Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau
From the Idaho Stateman......
http://www.idahostatesman.com/273/v-print/story/82004.html
Quote of Note:
"After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again. Ahead of Gillispie are 15 bigger companies - well-known companies like Duke Energy, Unistar and Entergy - proposing to build plants."
This should send shivers down the spines of the railroad industry. That's 15 nuclear power plants that are basically replacing coal fired generation due to *concerns* about CO2 emissions and supposed climate change.
Who says the global warming scam-a-rama won't hurt railroads?
BTW - folks, let's keep this one on topic, e.g. how these things relate to the railroad industry, okay? Thanx.
futuremodal wrote: Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau"After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again.
"After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again.
What was the actual, practical impediment that stopped the nuclear power industry from moving in the first place? It must have been something more substantial than just public perception of danger. Has that impediment been removed now in the interest of producing power without releasing CO2? Is the political force behind the elimination of CO2 willing to embrace nuclear energy as an alternative to coal generation? I suspect not. The only remedy I hear from them is the reduction of consumption even if it has to be accomplished by consumption taxes that raise the price.
Can nuclear be green?
Bucyrus wrote: futuremodal wrote: Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau"After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again. What was the actual, practical impediment that stopped the nuclear power industry from moving in the first place? It must have been something more substantial than just public perception of danger.
What was the actual, practical impediment that stopped the nuclear power industry from moving in the first place? It must have been something more substantial than just public perception of danger.
No that was pretty much it. Three Mile Island, coupled with the movie, The China Syndrome, which came out almost the same time as the accident in Penn, pretty much scared people to the point that no plant has been built in the US since.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
Bucyrus wrote: futuremodal wrote: Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau"After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again. What was the actual, practical impediment that stopped the nuclear power industry from moving in the first place? It must have been something more substantial than just public perception of danger. Has that impediment been removed now in the interest of producing power without releasing CO2? Is the political force behind the elimination of CO2 willing to embrace nuclear energy as an alternative to coal generation? I suspect not. The only remedy I hear from them is the reduction of consumption even if it has to be accomplished by consumption taxes that raise the price. Can nuclear be green?
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island coupled with a few typical over-hysterical hollywood movies turned the public firmly against nuclear power. Nevermind that Chernobyl was a victim of faulty design (the Soviets were never very good at actually 'inventing' nuclear technology - most of their info was gleaned from the US and they filled in the blanks were needed. Me thinks they paid for it dearly). Three Mile Island was actually a raging success story, as far as meltdowns are concerned. The American design was able to contain a meltdown long enough for it to be controlled. No radioactivity was released.
I think that if the greenies want to have 'clean' power (let's face it, no energy production is without a certain degree of pollution) they are going to have to consider nuclear energy. They can discuss various ways to cut back power, but this will only lower the price of electricity are allow people to become wasteful - until the price goes back up again. Nukes will allows us to have a plentiful source of cheap energy, without funding idiotic terrorist oil regimes or burning about a billion tons of coal. It really is the only option available to meet our energy needs.
Of course this doesn't bode well for the railroads. Coal would fall by the wayside. I wouldn't start pulling up the rails in the PRB just yet, however. A nuke takes 10 years to build. If several plants start construction at once in a 1 or 2 state proximity that starts to really tax skilled labor and material-Nuke construction has a tremendous appitite for both. And once the new nuclear plants are on line the coal plants won't necessarily be shut down, either. The price of coal would probably drop dramatically as the the demand drops in favor of nukes and I think it would be awfully hard for utilities to justify closing a coal plant that burns a dirt cheap fuel for dirt cheap electricity, even if it does pollute.
Best guess if 10 nukes started construction today RR's wouldn't feel the pinch for 15 years.
If the spent fuel storage repository is on line. And the power station has a siding near by spent fuel can still be sent by rail ala like in the UK.
But how does the public's fear of nuclear power prevent a person from building a nuclear plant? If the builder can sell the electricity and has the money to build the plant, what stops him? I suspect that the public's fear has translated into goverment restrictions that exist today. The only thing that has changed is a rising fervor to elimate the release of CO2.
If we had to eliminate all CO2 emissions from power generation, which approach would be more cost effective?
1) Seqester the CO2 from coal plants.
2) Replace coal plants with nuclear plants.
Bucyrus wrote: f we had to eliminate all CO2 emissions from power generation, which approach would be more cost effective?1) Seqester the CO2 from coal plants.
f we had to eliminate all CO2 emissions from power generation, which approach would be more cost effective?
This is a very expensive technology that is called a 'scrubber'. It is pricey to put in, the technology is not really perfected, and you still have to clean the gunk off the collection elements and get rid of it somewhere. Long term operating and maintenance costs are high. Is it effective? Well I am sure that somehwere a politician is sleeping in a warm fuzzy dream - convinced that he has done his part to force power plants to clean up their act. Worse emissions are the mercury and sulfur - ever notice how these aren't really discussed? CO2 can be scrubbed from the air by mother nature, and in fact this goes on every day. Plants use CO2 in photosynthesis to grow. A cheap and natural solution would be to plant more trees. Earth has no problem filtering out massive volcanic eruptions - eruptions that spew more CO2 then even Al Gore in his jet could muster- and that's a lot! If the enviroment can handle a massive calamity like that it would have no problem filtering out the puny amounts of CO2 that we spew out of our power plants. Of more concern is the mercury and the sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide. These substances tend to have a very negative effect on anything that is alive, be it plant or animal.
I just can't see that happening. Coal plants, for all of their pollution problems, are pretty cheap to operate. Trains can haul the coal cheaply. Aside from the air polllution, the fly ash that is left from the burned coal is useful as a strengthening additive in concrete. I have heard round these parts that fly ash (also a potential rail commodity) is in such high demand now that WE Energies is digging it out of the landfills they have been dumping it in for years. Coal isn't going to go away. We need more power plants now, and I think that even if 20 nuclear plants were under construction today it would do no more than keep pace with projected increases in useage. Coal will continue to be the mainstay for years to come. Utilities have invested billions in updating power plants to burn coal more efficiently and completely - today coal is typically burned three or even four times to get every ounce of energy out of it. They don't just shove it in a furnace a let 'er rip. It is ground to a fine powder and then passed through several burning stages to ensure that it is completely depleted. That's why coal burners have more then just a big pile of coal and a furnace next to them. They contain a vast amount of coal processing equipment - equipment to grind, filter, and pulverize coal before it even enters into a burn.
Nukes can be a big step in the right direction for the future, but coal will continue to produce a bulk of our energy. It is plentiful and cheap. No other source of energy even comes close.
Bucyrus wrote:What was the actual, practical impediment that stopped the nuclear power industry from moving in the first place? It must have been something more substantial than just public perception of danger. Has that impediment been removed now in the interest of producing power without releasing CO2? Is the political force behind the elimination of CO2 willing to embrace nuclear energy as an alternative to coal generation? I suspect not. The only remedy I hear from them is the reduction of consumption even if it has to be accomplished by consumption taxes that raise the price.
Interest rates...
Not too long after the Three Mile Island incident, interest rates went well above 10%. Since nuclear plants are capital intensive and often took years from the time the plant was completed to the issuance of an operating license, building plants become very uneconomical.
One advantage of a nuke plant is that no CO2 is directly produced by plant operation (although there is indirect production from construction and operation). One of the things that made me wary of the Climate Change Lobby is that many of the same people complaining about climate change were also complaining about nuclear energy (e.g. the Green Parties in Europe).
erikem wrote: One of the things that made me wary of the Climate Change Lobby is that many of the same people complaining about climate change were also complaining about nuclear energy (e.g. the Green Parties in Europe).
Yes that is the point I was making in an earlier post when I asked: Can nuclear be green? I think we all know the answer.
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html
How coal works: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html
FYI: Did you know that a typical coal-fired power plant actually released MORE radioactivity into the surrounding area than a properly managed nuclear-fired power plant?http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlorhttp://www.epa.gov/radtown/coal-plant.htm
FM-
Did any of the 5 WPPSS plants go on line, and what state are they in now ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPPSS
Bucyrus wrote: erikem wrote: One of the things that made me wary of the Climate Change Lobby is that many of the same people complaining about climate change were also complaining about nuclear energy (e.g. the Green Parties in Europe). Yes that is the point I was making in an earlier post when I asked: Can nuclear be green? I think we all know the answer.
nanaimo73 wrote: FM-Did any of the 5 WPPSS plants go on line, and what state are they in now ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPPSS
One, at Hanford. The others had the construction stopped on them and were left to rot. The BPA bought it from Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS).
Oregon caused PGE to close their only nuke which was across the river from Kalama, WA. when the steam turbine developed balance problems and PGE was making noises of not fixing it and GE (the maker) said "not our problem". It now has been torn down. PGE customers paid to build it, operate it, and then tear it down. PGE wanted to build a second nuke at Pebble Springs (near the present Boardman Coal Fired Plant) but Oregon wouldn't let them.
zardoz wrote: In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
Okay, let's stop right there. If you really want "the primary human cause of global warming", look no further than your average large city. The Urban Heat Island effect can raise observed surface temperatures by as much as 7 degrees F. That is the only empirical, measurable human caused temperature effect. There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any causal effect on global temperatures, as it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire greenhouse effect potential.
And for the record, cutting down old growth trees and replacing them with new trees reduces the terrestrial release of greenhouse gases. Not sure if that's what you meant, but there it is for clarification.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing the point that combusting coal releases CO2. I'm saying it is wrong to demonize CO2 in the first place. CO2 is not a pollutant, never has been, never will be, and does not "cause" global warming despite what the Supreme Court tries to legislate from the bench. Remember, it is global warming that is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, and man's CO2 contributions pale in comparison.
Now, the rest of this......
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
......is technically true in terms of the numbers given, but only for the older pulverized coal fired power plants, and the subsequent claims attached to some of the elements listed are fraudulent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest arsenic levels of 50 parts per billion will cause one out of 100 to get cancer, nor is there any empirical evidence that 1/70 of a teaspoon of mercury in a 25 acre lake will make fish unsafe to eat. And if all such coal fired power plants were converted to IGCC (gasification), then the only element emitted in any significance is CO2, and as I explained CO2 is not a pollutant........
Other items are taken way out of context. For example, biodiesel made from vegetable oils actually releases 11% more NOx than regular diesel refined from oil, and 20% more NOx than synthetic diesel derived from coal via the Fischer-Tropse method. So, the same people who are demonizing coal are usually the same people promoting biodiesel. Well, is NOx a concern or not? Because if it is then biodiesel should be your last option!
Since I'm on the subject, I do favor aggressive development of coal to liquids technology as a replacement for "manipulatable" sources of foreign oil. Such is probably the only thing that will save the railroads from bankruptcy if coal fired power generation is subsequently banned due to these phony concerns about global warming. Remember, CTL allows the producer to shift the responsibility of the so-called "carbon footprint" from the plant to the vehicle tailpipe. Plus, as much as the left in this country wants to force utilities to shift to non-hydrocarbon power generation, they would have a much harder time politically trying to get folks to convert to non-hydrocarbon powered autos.
FYI - The groundbreaking British documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle is due to be released to DVD. Since it is unlikely our taxpayer supported PBS network will have the kahuna's to show this film, you'll all have to order this film to see the real story behind this GW sham.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/dvd.html
The reason in the UK that spent fuel is sent by rail from both the Magnox/AGR stations is because it is the safest way to transport it.
Eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLJh3jccvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL8zvZrCDCg
In Minnesota, the legislature has just passed the strongest renewable energy mandate in the U.S. It requires that 25% of the state's electric power must be produced by wind and other renewables by 2025. It also requires that Excel Energy, the state's largest utility company, derive 30% of the energy it produces from renewables by 2020.
What is fascinating is the total disconnect between the sponsors of this legislation and any expectation of additional cost to meet these mandates. I have read letters to the editor written by some of the sponsors that claim there will not be added cost. On the contrary, they contend that their enlightened green mandates will actually lower energy costs and provide new jobs and other forms of prosperity besides.
Representative David Hann disagrees. When the bill was being discussed, he asked the proponents to provide an estimate of the CO2 reduction that would result. They could not provide an estimate. He also asked what the impact would be on the ratepayers and was told the energy companies are still working on that answer. The Department of Commerce, however, did estimate that the CO2 reduction resulting from the mandate might not exceed 2%, and they estimate that the mandate will add considerable cost to businesses and consumers in the form of higher rates. Hann also points out that the mandate will require 2,000 miles of new transmission lines at a cost of six to nine billion dollars.
Meanwhile, the authors of the bill proclaim in their letter to the editor that: "In passing the standard, we reclaimed Minnesota's status as the nation's renewable energy leader. The mandate will bring new jobs to our state. Utility companies will innovate and build a renewable energy infrastructure to meet the standard. It will save us money. Ultimately, the renewable energy standard is a step in building a better world for future generations."
So you can see the two sides to this debate. I think it will be very exciting when the energy companies finally do work out the answer to the question of impact on the ratepayers, and the public learns the cold hard truth.
Here are two links to the details:
http://www.globalwarming101.com/content/view/506/88889016/
zardoz wrote:FYI: Did you know that a typical coal-fired power plant actually released MORE radioactivity into the surrounding area than a properly managed nuclear-fired power plant?
FYI: Did you know that a typical coal-fired power plant actually released MORE radioactivity into the surrounding area than a properly managed nuclear-fired power plant?
First heard that back in the mid-70's - a related statistic is that the energy content of the uranium in the coal (assuming it is all fissioned by used in breeder reactors) is about equal to chemical energy content of the coal itself (this is assuming ~1ppm of U in coal). Some coals contain ~40ppm of Uranium and the ash from those coals could be properly classified as a low level radioactive waste.
One problem with siting a nuclear plant in a semi-arid or arid environment is that the thermal efficiency is typically 33% for a light-water plant. Conversely, the thermal efficiency of a combined cycle thermal plant can be as high as 60% - which would require 1/3rd the cooling water per megawatt-hour of a light-water nuclear plant. An integrated coal-gasification plant plus combined cycle plant makes a good deal of sense and would probably have much better control of emissions than a coal burning steam plant.
spokyone wrote: Bucyrus wrote: erikem wrote: One of the things that made me wary of the Climate Change Lobby is that many of the same people complaining about climate change were also complaining about nuclear energy (e.g. the Green Parties in Europe). Yes that is the point I was making in an earlier post when I asked: Can nuclear be green? I think we all know the answer. I am hoping for a breakthrough in rendering the nuclear waste "safe"
Several ways, none of them palatable, very easy, or cheap. Bury it deep....waaaaay deep, or ship it into to the Sun. The Sun is our friend.
Folks, I have said it before, every time we elbow out a little time and room, we pop another half a billion of us out over 20 years at which point we are right back where we started...needing more energy, and fast and cheaply to boot. Happens every time.
Personally, I like nuclear energy. We really shot ourselves in the foot by not embracing nuclear energy 25 years ago. Isn't all this CO2 stuff neat...huh? Millions of tons of it...just here in N. America. You should see how it looks in Zagreb and other former Eastern Block cities. Cough, cough.
My apologies, Dave. I kinda drifted there a bit...
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed into nuclear fuel. I think they're called breeder reactors.
The problem as I see it is that the same people who have convinced the world's double digit IQ crowd that CO2 is a *pollutant*, have just as much moral ground to declare water vapor a pollutant as well. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants.
If a majority of people can be hoodwinked into thinking CO2 is a pollutant, they just as well will buy into a claim that water vapor is a pollutant. Overstated stupidity has no limits.
At least steam from nuclear plants (as well as coal fired power plants) can be condensed and recycled into the water feedstock stream.
Now, there is some faint hope on the horizon. The one undeclared Republican for President, former Senator Fred Thompson, has shown that he gets it regarding the fraud of the global warming crowd, and if he were to officially declare the polls show that he would probaby win the Republican nomination. And there's no way for the left to effectively censor the showing of the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - eventually the word will get out.
That being said, those who feel that the railroads will be immune to hydrocarbon minimization are sadly lacking in analytical fastidiousness. Without coal, the railroads will all go broke. All the import intermodal in the world will not save them. Thus, it is the railroad leaders themselves who should be leading the charge to expose this global warming fraud once and for all, since they have the most to lose. Energy companies frankly don't care, as they can simply pass on the cost of hydrocarbon alternatives onto their customers. Heck, it is the new environmental regulations that is causing the current spike in gas prices, yet demand is not wavering....
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-05-04T154625Z_01_N04336635_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GASOLINE-PRICE.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2
"This year, companies struggling to retool refineries to meet new environmental standards, have faced longer, more extensive maintenance and serious outages, draining gasoline inventories ahead of peak summer demand." (bold face mine)
Railroads do not have the same luxury, as they are on the opposite end of that spectrum in that they derive most of their high margin revenue from hauling coal. If nukes and mandated conservation replace coal in the nation's energy array, then that leaves ag products as the only other source of high margin unit train revenue. And with the Dems in charge, it is more likely now than ever that reregulation of ag rail rates will ensue.
You know, if Matt Rose was as obsessed about exposing global warming fraud as he is about destroying the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern railroad, this GW thing would've been put down by now!
futuremodal wrote: Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants.
I have noticed that water vapor is beginning to eclipse CO2 as the leading cause of manmade global warming. But the real eye opener is this: It is claimed that water vapor produced by man is causing global warming, and then the global warming itself causes still more water vapor, which causes even more global warming. It's like a perpetual motion doomsday machine.
Bucyrus wrote: futuremodal wrote: Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn't even a blip on the ol' greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants. I have noticed that water vapor is beginning to eclipse CO2 as the leading cause of manmade global warming. But the real eye opener is this: It is claimed that water vapor produced by man is causing global warming, and then the global warming itself causes still more water vapor, which causes even more global warming. It's like a perpetual motion doomsday machine.
I just don't know where to turn. All these bad things that are happening to our planet!
Does anyone have the answer? I can't sleep at night. If only a knight in shining armor could save us!!!!!
If man isn't releasing CO2 into the atmoshpere then H2O is hurting our planet. Is there a way to ban these harzardous chemicals from the earth? Would the Kyoto treaty have saved us from the evils of H20 and Co2? If only the administration could be made aware of the H20 menace. They probably don't care. I also read that we are in serious danger from farting cows. I guess the methane hurts the atmosphere too. Oh what to do!! Can we give the cows gas-X?
Maybe if we all stop farting, using water, and exhaling CO2 we can help! Come on everyone, let's all get together and stop hurting the enviroment!!!! One other thing, if we all limited ourselves to one square of toilet paper, then we could save trees. Foresets! Wooded nature preserves. Furry wood-lawn animals. Let's all get together and pitch in to do our part. Only an idiotic greedy capitalist would disagree. You don't want to be an idiotic greedy do you? Then stop farting and spread the word.
Yup. It's late.
Uh oh...I think I just contributed to global warming...
Yup, sure did...twice.
23 17 46 11
You know, it seems that the most vocal advocates for rationalizing this whole GW discussion is the rural electric co-ops and utilities. Take the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative for example - their newsletter continues to bring to light (pun intended!) the fact that GW/CO2 hyperbole is just that. This latest news item has some interesting quotes from Reid A. Bryson, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology from the U of Wisconsin. The guy's been around for a few decades, he knows the score regarding climate change and man's supposed impact. Here's a snippet you'll never see in the MSM, yet it's one that would turn the public opinion on the subject if it ever was allowed into MSM circulation......
"Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide." (bold face mine)
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1
(Link courtesey of Drudge Report)
Back to WECN.....
It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue. These are the same railroads who are screwing over the co-ops with captive pricing.
Do you see the irony here? The co-ops may be the ones who save the day for the railroads via undemonizing coal, and yet the railroads seem hell-bent to try to put them out of business.
Et tu, Brute?
Of course water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.
Here is a 1995 report by the American Geophysical Union that describes the studies and research up to that time and clearly points to just how increases in water vapor can have a major increase in global warming.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
Here is an interesting excerpt:
"Warm air can sustain a higher concentration of water vapor than cooler air without becoming saturated. Consequently, as air warms, for whatever reason, more evaporation may take place and the concentration of water vapor may increase. An increase in water vapor enhances the greenhouse effect and gives rise to further warming. This positive feedback, warming from increased greenhouse gases leading to an increase of water vapor and therefore even more warming, is a feature of climate models used for estimating the effect of increased greenhouse gases. According to the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton et al., 1990], this feedback could amplify the temperature change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide by some 60%. The IPCC update, scheduled for release in 1996, does not change this conclusion."
The world, as most accept, is a pretty complicated place. Arguments that "this" is the sole cause of "that" are quite shallow.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
futuremodal wrote: It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue.
It is somewhat twisted that it is the rural co-ops and utilities that are making the effort to educate the public on the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, while the railroads whose lifeblood is coal are silent on the issue.
The way I see it, the railroads have a choice. The can defend their interest in the future of coal by arguing against the validity of the manmade global warming agenda. Or they can placate that agenda by jumping on the green bandwagon, and pointing out that they are ahead of the curve in fighting MMGW because they are the most energy efficient form of transportation. I predict that they will do the latter. I expect that we will soon be treated to ads by U.P. and others boasting about how green they are as they shoot themselves in the foot over their interest in coal.
jeaton wrote: Of course water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Here is a 1995 report by the American Geophysical Union that describes the studies and research up to that time and clearly points to just how increases in water vapor can have a major increase in global warming.http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html Here is an interesting excerpt: "Warm air can sustain a higher concentration of water vapor than cooler air without becoming saturated. Consequently, as air warms, for whatever reason, more evaporation may take place and the concentration of water vapor may increase. An increase in water vapor enhances the greenhouse effect and gives rise to further warming. This positive feedback, warming from increased greenhouse gases leading to an increase of water vapor and therefore even more warming, is a feature of climate models used for estimating the effect of increased greenhouse gases. According to the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton et al., 1990], this feedback could amplify the temperature change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide by some 60%. The IPCC update, scheduled for release in 1996, does not change this conclusion."
Wow! So global warming increases water vapor, which increases global warming, which increases water vapor, etc. And this is all caused by man's CO2 contributions, e.g. the claim that CO2 levels have doubled due to man!
Except of course that the function that increases water vapor also increases CO2. That function is natural warming. The problem with the IPCC is that it tries to state that increase in water vapor is natural, but the increase in CO2 is not. A clear violation of scientific protocol, one that proves the IPCC is nothing but a political body.
Both water vapor and CO2 increase with global warming. This is proven by the fact that warming tends to precede increases in both water vapor and CO2 by about 600 years.
Now, if CO2 was the *cause* of the warming, wouldn't logic dictate that the CO2 increase would have preceded the warming trend?
futuremodal wrote: zardoz wrote: In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.Okay, let's stop right there. If you really want "the primary human cause of global warming", look no further than your average large city. The Urban Heat Island effect can raise observed surface temperatures by as much as 7 degrees F. That is the only empirical, measurable human caused temperature effect. There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any causal effect on global temperatures, as it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire greenhouse effect potential.And for the record, cutting down old growth trees and replacing them with new trees reduces the terrestrial release of greenhouse gases. Not sure if that's what you meant, but there it is for clarification.Keep in mind, I'm not arguing the point that combusting coal releases CO2. I'm saying it is wrong to demonize CO2 in the first place. CO2 is not a pollutant, never has been, never will be, and does not "cause" global warming despite what the Supreme Court tries to legislate from the bench. Remember, it is global warming that is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, and man's CO2 contributions pale in comparison.Now, the rest of this......10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.......is technically true in terms of the numbers given, but only for the older pulverized coal fired power plants, and the subsequent claims attached to some of the elements listed are fraudulent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest arsenic levels of 50 parts per billion will cause one out of 100 to get cancer, nor is there any empirical evidence that 1/70 of a teaspoon of mercury in a 25 acre lake will make fish unsafe to eat. And if all such coal fired power plants were converted to IGCC (gasification), then the only element emitted in any significance is CO2, and as I explained CO2 is not a pollutant........Other items are taken way out of context. For example, biodiesel made from vegetable oils actually releases 11% more NOx than regular diesel refined from oil, and 20% more NOx than synthetic diesel derived from coal via the Fischer-Tropse method. So, the same people who are demonizing coal are usually the same people promoting biodiesel. Well, is NOx a concern or not? Because if it is then biodiesel should be your last option!Since I'm on the subject, I do favor aggressive development of coal to liquids technology as a replacement for "manipulatable" sources of foreign oil. Such is probably the only thing that will save the railroads from bankruptcy if coal fired power generation is subsequently banned due to these phony concerns about global warming. Remember, CTL allows the producer to shift the responsibility of the so-called "carbon footprint" from the plant to the vehicle tailpipe. Plus, as much as the left in this country wants to force utilities to shift to non-hydrocarbon power generation, they would have a much harder time politically trying to get folks to convert to non-hydrocarbon powered autos.FYI - The groundbreaking British documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle is due to be released to DVD. Since it is unlikely our taxpayer supported PBS network will have the kahuna's to show this film, you'll all have to order this film to see the real story behind this GW sham.http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/dvd.html
Uh, I wasn't trying to ignite yet another MMGW debate; I was merely trying to point out that nuclear might not be such a bad alternative to coal...railroad interests notwithstanding.
zardoz wrote: Uh, I wasn't trying to ignite yet another MMGW debate; I was merely trying to point out that nuclear might not be such a bad alternative to coal...railroad interests notwithstanding.
Well, here's the ironic thing........the USA is energy independent in the electricity generation field - most of our electricty comes from coal and hydropower - so there's no economic reason to force a massive changeover from coal-fired power plants to nuclear. It's in the transportation and home heating fields where the USA is dependent on foreign sources of energy, e.g. oil and natural gas.
So why are we so bound and determined to undermine our electricity generation policy via radical change (which always induces negative economic consequences), all the while continuing to depend on OPEC et al for our transportation/home heating fuels, ethanol and biodiesel mandates notwithstanding?
If anything, we should first get ourselves off the foreign stuff via CTL promotion to produce synthetic diesel fuel and heating oil, at least to the point of having some hedging power. Then and only then should we start talking about replacing coal with nukes for electricity generation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.