Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Robert.Boston]

Are you sure about this? State regulation, yes, certainly, but I don't see any federal regulation of utility charges. Federal policy has been to discourage regulation of utility charges, hasn't it? This is what allowed for the mess in California when state "deregulation" was mismanaged.

Yes. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction (outside of Texas) on two important components of most people's power bills:

1. Transmission charges. Although a small component of the total bill, states are required to allow utilities to include federally approved transmission charges into retail rates (because the transmission system is interstate commerce).
2. Wholesale power prices.
   • All transactions in the markets operated by the Regional Transmission Operators are exclusively FERC-jurisdictional; these cover all of the U.S. except for the southeast (from Tennessee southeast-ward), and the west (defined as anything west of the Dakotas/Montana border) except California and bits of Nevada.
   • All long-term wholesale contracts
   • All transactions on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and other power exchanges, unless those are regulated by a different federal agency, the CFTC.

So, while state regulators may set your final total rate, important components of that rate (that are typically pass-through items for the utility) are subject to federal oversight.



In the old days, certain thermal plants would be left burning (due to the costs of startup / shutdown) with the electrical generators disconnected and the energy going to waste heat. Are you saying we've managed to stop doing that? If so, good. [/QUOTE]

In the old days, certain thermal plants would be left burning (due to the costs of startup / shutdown) with the electrical generators disconnected and the energy going to waste heat. Are you saying we've managed to stop doing that? If so, good.

Those were indeed the "old days". I'm quite certain that nothing like that has happened in the U.S. in the past decade, outside of emergency conditions. Why? Lots of new gas-fired turbines (which can cycle fairly easily) added as mid-merit units, plus newer coal units have more flexible operating characteristics. Also, some of the oldest/less-efficient nukes were retired (e.g. Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee), removing inflexible units from the bottom of the dispatch stack.

 

[dsm363]

As much as people complain about the loan that Tesla got, here is a grant a power plant got in Dallas
A Real Carbon Solution - NYTimes.com

they are taxed on that grant but still $300 million of free money.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I would like to report this interview with Elon for reference since in the interview Elon says his view on global warming.

Elon Musk Captured by Rainn Wilson! - Metaphysical Milkshake - YouTube

 

[Norbert]

Obviously nobody wants to reduce government spending to zero. The question is: how important is a specific matter, also compared to the amount of its cost. Especially if the proposal is coupled with a new, additional way of funding. I don't think its sufficient to say: we don't want to spend any money on something "new" (and only keep the "old" oil subsidies, so to speak).

So I think the main argument in this thread should be about the importance. And I think the importance of such research funding is very high, compared to its cost of $200 million per year, and considering the additional funding part of the proposal. The main idea is not to create additional cost, but to move support from oil-consumption/CO2-production towards renewables.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

So I think the main argument in this thread should be about the importance. And I think the importance of such research funding is very high, compared to its cost of $200 million per year, and considering the additional funding part of the proposal.

I think that when it comes to environment it is not anymore a matter of cost. The balance of environment of the Earth is such a delicate and important thing that environment has to be prior to any cost.
What will we do with money after having destroyed the environment where we live?
Isn't it better to invest our money to save the environment?

Just my opinion.

 

[Kaivball]

I think that when it comes to environment it is not anymore a matter of cost. The balance of environment of the Earth is such a delicate and important thing that environment has to be prior to any cost.
What will we do with money after having destroyed the environment where we live?
Isn't it better to invest our money to save the environment?

Just my opinion.

Well, but fact is that earth is NOT a sensitive and balanced "thing".

Earth has been evolving since life was first created on earth. It survives volcanoes, ice ages, dinosaurs, and millions of years of environmental abyss.

Earth will be just fine, with or without us. Climate has been changing for hundred of millions of years and will co tiniest to do so for hundreds of millions of years. Life and species have come and gone and will continue to do so.

Earth or the environment does not need to be "saved". Humans can and should be good stewards, but we should not be deceived by enviro nazis.

 

[JRP3]

An environment conducive to supporting human life does indeed need to be preserved if we wish to be preserved as a species. Of course the "planet" will be just fine, however we may not. It only makes sense to keep your house in order.

 

[brianman]

Earth has been evolving since life was first created on earth. It survives volcanoes, ice ages, dinosaurs, and millions of years of environmental abyss.

Earth will be just fine, with or without us. Climate has been changing for hundred of millions of years and will co tiniest to do so for hundreds of millions of years. Life and species have come and gone and will continue to do so.

Reminds me of the George Carlin video recently reposted. Similar phrasing.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Earth has been evolving since life was first created on earth. It survives volcanoes, ice ages, dinosaurs, and millions of years of environmental abyss.

Earth will be just fine, with or without us. Climate has been changing for hundred of millions of years and will co tiniest to do so for hundreds of millions of years. Life and species have come and gone and will continue to do so.

I definitely don't think that mankind can be considered a species that can extinguish like dinosaurs. I would prefer something better for mankind.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Earth will be just fine, with or without us.

The idea is we want it to be with us not without us, which means we need to do some things to keep the world a habitable place for us.

Of course, if you're okay with the Earth being without us then that's a different story.

 

[brianman]

The idea is we want it to be with us not without us, which means we need to do some things to keep the world a habitable place for us.

Of course, if you're okay with the Earth being without us then that's a different story.

I believe his (and Carlin's) point was that the phrasing of the issue has been off the mark.

Research into things like black hole creation is what I think of as "endangering the planet" (and more) rather than "endangering the human habitability of the planet".

Yes, I'm a stickler for language when it comes to evaluating sides of a debate.

Example:
"How often have you been beating your wife?"
vs.
"How often have you been beating your wife at chess?"

 

[JRP3]

However, from a human standpoint, which I'm assuming all of us are :wink: , the earth is not "fine" if it can't support us. If humans no longer exist then the state of the planet is irrelevant to all of us. That being the case I think the casual use of terms regarding the "health" of the planet should be acceptable.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Elon Musk on "the most dangerous experiment in history right now":

Now, having developed what he terms "a high pain threshold" when it comes to business, Musk is able to once again look longer term. He not only makes electric cars but crusades for their place on the highway. The nation, he believes, needs to stop denying that global warming exists and develop more sustainable transportation.

"We're running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere ... can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe," Musk says.

Source:

8:54 p.m. EDT April 17, 2013

Icons: Elon Musk doesn't let up at Tesla, SpaceX

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Elon Musk on "the most dangerous experiment in history right now":

I think it is better not to run this experiment. In case of environmental catastrophe we wouldn't have the chance to avoid a new environmental catastrophe.

 

[dhrivnak]

And because of the significant lags in temperature response and the large latency of the earth by the time we are 99.99% certain there is a problem it is too late. Like a gas gauge in the car if it reads E there is still gas left. But is it enough to go 20 miles or 50 miles? By the time you are certain of the range you are stuck on the side of the road.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

And because of the significant lags in temperature response and the large latency of the earth by the time we are 99.99% certain there is a problem it is too late. Like a gas gauge in the car if it reads E there is still gas left. But is it enough to go 20 miles or 50 miles? By the time you are certain of the range you are stuck on the side of the road.

Agree 100%

 

[jaanton]

I've been thinking about lags in temperature another way. Consider latent heat. When you add energy into a system, it's temperature can rise, but it can also undergo a phase change without a temperature rise. i.e. it takes energy to melt ice. I see that the melting of ice at the poles and at high altitude may be preventing or postponing even greater temperature rise. There may be other phase changes occurring also. When those changes complete or slow, we'll really be in trouble.

And because of the significant lags in temperature response and the large latency of the earth by the time we are 99.99% certain there is a problem it is too late. Like a gas gauge in the car if it reads E there is still gas left. But is it enough to go 20 miles or 50 miles? By the time you are certain of the range you are stuck on the side of the road.

 

[JRP3]

I've always taken a similar stance as Elon, we don't know what we are doing, we don't know the long term effects, and we are running an uncontrolled experiment on our environment, which does not seem like a good idea. Plus reducing CO2 output also leads to reduction in other pollution as well, so why not move in that direction?

Regarding temperature lag, we have been in an extended period of low sunspot activity, which lowers temperatures, and may have been keeping some global warming effects in check. If sunspot activity picks back up, as is due to happen, things might warm up very quickly.

 

[RichardC]

This is certainly one approach to take. To me it's a bit like saying that you don't subscribe to the microbial theory of disease because you can't see the little critters. And that will work fine until you get pneumonia.

Neither of us are climate scientists, so arguing the science is unlikely help. However, if we continue to ignore the ever louder cries of the climate scientists, we do so at our peril. As I see it, the risks of ignoring climate change is much higher than the risk of acting.

Right on! Among those most rigorously imformed about this important subject there is no real debate (of the 13,950 peer reviewed articles on this subject published in past 20 years only 24 reject global warming). See:

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

 

[JRP3]

2 hour talk with various speakers on the topic.