A couple questions:
Is it really more expensive long term to bury electric lines in most situations?
Is there scientific proof that reducing CO2 emissions is having an impact on global temperature?
It is at least 10x the cost to bury lines even more as the voltage increases.
GrampIs there scientific proof that reducing CO2 emissions is having an impact on global temperature?
I have been highly critical of some of the ways in which the efforts around establishing anthropogenic greenhouse heating have been conducted, particularly in Europe. That does not involve criticism of much of the actual science, or the actual theorization, about the possibility or probability of AGW; I have believed in that since first being advised of the possibility, in the 1970s. In my opinion it is much more likely to be practically real than alternative explanations like variable insolation, and hence worthy of attention and, where appropriate, right action.
But the real issue is the one you stated: how can the effects be mitigated or turned around? And two of the more critical issues are whether 'the world' has in fact 'decreased' carbon emissions enough to matter (or even has a real prospect of so doing), and whether we can in fact restore the previous state of a complex climate merely by reversing a principal driver of its change. Personally I consider that neither is likely -- and that one condition necessary in any case is to promptly clamp down on excess carbon emissions worldwide, with no exceptions for poverty or 'emerging status' or internal politics, at least to the point low-altitude CO2 measurements can be agreed to show at least prospective tangible year-over-year decline. Does anyone here concur that this would be at best unlikely, at least in the prospective timeframe to irreversible systemic climactic change under most of the valid current models?
OM: Attempting to make sense of what you say is often like cleaning the Augean Stables. However, it seems that continuing to reduce and move towards a cease and desist pisition with CO2 and methane emissions is essential. Sequestration carbon to bring levels of CO2 back to some agreed upon ppm would need to also occur. In both cases, haste is necessary.
charlie hebdo... it seems that continuing to reduce and move towards a cease and desist position with CO2 and methane emissions is essential.
Part of the issue is that I think we need concentration on actual measures that reduce CO2 emissions at relatively high emission level and general distribution, not just start whacking carbon emissions as equally evil. One very clear place that I've studied is the reduction of distributed combustion emissions in home heating; another (which has some implications for professional pollution prosecutors) is distributed transportation emissions artificially enhanced, often by 6% or greater, to address a largely imaginary problem with photochemical NOx reactions.
I have thought, regretfully, that while our participation in any sort of Kyoto or Paris accord is necessary, compelling global emissions reduction to the same standard is just as essential. And I do not see that taking place with either the comprehensiveness, or the thoroughness of execution, or the haste, that is necessary. The politically-practical limiting of gross CO2 emissions (at least in a system where government policy reversal is possible within a relatively short election cycle) even in pre-Trump years was more virtue-signaling than an expedient program to get levels reduced even to dynamic stability at current levels ... which I think you and I agree are already far too high.
Sequestration carbon to bring levels of CO2 back to some agreed upon ppm would need to also occur. In both cases, haste is necessary.
Some of the work done at Intellectual Ventures many years ago now looked at what the best mix of sequestration technologies, including at the time those pertinent to clean-coal technologies, would be. At that time the order of magnitude of simple sequestration capture of sufficient carbon at the points the technologies could be applied at meaningful scale was considerably in excess of global financial capability, independent of the opportunity cost or even possibility of buildout to scale in a meaningful timeframe. Where the global political will to address this issue will come from in a post-pandemic economy where much more basic Maslow-style needs will be increasingly evident is an interesting conjecture ... but almost certainly far short of what is needed. Or perhaps better stated, what was needed some time ago.
I would be highly interested in approaches you may know, or know of (ideally with 'numbers' associated) that would effectively sequester, and ideally then utilize in a stable and irreversible form, atmospheric carbon in the amounts necessary even to reattain historical average level.
tree68 MidlandMike What did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates? Burned wood in wood stoves, used kerosene heaters (Kerosun, etc). Some people had generators. I dug out my wood stove and got some firewood from a friend. The FD spent a lot of time making the rounds pumping basements, or at least providing power to sump pumps. There was a lot of water involved between the ice and the snow that fell after the ice. Many more people have generators now, both portable and built in.
MidlandMike What did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates?
Burned wood in wood stoves, used kerosene heaters (Kerosun, etc). Some people had generators.
I dug out my wood stove and got some firewood from a friend.
The FD spent a lot of time making the rounds pumping basements, or at least providing power to sump pumps. There was a lot of water involved between the ice and the snow that fell after the ice.
Many more people have generators now, both portable and built in.
I am not suprised that many in the Adirondack area used wood stoves, but I thought cities like Montreal were also hammered.
MidlandMikeI am not suprised that many in the Adirondack area used wood stoves, but I thought cities like Montreal were also hammered.
We ran a shelter at our social hall for a week. Did more business in meals (serving over 3,000) than in overnight stays. There was a generator keeping the hall running.
The numerous utility crews would often bring in the box lunches they'd been issued and traded them for a hot meal.
We did provide a fair amount of water for people without same. Everyone around here is on a well.
I really don't know how the major cities in the path of the storm dealt with the outage. Several of our smaller cities in the area have a local source of power in the form of hydroelectric.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.