Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

In article <znu-4F6361.16541601062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<gmgraves-E59764.12354601062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <znu-76346B.02033301062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
we're screwed.

--

I don't think that there is much we can do about it EITHER way. While I
don't discount the possibility that global warming is caused
anthropogenically, or is at least exacerbated by anthropogenic activity,
I do feel that the evidence is not real compelling AT THIS TIME. OTOH, I
also am not sure what knowing this for a fact will do for us. The
population of this planet continues to grow at a largely unchecked rate.
These new arrivals need heat in winter, fires to cook their food, and
eventually, as second and third-world infrastructures catch-up to the
first-world, energy for their cars, electric lights, etc. Until then,
Chinese peasants will continue to burn coal and coke for their fires,
Brazilian farmers will continue their slash and burn tactics on the rain
forests because that's their only source of livelihood and there is
nothing on the horizon that could change either situation in the next 50
years at least. In fact, these greenhouse gas emissions are, if
anything, going to get a lot worse before they get any better. Do you
agree? While at this moment, we Americans use more resources per capita
than any other nation, the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with
us. How can anything be done? We could help by abandoning our cars, but
since there is no infrastructure that can replace them, its not likely.
Changing over completely to hydrogen to either burn (produces no
greehouse gases) or convert to electricity using fuel cells is probably
50 years off, and still that would only affect the contribution by the
developed nations while population in the underdeveloped nations along
with their increasing energy needs continue to grow at unprecedented
rates.

Nuclear fission is safe, reasonably cheap, and is here now. It's quite
plausible for developing nations as well as developed nations. China has
a huge nuclear power program underway, because they recognize exactly
the problem you're discussing.

Let me know when that is even close to reality.

There are even ways to deal with nations which we might not necessarily
trust with nuclear material. There are proposals for building sealed,
tamper-proof, self-maintaining rectors which could be delivered by ship,
and provide power for 50 years while storing waste internally. Or we can
use reactors to produce hydrogen or methanol or whatever, and ship that
to them.

Again, let us know when that's a fact.

Add in wind power, which is already about as cheap as coal power. While
too variable over short time spans to provide a significant fraction of
power to the grid, it could be used to produce hydrogen. Same deal for
solar, except that it presently costs 5-6 times as much as wind. One
neat thing about wind and solar is that they lend themselves to
decentralized deployed, which reduces transmission losses and may lead
to greater reliability.

If hydrogen turns out to be too inconvenient to use as a vehicle fuel,
which seems possible, use ethanol. In the United States, where it's made
from corn, it's not particularly cheap or efficient; government support
of it is basically a subsidy for ADM. But in Brazil, where it's made
from sugar cane, it's a very different matter. Ethanol production in
Brazil is energy-positive, carbon neutral, and ethanol ends up costing
about $0.63/gallon. It has a somewhat lower energy density than
gasoline, so maybe $0.80 of ethanol is equivalent to a gallon of gas.
Seems like a pretty good deal these days, no? And this is not some
hypothetical thing that won't scale up. Brazil has replaced 40% of the
gasoline used in cars with ethanol already.

And this helps Brazilian clear-cutting and rain-forest burning, how?

Moreover, ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, and is largely compatible
with existing gasoline infrastructure, so there's no reason why a switch
has to happen all at once. It's not too hard to build cars which will
run on 100% gasoline, 100% ethanol, or some blend. Many vehicles sold
now in the US can already run on E85, which is 85% ethanol.

Again the question comes down to population.

Even if you were to cut global population in half, it's unlikely you
would solve the problem. Particularly since e.g. cheaper energy would be
likely to lead to higher per-capita energy consumption.

[snip]

You are ignoring reality, znu, by posting pie-in-the-sky "could be's".
Why some of you guys continue to be so blind on the population issue
escapes me. Less people: Less pollution. Its that simple. Combined with
the alternative energy sources that you are championing above, and if
there is man-made global warming. then we might get a handle on reducing
our contributions to it. But one without the other is futile and even
silly. We have to reduce the world's population sooner or later and this
is as good a reason as any to start.

--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
.

Loading