold...)

[superluser]

when you say it makes the stmospheric CO2 more pronounced, I'm not sure if you are saying that the oceans are giving up CO2 which raises the atmospheric CO2 levels, in which case it is irrelevant to the question of CO2 driving climate change

That's what I'm saying, though I fail to see how this is irrelevant.  Temperature increases atmospheric CO2 levels(*), which then increase temperature, which then increases atmospheric CO2 levels, which then increase... and so on.  It doesn't matter how the feedback loop starts, just that when it does start, the only way to stop it is to reduce the global temperature or reduce the global levels of CO2.

As I understand it, the Antarctic ice cores measure the CO2 trapped in air bubbles, not in the water itself, so they're measuring the atmospheric CO2, which is where we should expect to see this effect.

(*) By increasing the amount of CO2 given off by the ocean and also by not absorbing CO2 that a less saturated ocean would have been able to absorb.

[Valynth]

when you say it makes the stmospheric CO2 more pronounced, I'm not sure if you are saying that the oceans are giving up CO2 which raises the atmospheric CO2 levels, in which case it is irrelevant to the question of CO2 driving climate change

That's what I'm saying, though I fail to see how this is irrelevant.  Temperature increases atmospheric CO2 levels(*), which then increase temperature, which then increases atmospheric CO2 levels, which then increase... and so on.  It doesn't matter how the feedback loop starts, just that when it does start, the only way to stop it is to reduce the global temperature or reduce the global levels of CO2.

As I understand it, the Antarctic ice cores measure the CO2 trapped in air bubbles, not in the water itself, so they're measuring the atmospheric CO2, which is where we should expect to see this effect.

(*) By increasing the amount of CO2 given off by the ocean and also by not absorbing CO2 that a less saturated ocean would have been able to absorb.

If only that explained the cyclical expansion and contraction of the glaciers all over the world that's been going on for the past 100,000 years you'd be set.  Then there's also the fact that the temperature doesn't just simply go on a constant increase throughout history.  And lets not forget the fact that the global temperature has actually fallen despite an increase in CO2 production.

The fact is, CO2 has historically had very little influence on global temperature when compared to all the other things that could possibly go wrong.  Solar activity, extra solar radiation, volcanic activity, geo-thermal activity, continental drift, ect.

[Reese Tora]

That's what I'm saying, though I fail to see how this is irrelevant.  Temperature increases atmospheric CO2 levels(*), which then increase temperature, which then increases atmospheric CO2 levels, which then increase... and so on.  It doesn't matter how the feedback loop starts, just that when it does start, the only way to stop it is to reduce the global temperature or reduce the global levels of CO2.

As I understand it, the Antarctic ice cores measure the CO2 trapped in air bubbles, not in the water itself, so they're measuring the atmospheric CO2, which is where we should expect to see this effect.

(*) By increasing the amount of CO2 given off by the ocean and also by not absorbing CO2 that a less saturated ocean would have been able to absorb.

OK, then.  The question is whether or not CO2 has such a big effect on climate change, or if climate change has a big effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from, it's still showing up 800 years after the heat begins to increase, it's still sticking around for a while once the heat decreases.  It is irrelevant because we are discussing the fact that the temperature changes occur before the CO2 levels increase, not how quickly we are dooming ourselves. (and, BTW, climate scientists make predictions more and more dire every year, they seem to forget that there's only so much energy to be be absorbed by CO2, and the higher the concentration, the closer to 100% of that absorbable energy you become.  I suggest reading this to see why a runaway feedback effect is pretty silly)

[superluser]

It is irrelevant because we are discussing the fact that the temperature changes occur before the CO2 levels increase, not how quickly we are dooming ourselves.

No, it's not irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what started the process.  Once the process gets going, however, it should propagate itself, and increases in either temperature or CO2, regardless of cause, will cause the feedback to worsen.

I suggest reading this to see why a runaway feedback effect is pretty silly)

I don't believe it's a runaway feedback effect.  I just think it's potentially a destabilizing feedback effect which will find an equilibrium point somewhere less healthy for humans.

[Alondro]

I just think its funny that we had Snowball Earth at a time when CO2 levels were monsterously high compared to now.

The Sun is the major player.

I'll note again:  Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn have had warming as well.  Until there is proof that their warming has nothing to do with ours, the Sun is the culprit.  I don't care what a consensus believes.  These are measurable scientific facts.  Fact trounces theory.

There was a consensus that 'cold fusion' couldn't happen.  And to a degree it was semi-correct.  'Fusion' in the classical sense is not happening in the LTNR's (low-temperature nuclear reactions), but a novel type of neutron generation and absorption is.  Naval science research has repeated the experiment and the results many many times now.  It is fact that a nuclear reaction occurs. 

A consensus can tend to become a quasi-religious statement, in that those who defend it will do everything in their power to attack detractors since they cannot bear to be wrong.   In doing so, they will overlook anything that can provide an alternative explanation, sometimes to the detriment of many.

Science must be blind to politics and popular belief.  It must adhere to analysis and evidence and theory must change as new facts come in.  The man-made global warming consensus refuses to do so, and therefore it no longer fits the scientific creed.

[Reese Tora]

It is irrelevant because we are discussing the fact that the temperature changes occur before the CO2 levels increase, not how quickly we are dooming ourselves.

No, it's not irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what started the process.  Once the process gets going, however, it should propagate itself, and increases in either temperature or CO2, regardless of cause, will cause the feedback to worsen.

Which is predicated on the flawed assumtion that CO2 is the major driving force, the original assumption which is based off less accurate measurements from the ice cores which could not detect the 800 year gap between temperature and CO2 changes.

The point is the evidence now no longer supports CO2 as a major dirving force in global cliamte change, the point is that the temperature changes before there is any significant cahnge in CO2 levels, and the increase in CO2 levels, at it's peak, does not cause an increase in temperature, because the peak temperature has already been reached without CO2.  The point is that CO2 as a major cause of warming no longer has merit because it can no longer adaquately explain all evidence where other theories, such as solar activity, CAN.  The rule of parsimony, which is a basic tenet of science, indicates that the best solution is taht which best explains all evidence with the fewest assumptions, and CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming no long fits that rule, if it ever did.

[superluser]

I just think its funny that we had Snowball Earth at a time when CO2 levels were monsterously high compared to now.

A would-be disciple came to Nasrudin's hut on the mountain-side.  Knowing that every action of such an enlightened one is significant, the seeker watched the teacher closely.  "Why do you blow on your hands?" "To warm myself in the cold."  Later, Nasrudin poured bowls of hot soup for himself and the newcomer, and blew on his own.  "Why are you doing that, Master?" "To cool the soup."  Unable to trust a man who uses the same process to arrive at two different results -- hot and cold -- the disciple departed.

Which is predicated on the flawed assumtion that CO2 is the major driving force, the original assumption which is based off less accurate measurements from the ice cores which could not detect the 800 year gap between temperature and CO2 changes.

The point is the evidence now no longer supports CO2 as a major dirving force in global cliamte change, the point is that the temperature changes before there is any significant cahnge in CO2 levels, and the increase in CO2 levels, at it's peak, does not cause an increase in temperature, because the peak temperature has already been reached without CO2.  The point is that CO2 as a major cause of warming no longer has merit because it can no longer adaquately explain all evidence where other theories, such as solar activity, CAN.  The rule of parsimony, which is a basic tenet of science, indicates that the best solution is taht which best explains all evidence with the fewest assumptions, and CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming no long fits that rule, if it ever did.

Have a peer-reviewed article: http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

I haven't read it yet, as I only got up because a telemarketer called me, and am going right back to sleep now.  All I know is that it talks about the 800 year gap.

[Valynth]

I just think its funny that we had Snowball Earth at a time when CO2 levels were monsterously high compared to now.

A would-be disciple came to Nasrudin's hut on the mountain-side.  Knowing that every action of such an enlightened one is significant, the seeker watched the teacher closely.  "Why do you blow on your hands?" "To warm myself in the cold."  Later, Nasrudin poured bowls of hot soup for himself and the newcomer, and blew on his own.  "Why are you doing that, Master?" "To cool the soup."  Unable to trust a man who uses the same process to arrive at two different results -- hot and cold -- the disciple departed.

Answering scientific logic with philosophical logic/stories?  I think you've pretty much discredited yourself with that.

[superluser]

Answering scientific logic with philosophical logic/stories?  I think you've pretty much discredited yourself with that.

Please explain.

[Noone]

*sighs*  I hate when people think "CO2 ia a pollutant."  Not it isn't.

Thats just silly. Even if it isn't a major contributor to global warming, it still causes other nasty side effects. Acid Rain and reduction of air quality are two other things it contributes to, neither of which are healthy. CO2+H2O->H2CO3, aka Carbon dioxide, combined with atmospheric moisture, turns into carbonic acid, and that's scary all on it's own. For the bad air quality, one could take a look at industrial era London, where buildings were literally caked in soot, and air quality was so horrendous that it was hard to even breathe on the streets.

The graph of ice cores that Gore "revealed?"  Turns out, he looked for a matching line and placed them on top of each other disregarding anything else like the fact that the CO2 line was several hundred years BEFORE the temperature fluctuations.  Then there's also the fact that, with proper scaling, any set of data can be graphically matched with any other sets of data.  Couple these two facts together and his little "graph" fails to impress.

There is money to be made on both sides of the issue. Those in the oil industry for example, have plenty of incentive to try and 'prove' that CO2 is completely non-polluting, as it would increase sales. The reverse is also true, those in the green energy industry have incentive to exaggerate the role of man-made pollution on the environment, and it's important to understand that neither are correct. Ideally, one would want to be more environmentally concerned than oil companies want us to be, and less so than green energy wants us to be.

One key thing that seems to be missing here, is that global warming is not the overall raise in temperature world wide, but rather a gradual shift towards a warmer climate. It's a very important difference.

[Valynth]

Answering scientific logic with philosophical logic/stories?  I think you've pretty much discredited yourself with that.

Please explain.

Philisophical logic is imaginary logic.  It can draw on ideas that don't have any roots in reality, where as scientific logic must have physical data to base it's analysis on.

Your argument also compares to unlike things, the nature of CO2 and the nature of breath.  In the first example, the teacher is using the warmth of his core body to warm his extremities.  In the second, he is using the movement of a fluid, in this case air, to cool an object.  These two things are completely different and do not reflect the NATURE of the air itself, but rather the other forces using the air as a conduit.  These forces can also use other things a conduit, negating you comparison of CO2's nature to the nature of a breath.

[superluser]

Acid Rain and reduction of air quality are two other things it contributes to, neither of which are healthy. CO2+H2O->H2CO3, aka Carbon dioxide, combined with atmospheric moisture, turns into hydrochloric acid, and that's scary all on it's own.

*shudder* There's so much wrong with that.

First, acid rain tends to come from Sulphur Dioxide, not Carbon Dioxide.  Second, H2CO3 is not hydrochloric acid (HCl), but rather carbonic acid.

Philisophical logic is imaginary logic.  It can draw on ideas that don't have any roots in reality, where as scientific logic must have physical data to base it's analysis on.

Uh huh.  Like how the four-color theorem only works in theory, and not in practice.

Your argument also compares to unlike things, the nature of CO2 and the nature of breath.  In the first example, the teacher is using the warmth of his core body to warm his extremities.  In the second, he is using the movement of a fluid, in this case air, to cool an object.  These two things are completely different and do not reflect the NATURE of the air itself, but rather the other forces using the air as a conduit.  These forces can also use other things a conduit, negating you comparison of CO2's nature to the nature of a breath.

In the case of global warming, CO2 absorbs the radiation that is attempting to leave the atmosphere.  In the case of Snowball Earth (if I understand it correctly), the atmosphere is so reflective that insufficient energy reaches the Earth.  Neither of these are the inherent NATURE (as you so put it) of CO2, but rather different actions that are enabled or coincident with the rise of CO2.

My analogy is an attempt to explain that two disparate effects can have the same proximate source, but explaining it like that is pretty dry.  It's much more engaging when you explain it using Nasrudin.

Funny, when I made the exact same argument using Arsenic, you had no problem with it.

[Tezkat]

You also bring up something else, though - you said green energy is competitive on a cost per kilowatt ratio. Is that still so, with falling oil prices? Not that I don't expect oil to bounce right back.

Perhaps.

Oil is used mainly for transportation, not electricity, but historically, coal and natural gas have tracked oil prices. Only in the last few years have we hit the tipping point where new renewable energy technologies were seriously viable in the American market. High oil prices pushed the price of traditional energy generation (discounting nuclear, but that can't expand much) above $0.05/kWh, while technological innovation reduced capital costs until renewable energy approached $0.10/kWh. The government started throwing tax credits at it, and the two met in the middle. It may be several more years before green energy is seriously competitive with fossil fuels without subsidies.

Even if recession in the US drops demand for energy in the short term, the rest of the world is there to pick up the slack. Resource poor developed countries (like Germany and Japan) still need energy to fuel growth, and the developing world (especially China, India, and Indonesia) are gentrifying and adopting Westernized energy foodprints at incredible rates. It doesn't take a genius to see that growth in global energy demand outstripping production will make dependence on fossil fuels increasingly dangerous. Investment in renewables represents economic security for the future. The question, from a policy standpoint, is whether you want to create a business environment suited to leading the transition or falling behind it. America has historically opted for the latter.


Fun facts and estimates about power generating costs, to give you an idea of the scale of the numbers...


Wind power is very geography dependent. Actually running a turbine is fairly cheap (under $0.02/kWh). Much of the O&M costs listed represents land and insurance.

+ $0.09 Capital Costs ($1500/kW installed, 30% availability)
+ $0.03 Operations and Maintenance
- $0.03 Tax Credits
= $0.09 per kWh

These are wholesale costs, ignoring transmission, storage, and distribution costs or markups by the utility companies. Since wind power is intermittent and often generated far from the end users, transmission and storage can be much higher than for other forms of energy, but I've ignore that here. It's a significant barrier to greater deployment of wind power, though. The red tape involved in stringing transmission lines out to wind farms killed a number of projects.

With respect to capital costs, I'm assuming equity financing with a capital charge rate of about 15% over 20 years, which is typical of such high risk ventures. Financing a project with cheap debt could drop that by several cents per kWh. Also keep in mind that many power plants have a useful service life of 30 years or more. Maintenance costs rise sharply as a plant ages, but paying off the mortgage will let you sell power for the cost of O&M + Fuel.


Natural gas really picked up steam back in the 90's after the Clean Air Act amendments, since it burns fairly clean of nearly everything but CO2. It's been the fastest growing traditional source of electricity for two decades. Combined cycle natural gas plants are relatively cheap to build and operate ($120 million for a 200 MWe plant).

+ $0.01 Capital Costs ($600/kW, 85% availability)
+ $0.01 Operations and Maintenance
+ $0.04 Fuel (assuming $6 per million BTU)
= $0.06 per kWh

Natural gas prices peaked at about $14/MMBTU ($0.11/kWh).


Pulverized coal-fired plants have traditionally been the cheapest source of electricity. Modern plants incorporate technology to remove NOx, SO2, and Hg (about $0.01/kWh more capital and maintenance costs, already included). It's still pretty smelly and dirty, but it powers half of America's electricity. The country has the world's largest reserves, and many major coal producing states (like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) also happen to be the battlegrounds determining who gets the Oval Office, so don't expect coal to go away anytime soon.

+ $0.03 Capital Costs ($1500/kW, 85% availability)
+ $0.01 Operations and Maintenance
+ $0.02 Fuel (assuming $50/ton of ~12000 BTU/ton coal)
= $0.06 per kWh

Coal prices peaked at about $150/ton ($0.10/kWh), though the stuff typically used for electricity in the US is a bit cheaper and less concentrated.

There's a new "clean coal" technology called IGCC, which basically turns coal into natural (well, synthetic) gas. It receives $0.03/kWh in government subsidies, but the increased costs easily cancel that out.

Several municipalities, states and countries already have caps or taxes on carbon emissions. A carbon tax of $20 per ton of CO2 would add about $0.02/kWh for a coal-fired plant and $0.01 for natural gas. Estimated costs for adding CCS (carbon capture and storage) to a plant range from about $0.03/kWh for gas or IGCC to $0.06/kWh for coal-fired plants. To be honest, I don't think people have really figured that stuff out yet--it's uncharted (and controversial) territory, but also full of opportunities for enterprising green capitalists and engineers.


Nuclear power plants are wildly expensive to build (about $6 billion for a 1600 MWe AREVA EPR). Fuel costs are mostly processing, not raw uranium, so nuclear power is not very sensitive to commodities pricing. Indeed, assuming steady loads, the cost of nuclear remains fairly constant until you pay off the mortgage. Note that America hasn't built a new reactor since Three Mile Island happened. With construction costs paid off years ago, the aging fleet supplies 20% of America's electricity for little more than their operating and fuel costs--they're laughing all the way to the bank, Mr. Burns style. They've been steadily expanding existing plants with (frequently inexpensive) uprates to improve efficiency and capacity, and most have been running at 90%+ capacity for the better part of this decade. The US government takes responsibility for radioactive waste disposal.

+ $0.08 Capital Costs ($4000/kW, 85% availability)
+ $0.01 Operations and Maintenance
+ $0.01 Fuel
- $0.02 Tax Credit (new nuclear plants only)
= $0.08 per kWh

Global uranium consumption currently exceeds production by a fair bit, which could be a problem. We're now decommissioning nuclear weapons for fuel...


Photovoltaic panels have seen some crazy drops in price of late. Current prices run around $5000/kW just for the hardware. Nanosolar, which just got a huge wad of venture capital from the Google boys, claims to have already reached the magic $999/kW with flexible thin-film solar panels you can mount just about anywhere, but we'll probably need some time to see that go to scale. You can fit about 3 kW worth of panels on a typical roof. Annual performance ranges from about 1200 kWh/kW in northern climes to 2400 kWh/kW in sunny Arizona. Many states support something called "net metering", whereby your own production supplements grid power and may even provide you with a credit selling power back to the electric company on sunny days. Labour can cost even more than the panels--installation and grid connection generally run another $5000/kW. Those are the so called "green collar" service jobs that can't be outsourced.

The costs of solar energy vary widely from state to state, as each has different insolation levels, government incentives, and standard electricity costs. Many utility companies with net metering will actually subsidize a good chunk of the system themselves. Let's put together a sample residential package in, say, Long Island:

+ $30000 to install a 3 kW system ($10000/kW, 17% availability)
- $10500 in direct incentives from Long Island Power Authority
- $5000 in State Tax Credits
- $9000 in Federal Tax Credits (after January 1, 2009; it caps at $2000 for 2008)
= $5500 installed ($0.11/kWh amortized over 25 years at 7.5%)

New Yorkers pay something like $0.19/kWh retail for electricity, so this is a great deal, and it gives them warm fuzzies for saving the environment. It's also a housing upgrade that you could recoup when selling your home. And let's not forget that the power companies get customers to subsidize increases in generating capacity.

Solar energy is increasingly viable on the grid side, as well. Sunrgi claims to have achieved the magic $0.05/kWh using concentrated photovoltaics, but I've yet to see the numbers or assumptions that back that up. Solar energy has been very expensive until recently, but it's clearly the way of the future.

That's what I'm saying, though I fail to see how this is irrelevant.  Temperature increases atmospheric CO2 levels(*), which then increase temperature, which then increases atmospheric CO2 levels, which then increase... and so on.  It doesn't matter how the feedback loop starts, just that when it does start, the only way to stop it is to reduce the global temperature or reduce the global levels of CO2.

As I understand it, the Antarctic ice cores measure the CO2 trapped in air bubbles, not in the water itself, so they're measuring the atmospheric CO2, which is where we should expect to see this effect.

(*) By increasing the amount of CO2 given off by the ocean and also by not absorbing CO2 that a less saturated ocean would have been able to absorb.

Helpful clarification, since it wasn't quite clear from your article...

Ice cores record atmospheric CO2. We use other proxies for marine paleoclimatology.

Most of the world's CO2 is underwater. CO2 dissolves into water--more easily in colder (and deeper) water, so CO2 tends to sink along the solubility gradient. Warming the oceans releases oceanic CO2, causing it to rise and bubble out into the atmosphere. (Try it for yourself: Go heat up a bottle of Coke and watch what happens to the CO2. )

A lot of anthropogenic CO2 is still being absorbed by the oceans, albeit not enough to compensate for our emission rates. At the moment, we're seeing a net increase in oceanic carbon--rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 are driving acidification of oceans even as they warm. I see the effects when I SCUBA dive. Every year, more of the vibrant colours bleed away as the sensitive coral reefs bleach and die.

The biological pump is important, so loss of marine biodiversity should cause concern. Through processes such as photosynthesis and calcification, organisms store carbon within their bodies. Dead organic matter sinks to the ocean floor. This sediment (some of which may become oil or other fossil fuels, given the right conditions) serves as long-term sequestration of atmospheric CO2 until elevated ocean temperatures and acidity dissolve it out... or some enterprising animal digs the stuff up because burning it is fun and profitable.

Which is predicated on the flawed assumtion that CO2 is the major driving force, the original assumption which is based off less accurate measurements from the ice cores which could not detect the 800 year gap between temperature and CO2 changes.

The point is the evidence now no longer supports CO2 as a major dirving force in global cliamte change, the point is that the temperature changes before there is any significant cahnge in CO2 levels, and the increase in CO2 levels, at it's peak, does not cause an increase in temperature, because the peak temperature has already been reached without CO2.  The point is that CO2 as a major cause of warming no longer has merit because it can no longer adaquately explain all evidence where other theories, such as solar activity, CAN.  The rule of parsimony, which is a basic tenet of science, indicates that the best solution is taht which best explains all evidence with the fewest assumptions, and CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming no long fits that rule, if it ever did.

Discounting the very short term effects of eruption particulates inhibiting sunlight, volcanic activity affects the climate primarily through the emission of CO2--not unlike fossil fuels. Increased volcanism likely explains some prehistoric cases of rising CO2 triggering periods of global warming. (Unless you've got a good theory for global warming causing increased volcanic activity...) The Neogene has been characterized by relatively low volcanism, so a lot of the regular cycles as evidenced by Pleistocene and Holocene ice core data were probably triggered by insolation changes due to orbital variations, solar activity, and whatnot.

Triggered.

Solar forcing mechanisms could conceivably explain a lot of the small climate variation over recorded history. They could be responsible for those first few centuries of significant rising (or falling) temperature trends observed in ice core data and geological/fossil records, but they cannot account for the magnitude or duration of temperature change over the subsequent millenia. That requires feedback systems powerful enough to sustain the increase or decrease in temperature, with release and sequestration of greenhouse gasses being the most obvious contenders. The Eocene hyperthermals were marked by massive spikes in atmospheric carbon--exceeding modern levels by an order of magnitude--and a planet hot enough for species we would consider to be tropical today to flourish near the poles. And yet the Earth wasn't getting much more sun than we are now. The planet didn't seriously cool off until massive blooms of polar flora sequestered enough carbon to kick off an ice age. People want to dig that up and burn it, too...

Reaching a tipping point of one kind or another can also trigger fairly rapid changes in temperature through other feedback mechanisms, which would lead the subsequent CO2 variation. Albedo changes, for instance. Cold tends to produce snow, which is shiny and reflects sunlight rather than allowing it to warm the ground, which cools off the region even more and thickens the ice cover. Melting ice reverses the process. In the Snowball Earth theory Alondro mentioned, most models suggest that the low temperatures and high global albedo would have been self-reinforcing until extremely high CO2 levels (due to volcanic emissions) warmed the atmosphere enough for tropical ice to melt and begin the reversal. The Earth is a complex system.

There's little doubt that greenhouse gasses contribute to warming the planet. That's why we call them greenhouse gasses. We're arguing about the magnitude and the timeframe of their effects, specifically as they relate to athropogenic emissions and observed climate change. Mars warmed up more than we did during the last few decades. It gets half as much sun, but the atmosphere is almost pure CO2, rather than mostly nitrogen and oxygen like ours--greenhouse gasses significantly amplified the effect of elevated solar radiation.

Or maybe Martians just have solar powered space heaters.

[Noone]

Second, H2CO3 is not hydrochloric acid (HCl), but rather carbonic acid.

Whoops, my mistake then.

[Darkmoon]

Gah! Tezkat made a long post... I feel like I should read it, but it's sooooooooooooo long.

[superluser]

Here's some more stuff about the lag:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Essentially, what it seems to say is that the previous climate changes have been initiated by something other than anthropogenic CO2 (but we knew that, since y'know, we weren't around then), but that CO2 acts as an intensifier, meaning that while CO2 didn't cause climate change then, CO2 is capable of causing climate change, and indeed, CO2 does seem to be causing it now.

Gah! Tezkat made a long post... I feel like I should read it, but it's sooooooooooooo long.

I do believe the proper response is tl;dr.

I'd try to make a dramatic reading for you so that you could listen to it while doing something else, but alas, everything in my apartment (including microphones) picks up EWTN, so unless you want to listen to me *and* Mother Angelica, you'd be better off just reading it.

[Cvstos]

I read it. I have to change what I was typing because of it. That's the most detailed post on global warming I've even seen. Very well done. Tezkat deserves a cookie or something.