USA subsidies for Clean-Energy technologies
ferrand
Ferrand
Obama Acts as Clean-Tech Venture Capitalist:
Bloomberg Business Week, by Mike Dorning, August 9, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/09/BUGN1EQ09H.DTL&type=green
President Obama has turned the government into the chief financier of a
manufacturing base for clean-energy technology. By the end of 2011, the
White House plans to channel more than $50 billion to thousands of
clean-technology companies through tax credits, low-interest guaranteed
loans, and grants. Add in money for a smart grid, research and consumer
tax breaks, such as the $7,500 credit for buying an electric car, and
the commitment rises to $69 billion. Obama's biggest gamble is on
electric cars and related components, on which the United States is
spending more than $5 billion. In auto batteries alone, the White House
says that it will take the country from two factories producing 2
percent of the 2009 global output of high-performance batteries to 30
factories accounting for 20 percent of the world's output by 2012.
ca...@f2s.com
exactly free trade izzit? If anyone in the EU did similar things I'm pretty
sure we'd be clobbered by the State Aid laws.
Cheers,
Candy
Quoting ferrand <fer...@care4free.net>:
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
>
>
>
Dave McG
The EU is seriously compromising all EU nations with its state aid rules.
No other economic region in the world suffers such restrictions.
It is worth remembering where state aid rules came from, namely the treaty
of Rome.. A mechanism to prevent any on EC nation creating an unfair and
dominant trading position by subsidising their own companies. It was never
intended to be applied to SMEs or ME none.
This single mechanism implemented with relish seems to be ignored by many EU
states. It means small to medium sized companies cannot get funding
support.
1. The average R&D sped in the UK is < 1% turnover
2. An R&D programme taking through to production can be between �100k and 1m
3. At 1% revenue the Co. needs turnover of �10m
4. Alternatively secure investment from the city, which is notoriously hard
to get
5. Max funding support drops to 25% during commercialisation phase
Just where is the revenue coming from to find new product development.
Sure a handful breakthroughs but we commercialise <5% of our patents
We obsess about Research, pay lip service to development. Business is about
products sold and service rendered. If we hobble the new product development
process we continue to weaken our manufacturing base.
Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
http://www.regentech.co.uk
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg
MCS Acreditted for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal Cert No. 1359
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may
be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If
you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this
e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and
destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to
the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail
Dave McG
generally the passing of Matt Simmons
http://www.oceanenergy.org/news.asp#PressReleasePassingOfMatthewSimmons
Some on this forum has sniped and occasions sneered at his observations,
experience, knowledge and wisdom with little evidence to back up their
positions other than their opinions.
A visionary is by definition some one who sees things others cannot. They
are few in number and almost universally derided by those unable and
unwilling to even consider let alone listen to what they say.
The bulk of mankind however are programmed to resist change and often will
do so with great effort. Claverton boasts a few in this camp
Sure we get false prophets just as we get false technology starts and
company starts.
But fortunately his legacy in OEI has sufficient momentum now to carry the
torch
Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
http://www.regentech.co.uk
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg
MCS Acreditted for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal Cert No. 1359
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may
be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If
you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this
e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and
destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to
the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail
.
Peter Rowberry
restrictions", but as I understand it, very similar restrictions on State
Aid to those in the EU apply to all members of the World Trade Organisation
and signatories to the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its
associated conventions. State Aid for industry is usually bad, but in some
cases necessary. What subsidies are legal and what aren't is a lawyers'
gravy train.
dave andrews
Claverton Energy Group
UK + 44 (0) 755 265 9166
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978
www.claverton-energy.com
Dave McG
True for companies of global scale and still the flaunt them Like Boeing & Lockhead.
US FC programmes typically have 80% from Gov balance from industry and rules do not apply to smaller companies
Peter Rowberry
Tony Locke
> How come the US the creator of GATT massively subsidises its farmers putting
> third world farmers at a disadvantage then, or so i hear?
Not just the third world farmers, the US itself is overall financially
worse off as a result of their farming subsidies. The same with the
EU. Our protectionist policies damage our economies, as well as those
of countries we would otherwise be trading with.
jo abbess
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: jo abbessSent: Monday, August 16, 2010 10:30 PMSubject: Question about Academic Literature on EnergyDear Clavertonians,If all goes according to plan, I am about to start the second year of a part-time Masters Degree in "Climate Change Management".It should come as no surprise to you that I have chosen Energy, specifically, how to manage the Low Carbon Transition, as the focus area for my original research.I am interested in how policy and technology frameworks (including targets and standard setting) are changing the landscape for what I call the "Energy Revival".I am also engaged by the use of money to effect change, whether through pricing of pollution and emissions, or selectively boosting the uptake of specific technologies, through a combination of subsidy, tax breaks, rebates, regulation, monitoring and targeted investment, in infrastructure or otherwise.Naturally enough, my tutor has told me I need to do a review of the academic literature before I begin asking documentable questions.
# Questions you may want to pursue could include:1: Why was the IPCC mandate structured to assume Global Climate Change was anthropogenic in nature, and not a natural phenomenon, probably supplemented to some degree by anthropogenic activity?
2: Given that Dr. James Hansen says atmospheric CO2 must be decreased to less than 350 PPM and we are now at 390 and rising, is there any reasonable expectation that teh World can constrain its present CO2 emissions and remove the necessary CO2 from the atmosphere, in time to avoid GCC?Best wishes,Kevin
And this is where you, potentially, could come in.If you know anything I should read, or guess I would find useful, please let me know the citation or reference.Also, I have no ideas what journals and publications I should be reading regularly, so clues about that too would be welcome.It would also be useful to have pointers to the organisations that you think are doing the best work on questions of energy investment, "green stimulus", Green New Deal-type work, policy thinktanking and financial research.I am interested in developing a network of contacts for the "asking the question" phase of data collection. If you think I should definitely seek the views of particular people, please say who they are. (Yes, before anyone asks, I have already started a dialogue with Gregor Czisch).Any collaboration will be duly noted in my write-up (about one year from now) !
Dave McG
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
http://www.regentech.co.uk
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg
-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of jo abbess
Sent: 17 August 2010 02:31
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Julia Home
university are doing this masters with?
Kind regards
Julia szajdzicka
Managing Director
ND Metering Solutions
01274 729533
www.ndmeter.co.uk
jo abbess
From: kchi...@ca.inter.net
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:38:35 -0300
jo abbess
> To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Andrew Smith
what software are you using for reference management? CiteULike, Zotero,
Mendeley? I can probably export you my library metadata if that would be
helpful. Email me off-board, or ring, for info.
Check out the UKERC TPA studies - their reference sections are a
goldmine of useful leads on the literature, and come in a handy grouped
form - all of the papers on intermittency, in the intermittency TPA, and
so on:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=TPA%20Overview
I take it your Masters gives you a Shibboleth login to get most or all
of the papers you might want?
Regards,
Andrew
--
Director, London Analytics Ltd
T: [+44] (0)330 6600 132
M: [+44] (0)791 046 0601
W: http://www.LondonAnalytics.info/
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: jo abbessSent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:15 AMSubject: RE: Question about Academic Literature on EnergyDear Kevin,Thanks for your comments.1. The massive and rapid increase in the concentrations of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere owing to mankind's activities is the single largest factor in projections for future Global temperatures, which is why the IPCC reports focus on the impacts of this Anthropogenic radiative forcing. It is, in effect, almost directly equivalent to a sudden massive pulse of extra Greenhouse Gas in the Atmosphere, completing overriding any normal warming or cooling factors.
# There have been GW and GC incidents in the past, before the influence of Man. These previous incidents seem to be cyclical in mature, and we seem to be at the point in natural cycles where Nature could be the dominant problem. Certainly, Man could be contributing, but with the absence of clear evidence that anthropogenic activity is the dominant factor, it verges on wishful thinking that mere man can out-dominate Mother Nature.
2. We have been dealt a very poor hand - it is unlikely that we will be able to significantly reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere over the short term. I don't see anybody being prepared to starve the world's economy to pay for Carbon Capture and Storage. The best that we can hope for is a rapid stabilisation of emissions to air and then a phased reduction of emissions over the next few decades. Even so, the current situation means that a further warming of around 1 degree C is locked in, regardless of emissions control.
# Doing what is advocated as being necessary will result in an unprecedented re-direction of resources. With the World Economy being in its present state, and "down" looking more likely than "up", it is difficult imagining that the Governments and Peoples of the World will actually commit significant resources to do what the Climate Change People want done.
# Climate Change can be good for some parts of the World, and bad for others. Climate Change is bad for the Status Quo. Are the resources of the World better placed by finding ways to adapt to Climate Change, rather than attempting to prevent it?Best wishes,Kevin
jo abbess
> From: clav...@londonanalytics.info
Neil Crumpton
jo abbess
jo abbess
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Chris Cook
In my view we are currently going through a transition to a decentralised and networked economy.
The current market system is irretrievably broken, and complementary mechanisms are emerging under the radar - based upon direct instantaneous 'Peer to Peer' connections - which will in due course see the existing model wither on the vine.
My take is here
http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/economic-systems-thinking230710
and re energy in particular, here
http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/energy-pools-scottish-energy-institute-11-11-2009
Best Regards
Chris Cook
Jérôme Guillet
Neil Crumpton
Dave McG
- Explosive growth in clean tech.
- Recognition CO2 is a bigger issue and more urgent than previously
- growing world population, economic growth in developing countries and subsequent energy demand growth
- global fossil production constraints
- ageing energy infrastructure in developed economies
- A dozen other variables
Nick Balmer
You make a very important point here about the nature and swiftness of
the change about to occur here.
I have been trying to get this point over to my bosses, colleagues and
staff, and I think it is a situation a bit like 1840 on the roads.
I live off the Great North Road (A1) in a former coaching town. If you
had been living here then and your son was considering his future
career, you would almost certainly have looked to the many stage
coaches, horses (600+) and inns in the town and you would have put it
very high on the list of jobs with potential.
However just a few short years later gangs of Navvies came tearing up
the hedges and fields, and shortly afterwards those new fangled trains
arrived. No doubt everybody in the town had heard of them, and had
discounted their potential, but within a decade the coaching trade had
collapsed, the hotels and inns were in very real trouble and the
future was on the rails.
These changes from one technology to another, when large vested
interests and industries long so big and powerful that they can never
be expected to go away or fail nearly always come with startling
rapidity, especially when globalisation occurs.
Think of the huge effect Indian muslins and cotton had on woollen
textile producers in the 1680's. They caused riots and mass
unemployment here.
The same thing happened in reverse to Indian textile workers in the
Carnatic and Bengal with the development of the great textile mills in
Manchester and Lancashire in the 1815 to 1830 period.
The implications of these changes are going to be fascinating.
For instance...
Has anybody ever worked out what the governments tax take on all the
imported coal and uranium?
The government takes more tax revenue off a barrel of oil (as sold as
petrol) than the Saudi Government does from that same barrel.
If your instance it did prove possible to solve the intermittentancy
issues for wind turbines (and I think solutions are very much closer
than many believe) and Passiv building technologies come to the fore,
how would government cope with a 40% or more % fall in taxation
revenues from imported energy fuels?
Nick Balmer
roy.mor...@yahoo.com
You could gasify material and use Fischer-tropes process to grab carbon and burn hydrogen.But why bother? It's hardly likely to be cost effective.
Renewable transformation is the challenge and the opportunity.
Roy
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton_ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton_ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton_ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton_ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton_ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
Ed Sears
Just finished my masters last thursday (MSc Climate Change at UEA) and my dissertation was on 'Life Cycle Assessment of biochar from the UEA BIOMASS gasification CHP power plant'. Part of my results was a comparison of energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions for biomass (woodchip in this case) gasification CHP with biochar production vs other biochar, bioenergy and fossil power production methods. I didn't look at the economics. I need to negotiate with the university on the exact status of my report - some of its contents may be commercially sensitive. However, the figures I was comparing against are all available in the literature (Google scholar and an athens/shibboleth login are your friends here - other research search engines also available) - the work was mainly by Elsayed and Mortimer. Try Elsayed et al 2003, BEAT2 (Biomass energy assessment tool) 2008, and maybe Mortimer et al 2009.
I'll get back to you about energy transition scenario references (and some of the other things you mentioned), because I need to look into that area myself.
To Kevin, if you are reading, take a look at the impact of human activity on the planet: we are currently the largest geological force active on the surface of the Earth, we are carrying out a Great Extinction (biodiversity loss), depleting the oceans of fish and lowering the pH of the water (via carbon dioxide emissions), use 20% of the land area directly and another 40% for grazing, have created a hole in the ozone layer via ozone-depleting chemicals and so on. The argument that we, the little innocuous humans, cannot influence the atmosphere (the troposphere, the bit with the weather in it, is about 10km thick) is ludicrous. We are measurably changing the composition of the atmosphere via land use change and emitting greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, and not surprisingly this is having a noticeable effect, with the entirely resonable projection of larger changes if we make a greater impact through increasing emissions. Maxing out on coal power stations to provide for the energy requirements of a world population of 9 billion in 2050 is an extremely bad idea, both in terms of climate change and local air pollution. Therefore, we seek another way, therefore Claverton and these posts.
Regards
Ed
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: Ed Sears
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:27 PMSubject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
...del...
To Kevin, if you are reading, take a look at the impact of human activity on the planet: we are currently the largest geological force active on the surface of the Earth, we are carrying out a Great Extinction (biodiversity loss), depleting the oceans of fish and lowering the pH of the water (via carbon dioxide emissions), use 20% of the land area directly and another 40% for grazing, have created a hole in the ozone layer via ozone-depleting chemicals and so on. The argument that we, the little innocuous humans, cannot influence the atmosphere (the troposphere, the bit with the weather in it, is about 10km thick) is ludicrous. We are measurably changing the composition of the atmosphere via land use change and emitting greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, and not surprisingly this is having a noticeable effect, with the entirely resonable projection of larger changes if we make a greater impact through increasing emissions.
# There is no question that Man has had an impact on the Earth. There is also no question that Mother Nature has had an impact on the Earth. CO2 levels in the Atmosphere have been as much as 8,000 PPM, about 20 times as much as now, yet the Earth has survived. Certainly, there were times where it was inconvenient and even deadly for plants, animals, and humans, but Mother Nature will always win Her game. Global Warming is ALWAYS followed by Global Warming, and also, Global Warming is ALWAYS followed by Global Cooling. That is the nature of cycles. Human Population has exploded since the Maunder Minimum 1645 to 1715, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum) and Dalton Minimum 1790 to 1830 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum), because of Global Warming, enabling people to live in more places and grow more food. GW since then has been good, if we equate population growth as "good". However, too much of a good thing can certainly be bad. Mother Nature can be counted on to send us a corrective message. However, if the IPCC simply ASSUMES that Man is the cause of the problem, which they have by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that Mother Nature "has the controls", their whole premise is faulted.
Maxing out on coal power stations to provide for the energy requirements of a world population of 9 billion in 2050 is an extremely bad idea, both in terms of climate change and local air pollution. Therefore, we seek another way, therefore Claverton and these posts.
# Of course it is an extremely bad idea! The first rule, when you are in a hole, is to stop digging. We are messing around with futile and pointless tactics, such as Carbon Credits, which cannot reduce atmospheric CO2, even if the Carbon Credit Scheme is 100% adopted. What it accomplishes is to allow coal plants to be maxed out. Only through a reduction in the fossil CO2 being sent to the biosphere can we reduce the atmospheric CO2 Levels. A lot of money will change hands, through Carbon Credits... thats the driver. There must be a world scale reduction in the mining of coal and the flowing of oil and natural gas, if there is to be any hope for a reduction in atmospheric CO2.
# Can you see any way that the people of the World can be motivated to reduce their annual fossil fuel consumption?Best wishes,Kevin
Dave McG
Not sure CCS is a scam. A scam has malice a fore thought. Those promoting I am sure are doing so with best intentions and perhaps intemperate possibly insulting of their efforts . Some will have a commercial interest don’t we all one way or an other in what we do.
However as to its effectiveness on a global scale? It applies primarily to power stations. Not sure what this represents of our global 186mboe fossils daily.
So perhaps CCS on a global scale might be as effective as heating the Thames with a kettle.
Better perhaps to displace fossil sources through demand suppression AND renewable sources. I see CCS as a distraction activity from the real task the gradual then rapidly accelerating displacement of fossils from our economy. Fossil supplies will deal with carbon reduction as inevitably winter descends every year. We face the autumn closing of the fossil era. Can we ass a specie
Technically it is easy. It is inevitable and imperative and I see no other solution. Nuclear for me remains a similar distraction on capital cost, nuclear waste and decommissioning cost grounds.
We face the autumn closing of the fossil era. Can we as a species survive long enough to come through the winter which if we do not prepare will be harsh.
Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
Skype: Davejmcg
MCS Accredited for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal Cert No. 1359
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail
Peter Rowberry
jo abbess
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.joabbess.com
From: Neil.C...@bellona.org
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
jo abbess
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
jo abbess
Subject: RE: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
jo abbess
> Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
dave andrews
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: jo abbess
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:51 PMSubject: RE: Question about Academic Literature on Energy...del...
2. Can CCS draw down Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere ?Although Biomass burning (all types) could theoretically Carbon-negative, the thresholds are questionable in some cases - for example in the production chain of BioFuels, where studies have shown Carbon-positive BioEthanol, and BioDiesel has been shown to replace rainforest Carbon Sinks with short-lived oil palm, as we want to buy it cheap from South East Asia . Biomass+CCS could tip the balance over into Carbon-positive (and you can't really do BioFuels+CCS - how are you going to capture all that CO2 from all the tailpipe exhausts around the world ?)
# The important thing is the "new carbon added to the biosphere." Fossil fuels are new, or additional carbon additions to the biosphere, when they are burned. Biofuels, at their very best, are "carbon positive", definitely not neutral or negative. This is because of the fossil fuel required for their harvesting, transport, and preparation for burning. However, if biomass is pyrolysed to produce charcoal and pyrolysis gases, with the charcoal being sequestered, carbon can definitely be removed from the biosphere. Charcoal in soil seems to last well in excess of 1000 years. For a given weight of bone dry biomass, the charcoal recovery is about 30% of the starting weight. The energy distribution is about 50-50, between the sequestered charcoal, and the pyrolysis gases. If waste biomass cost say $50 per bone dry tonne ready for retorting, and the charcoal yield was about 30%, the material cost for the charcoal, excluding capital and operating costs, would be about $50/.3 = $166 per tonne of charcoal. It sort of works out that 1 tonne of charcoal has sufficient Carbon content to equal about 3 tonnes CO2, ie, $166/3 = $55 per tonne of CO2 equivalent sequestered. Hopefully, the energy in teh pyrolysis gases, about 9 MJ pre tonne of wood pyrolysed, could run the process, and provide an energy surplus that could be used productively outside the Pyrolysis System....del...
4. Anthropogenic Global Warming scepticismThe world goes through a long, complicated process to report on all the best Science on Climate Change, and Kevin is sceptical about it ? Has Kevin read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report ? Does he know what is "robust" and "uncertain" in that report ? It's clearly spelled out, so nobody should be quibbling, now, surely, after 25 solid years of research and evidence gathering ?
# I think it was Josef Stalin, who once said "I don't care what the answer is, as long as they are asking the wrong questions." If they investigated the possibility of "Natural GW" (NGW) with the vigour that they are promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) their efforts would be credible. Invariably, one gets the wrong answer when one looks at only one side of the story.
Global Warming is a basic fact of Physics - put more Carbon Dioxide in the air and the Earth heats up. Obsessing about the near-surface air temperatures shields most sceptics from what's going on in the oceans, which is where it's all at - 90% of the heat ends up there.
# Here is an article on CO2 equivalency..# Here is another one showing that water vapor is 3 to 4 times as potent a greenhouse gas as is CO2.# Don't you think the entire matter is being seriously distorted by ignoring the effect of water vapor, as a greenhouse gas?Best wishes,Kevin Chisholm
Herbert Eppel
I'm not sure about "used all the coal up" (can you provide a link to the
article on the Claverton site you referred to?), but an article in the
September issue of Scientific American (see
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-is-left>) has
this to say on the matter:
"Unlike oil, coal is widely thought to be virtually inexhaustible. Not
so, says David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology.
Governments routinely overestimate their reserves by a factor of four or
more on the assumption that hard-to-reach seams will one day open up to
new technology. Mature coal mines show that this has not been the case.
The U.K.�the birthplace of coal mining� offers an example. Production
grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, then fell as supplies
were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
rest of the world�s coal fields, Rutledge concludes that the world will
extract 90 percent of available coal by 2072."
I'm taking the liberty of attaching the article (I have a Scientific
American subscription) in the hope that I don't end up in prison for
breaching some copyright.
The interactive version of the article referred to in the PDF file
doesn't appear to be available at
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/section.cfm?id=multimedia> yet.
Regards
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
On 18.08.2010 20:12 UK Time, dave andrews wrote:
> Jo - i think you will find we have used all the coal up! see article on
> claverton site
>
> On 18 August 2010 19:31, jo abbess <jo_a...@hotmail.com
> <mailto:jo_a...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> You make a very good point about the tax take from energy and the
> risks to that from changing the status quo.
>
> One factor is that for those countries that are in oil and gas
> depletion, such as the UK, the tax take from indigenous energy is
> probably already dropping away. Is that one of the reasons why the
> UK Government want to re-open the coalmines ? Something for me to
> look into...
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> jo.
> +44 77 17 22 13 96
> http://www.joabbess.com <http://www.joabbess.com/>
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:44:37 +0100
>
> > Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
> > From: balmer....@gmail.com <mailto:balmer....@gmail.com>
> > To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:energy-discussion-group%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:energy-discussion-group%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
Neil Crumpton
Hi Neil,
1. Regarding the use of the word "expensive"By using this word I mean that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will always be relatively more costly than "proper" Carbon mitigation, in whichever economic "climate" the technology finds itself in.How can I be sure of that ? CCS is a "remediation" technology. In other words, you create Carbon Dioxide by burning Fossil Fuels or Biomass for Energy and then you burn a bit more Fossil Fuel or Biomass to provide the Energy to pump all that Carbon Dioxide underground (or make some hard core or cement-like stuff with it) to lock it away. So there's always going to be an Energy penalty for building CCS into a power plant - so it's always going to be more expensive than the unabated Fossil Fuel or Biomass generation in a like-for-like economic situation.
Long and complicated process chains always incur higher costs - that's why a massive new round of Nuclear Energy would be too "expensive" for the current poor health of the global economy - or rather the appetite of the financiers.2. Can CCS draw down Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere ?Although Biomass burning (all types) could theoretically Carbon-negative, the thresholds are questionable in some cases - for example in the production chain of BioFuels, where studies have shown Carbon-positive BioEthanol, and BioDiesel has been shown to replace rainforest Carbon Sinks with short-lived oil palm, as we want to buy it cheap from South East Asia . Biomass+CCS could tip the balance over into Carbon-positive (and you can't really do BioFuels+CCS - how are you going to capture all that CO2 from all the tailpipe exhausts around the world ?)
3. The cost of Renewable EnergyI agree that the total cost of Renewable Energy systems is not negligible, especially in the investment phase, but I cannot see anyone trying to impose a price on wind and sunlight - that makes the "fuel" free.
4. Anthropogenic Global Warming scepticismThe world goes through a long, complicated process to report on all the best Science on Climate Change, and Kevin is sceptical about it ? Has Kevin read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report ? Does he know what is "robust" and "uncertain" in that report ? It's clearly spelled out, so nobody should be quibbling, now, surely, after 25 solid years of research and evidence gathering ?Global Warming is a basic fact of Physics - put more Carbon Dioxide in the air and the Earth heats up. Obsessing about the near-surface air temperatures shields most sceptics from what's going on in the oceans, which is where it's all at - 90% of the heat ends up there.You write "I trust that we will know much more by 2015 about what is a safe atmospheric CO2 concentration..." My view is we don't really have the luxury of time to be more certain about those things that the IPCC still has in the "uncertain" box. We already know the Earth's Climate is sensitive to Global Warming, and the damages are racking up and the temperature's only gone up by around 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C.
5. On the Laws of ThermodynamicsI know, I know. People do things on the cheap, even if they are quick and dirty. But there are consequences, as environmental damages become unacceptable, and with good regulation, the pollution can be contained - although prices will rise a bit.6. On demonstration plantsThe Nuclear industry and the Carbon Capture and Storage "think tanks" have been bargaining for taxpayer money at every level of government for many years now - the nukers want their new "Generation X" funded explicitly, the CCS people want their "demonstration" plants financed. There are plans to take a percentage from the Emissions Trading Scheme revenues for CCS, for example.
If companies are not prepared to put their own capital into something, and want a "stimulus" or a "bailout" to do so - such as the governments putting forward huge sums for the insurance costs of both new Nuclear and CCS (think - massive clouds of CO2, anyone ?) - then surely the companies know that these things are not "economic" ?
jo abbess
Have you read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report ? They have made a good effort to write in an easy way to describe all the things they have found in their review of the Science.
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:14:59 -0300
jo abbess
> From: He...@HETranslation.co.uk
> To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
>
>
> I'm not sure about "used all the coal up" (can you provide a link to the
> article on the Claverton site you referred to?), but an article in the
> September issue of Scientific American (see
> <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-is-left>) has
> this to say on the matter:
>
> "Unlike oil, coal is widely thought to be virtually inexhaustible. Not
> so, says David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology.
> Governments routinely overestimate their reserves by a factor of four or
> more on the assumption that hard-to-reach seams will one day open up to
> new technology. Mature coal mines show that this has not been the case.
> were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
> regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: jo abbessSent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:48 PMSubject: RE: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Dear Kevin,1. Water VapourYes, I agree with you. Water vapour is indeed a major Greenhouse Gas.Increasing water vapour in the Atmosphere also happens to be a positive feedback from the Global Warming we are now experiencing which has been caused by the exponentially rising Carbon Dioxide concentrations.Please get your eggs and your chickens in the correct order.
# You have a good point, as far as you go, but you don't go far enough. When one digitizes your generalities, we are led to a different conclusion.# Firstly, you may have your eggs and chickens in the wrong order. You ASSUME that GW is of an anthropogenic origin, as does the IPCC; it simply ignores the possibility of "Natural Cause." Their "anthropogenic hammer" sees only anthropogenic CO2 as the nails causing GCC, and by following their approach, you are making eh same mistake they are. On several occasions, I brought up this point, and you slough over it.# Secondly, In teh range of about 45 F to 60 F, 100% saturated air will hold between 44 and 78 grains of moisture per pound of dry air. That is, the incremental change is about 34/15 = 2.26 grains per 1 deg F change in temperature. At 45 Degrees F, saturated air holds 44 grains of moisture, ie, 44/7000 parts moisture per part air, or roughly 6,300 PPM moisture. As mentioned previously, water vapor is 3 to 4 times as powerful a "greenhouse gas" as is CO2. If you do some arithmetic, you can clearly see that water vapor has a much greater "Greenhouse Effect" than does CO2, at a mere 390 PPM, about 1/16 as much. The Greenhouse Effect caused by water vapor is very much more than that which is caused by CO2. If there was any tendancy to "Natural Global Warming", the water vapor already present is far more effective in exaggerating it than would be CO2
2. Natural Global WarmingYes, I agree with you. There are many ways in which the Earth can heat up.Why, only the other day, I was reading part of a fine book by Bryan Lovell called "Challenged by Carbon" in which he describes how magma plumes from the Earth's interior have contributed to warming of the surface of the planet.And as the Earth spins and tilts and shifts the ellipsicity of its orbit around Sol, yes, insolation changes, and cooling and warming take place.Even further, oscillations in the coupled atmospheric-oceanic climatic cells have been shown to change local and regional temperatures, shift rain bands, storm tracks and so on and so on.But fine scientists with pedigrees longer than my dog's have determined through studies in "Detection and Attribution" that the current bout of Global Warming in the last 50 years is for the most part due to the increased radiative forcing from the rising levels of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere caused by increasing emissions from humankind's activities.
If trehse pedigreed folks are of teh IPCC Mindset, then they may very well have been misdirecting their efforts. If they observe GW or GCC, and if they are only allowed to attribute the cause to Humankind, then they blame Mankind. What other explanation are tehy permitted to publish?
Have you read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report ? They have made a good effort to write in an easy way to describe all the things they have found in their review of the Science.
# No. I have not read it because it is faulted, by refusing to acknowledge the possibility of naturally caused GW or CC. How can you have true science when you eliminate a possible cause from consideration? The IPCC Work is called "Consensus Science." That means it is based on opinion and not fact. It was Consensus Science that got Galileo into trouble when he had teh gall to suggest that the Earth rotated around the Sun.
Please stop reciting to me the worn-out and frankly ridiculous, debunked and discredited pseudo-theories of the Climate Change sceptic-deniers. Please start reading the Science.
# That is very unscientific of you, and is all too typical of people who are worried about being on shakey ground. They switch to ad hominum attacks, rather than dealing with the facts or science of the matter. That is bad form.# Do you have any palpable evidence that the present GCC situation is NOT the result of natural causes?Best wishes,Kevin Chisholm, MD, DD, LLD
Dave McG
Kevin
May I urge some temperance. Personal attacks are unbecoming
GW may be drive by human activity and natural events. Probably a combination of both % attribution? impossible to say. Some suggest AGW is countering a natural cooling period, who knows. Remember the big numbers 186mboe every single day. Instantaneous release (geologically) of geologically sequestered carbon. This represents for me discontinuity. Nature responds harshly to discontinuities
But interestingly you state “water vapour is 3 to 4 times as powerful a "greenhouse gas" Consider the implication of this statement. As fuel is combusted the carbon is releases as CO2 the hydrogen as H2O So the sequestered hydrogen is being re-released as H2O which does not decompose. It is released as water vapour. Thus the GW impact of each kG of CO2 discharge is in fact amplified 2-5 fold depending on he volumes of water vapour released.
Fun to speculate and I am sure we can create any story we like around it, I shall not though.
Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
Skype: Davejmcg
MCS Acreditted for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal Cert No. 1359
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail
Dave McG
As we get hot and bothered about the stance we take on whatever it is remember it is only our interpretation; which we choose. We can and do portray data in whatever way we choose.
Consider www.dhmo.org
Every thing stated is actually factually correct. It is presented in a particular way to tell a story, in this case to achieve an outcome, entertainment as it happens for the perpetrators.
Lets have the courage to question our own views, motives and interpretations remaining rational, logical, generous of the views of others, open to alternative concepts and devoid of acrimony
We may be looking out different windows as we argue over the view we see, and both right in describing what we are looking at.
Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
Skype: Davejmcg
MCS Acreditted for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal Cert No. 1359
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail
Herbert Eppel
Thanks for your reply.
Please note that I was by no means suggesting that we should endeavour to dig up and burn all the coal that is left in the ground. Having been actively involved with Friends of the Earth etc. for 20 years I am, of course, well aware that there are indeed very good arguments for leaving the coal where it is. I was merely responding to Dave's comment that we have already "used all the coal up".
As for the Spiegel article - I was about to post it myself as recommended reading for Kevin Chisholm, who may also find this article of interest: <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0uIrxcAqA>
Regards
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
> The U.K.�the birthplace of coal mining� offers an example. Production
> grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, then fell as supplies
> were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
> regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
> rest of the world�s coal fields, Rutledge concludes that the world will
Richard Hellen
Very well put Dave.
The enthusiastic, even passionate promotion of the insights we have and therefore wish to share with others should never lead to personal insult.
And if others seem to not account for our crystal clear understanding of the issues and the inevitable solution we see, then we can always choose to disengage. Something about, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
It is well recognised in psychological circles that what we see is often what we want to believe. If you want an example together with a bit of a chuckle at the end have a look at http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html and by the way, take a few minutes to scan around TED if you have not come across it before – there are some interesting energy / environment related presentations.
Richard Hellen
Hermes Energy Services
George Wallis
Dear Kevin
Could you please explain the phrase ‘digitizes your generalities’ since I find it somewhat confusing? Perhaps it is jargon of which I am not aware?
Regards, George
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: 19 August 2010 04:51
Peter Rowberry
Peter Ravine
Well said Jo! You have a gift for making common sense understandable. Thanks.
Regards, Peter Ravine.
Andrew Smith
> If they investigated the possibility of "Natural GW" (NGW) with the
> vigour that they are promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
> their efforts would be credible.
That has been investigated, for decades. Where on earth did you get the
idea that it hadn't? All of the authoritative overviews of the subject -
IPCC reports and others - cover these issues.
> Don't you think the entire matter is being seriously distorted by
> ignoring the effect of water vapor, as a greenhouse gas?
Again, this has been studied for decades, and it's thoroughly explored
in the scientific literature. So wherever you've been getting your
information is a deeply unreliable source.
> No. I have not read it [IPCC 4] because it is faulted, by refusing to
> acknowledge the possibility of naturally caused GW or CC
How on earth do you know what it contains if you haven't read it?
And what is it in "MD, DD, LLD" that gives you a particular insight into
climate science that you believe has escaped all of the world's climate
scientists for the past 40 years? I'm struggling to see how a Doctorate
in Divinity is relevant.
Ah, wait a minute. Water vapour, "Doctor of Divinity", North American
spellings Is there a theme, here, Kevin? Are you by any chance a fan of
Dr Roy Spencer? And there was I thinking that you just had a Bachelors
in Mechanical Engineering. Well, congratulations on the additional
training in medicine, divinity and law - you have been busy. Might one
ask as to the names of the fine institutions that granted these degrees?
And so, finally, to Roy Spencer. For those who don't know of him, Roy's
a creationist with a whizzo theory that God has given the Earth a
natural thermostat so that we won't make a mess of things with global
warming. He thinks it may be something to do with water vapour, even
though this is completely contradicted by empirical data; but then, I
hear that for those people of faith, it trumps the real world.
Andrew
jo abbess
> From: clav...@londonanalytics.info
> To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Andrew Smith
in this particular context, *those* people of faith I referred to were
creationists. I apologise for having separated the relevant clauses by
so much intervening text that that particular line of argument became
obscured:
>> And so, finally, to Roy Spencer. For those who don't know of him,
>> Roy's a creationist ... I hear that for those people of faith, it
>> trumps the real world.
Such a position necessitates denial of empirical data that does not
conform to a pre-judged position, even where it means rejecting
fundamental aspects of physics, chemistry and geology.
No comment was intended on those people whose faith does not contradict
known science.
Kind regards,
Andrew
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: Dave McGSent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:43 AMSubject: RE: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Kevin
May I urge some temperance. Personal attacks are unbecoming
# I do agree with you. Please speak to Jo about "...
Please stop reciting to me the worn-out and frankly ridiculous, debunked and discredited pseudo-theories of the Climate Change sceptic-deniers. Please start reading the Science...."
I thought my reply to her dismissive comment was temperate
GW may be driven by human activity and natural events. Probably a combination of both % attribution? impossible to say. Some suggest AGW is countering a natural cooling period, who knows. Remember the big numbers 186mboe every single day. Instantaneous release (geologically) of geologically sequestered carbon. This represents for me discontinuity. Nature responds harshly to discontinuities.
# It is my feeling that Global Climate Change is probably driven by both Anthropogenic and Natural Causes. By ignoring the possibility of Natural Causes as a possibile contributor, the IPCC places undue weight on the Anthropogenic contribution, and, as a consequence, undue weight on the ability of Anthropogenic Activity to reverse GCC
But interestingly you state “water vapour is 3 to 4 times as powerful a "greenhouse gas" Consider the implication of this statement. As fuel is combusted the carbon is releases as CO2 the hydrogen as H2O So the sequestered hydrogen is being re-released as H2O which does not decompose. It is released as water vapour. Thus the GW impact of each kG of CO2 discharge is in fact amplified 2-5 fold depending on he volumes of water vapour released.
# Yes, indeed. However, the "increment of water vapor" will quickly drop out of the atmosphere, if the atmospheric temperature drops below condensation temperature. The important thing here, however, is that with temperatures as they are now, the "equilibrium water vapor content" is such that its greenhouse effefct is much larger than the effect from CO2
Fun to speculate and I am sure we can create any story we like around it, I shall not though.
# Sadly, if we have a premise that is based on Consensus, rather than Science, we cannot be confident that we really are working toward the best solution for dealing with Global Climate Change.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: Herbert Eppel
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:52 AMSubject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
...del...
As for the Spiegel article - I was about to post it myself as recommended reading for Kevin Chisholm, who may also find this article of interest: <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0uIrxcAqA>
# I read the article, and did find it interesting. It is basically an Editorial Opinion that "people on the fringe" can act irresponsibly if they have views that go contrary to "the mainstream."
# Perhaps GCC is 100% caused by Anthropogenic Activity, and perhaps it can indeed be reversed in a sensible and affordable manner. I do not know. However, I do know that when the IPCC eliminiates the possibility of natural causes from consideration, their basic premise is faulted. Certainly, there are some skeptics who advocate silly positions, and the "Entirely Anthropogenic" supporters are quick to dismiss them with fact but they then go on to dismiss all skeptics as "deniers" and "dis-believers". Science is based on fact, not belief. Dismissing skeptics because they are "dis-believers" is not at all scientific. The IPCC work is based on "Consensus Science", and this term itself was promoted by the IPCC itself. True Science is based on fact and truth, while Consensus Science is based on belief and agreement. "Consensus Science" is an oxymoron.# At this point in time, I feel we have three fundamental choices:1: Do nothing.2: Assume we can reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward reversing GCC.3: Assume we cannot reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward adapting to GCC.# What do you feel is the most sensible way for the World to proceed?Best wishes,Kevin Chisholm
> The U.K.—the birthplace of coal mining— offers an example. Production
> grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, then fell as supplies
> were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
> regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
> rest of the world’s coal fields, Rutledge concludes that the world will
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: George WallisSent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:33 AMSubject: RE: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Dear Kevin
Could you please explain the phrase ‘digitizes your generalities’ since I find it somewhat confusing? Perhaps it is jargon of which I am not aware?
# That is a term of my own coinization" :-)
What the phrase means is basically "provide specific fact and numbers to support your generalized statement".
# For example, I can say "Photo-voltaic power is too expensive." If I am connected to a Utility, providing power at say $.15 per kw-hr, then this statement is true. However, if I am operating a communications relay tower that was:
* 4 miles from an Utility line,
* had only seasonal road access,
* was in an area subject to icing,
* and need only a peak solar output of 2 kW to keep my batteries charged,
then, when I costed things out, I would find that PV Power was the most sensible alternative.
# I hope this clears things up.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Herbert Eppel
Thank you for your reply.
You commented on the National Post article but not the Spiegel article Jo had sent - any comments?
As for the three fundamental choices you offered, option 1 is certainly not the most sensible way for the World to proceed.
I'll send a more detailed reply on my view of the most sensible way forward in due course, but I need to get a few translation jobs out of the way first.
Meanwhile, I hope you will find this short video entertaining: <http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/walking_the_dinosaur#63248>
Kind regards
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
�
On 19.08.2010 14:54 UK Time, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
Dear Herbert----- Original Message -----From: Herbert EppelSent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:52 AMSubject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
...del...
As for the Spiegel article - I was about to post it myself as recommended reading for Kevin Chisholm, who may also find this article of interest: <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0uIrxcAqA># I read the article, and did find it interesting. It is basically an Editorial Opinion that "people on the fringe" can act irresponsibly if they have views that go contrary to "the mainstream."
# Perhaps GCC is 100% caused by Anthropogenic Activity, and perhaps it can indeed be reversed in a sensible and affordable manner. I do not know. However, I do know that when the IPCC eliminiates the possibility of natural causes from consideration, their basic premise is faulted. Certainly, there are some skeptics who advocate silly positions, and the "Entirely Anthropogenic" supporters are quick to dismiss them with fact but they then go on to dismiss all skeptics�as "deniers" and "dis-believers". Science is based on fact, not belief. Dismissing skeptics because they are "dis-believers" is not at all scientific. The IPCC work is based on "Consensus Science", and this term itself�was promoted by the IPCC itself. True Science is based on fact and truth, while Consensus Science is based on belief and agreement. "Consensus Science" is an oxymoron.�# At this point in time,�I feel we�have�three fundamental choices:
1: Do nothing.2: Assume we can reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward reversing GCC.3: Assume we cannot reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward adapting to GCC.
�
# What do you feel is the most sensible way for the World to proceed?
�Best wishes,�Kevin Chisholm��
> The U.K.�the birthplace of coal mining� offers an example. Production
> grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, then fell as supplies
> were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
> regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
> rest of the world�s coal fields, Rutledge concludes that the world will
Dave Elliott
--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
Andrew Smith
> Much of the debate is about what mix of mitigation and adpatation we
> need and can afford . Mitigation can involve investment which will take
> time to pay off in climate terms ; adapation can deal with immediate
> problems, but doesn't help much long term.
And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is to say,
money spent on mitigation now saves a fortune in adaptation later.
Furthermore, within the power sector, everything we have to do for
mitigation, we have to do at some point anyway, because the fossil fuel
supply is finite.
So, at a conference somewhere, a renewables presentation ends with the
summary:
* Clean, safe, endless energy
* No more resource depletion
* Huge reductions in local and global pollution
* Traffic much quieter
* Air much cleaner
* higher energy security
* freedom from strategic dependences on fuel imports
... and at the back, a voice squeaks: "but what if global warming is a
giant conspiracy, and we've built a better world for nothing?"
**
Andrew
** (not my joke - I nicked it from someone at a presentation at
Cambridge Energy Systems week - Nafees Meah from DECC I think - sorry
Nafees)
jo abbess
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:34:21 +0100
From: He...@HETranslation.co.uk
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Thank you for your reply.
You commented on the National Post article but not the Spiegel article Jo had sent - any comments?
As for the three fundamental choices you offered, option 1 is certainly not the most sensible way for the World to proceed.
I'll send a more detailed reply on my view of the most sensible way forward in due course, but I need to get a few translation jobs out of the way first.
Meanwhile, I hope you will find this short video entertaining: <http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/walking_the_dinosaur#63248>
Kind regards
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
Dear Herbert----- Original Message -----From: Herbert EppelSent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:52 AMSubject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
...del...
As for the Spiegel article - I was about to post it myself as recommended reading for Kevin Chisholm, who may also find this article of interest: <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0uIrxcAqA># I read the article, and did find it interesting. It is basically an Editorial Opinion that "people on the fringe" can act irresponsibly if they have views that go contrary to "the mainstream."
# Perhaps GCC is 100% caused by Anthropogenic Activity, and perhaps it can indeed be reversed in a sensible and affordable manner. I do not know. However, I do know that when the IPCC eliminiates the possibility of natural causes from consideration, their basic premise is faulted. Certainly, there are some skeptics who advocate silly positions, and the "Entirely Anthropogenic" supporters are quick to dismiss them with fact but they then go on to dismiss all skeptics as "deniers" and "dis-believers". Science is based on fact, not belief. Dismissing skeptics because they are "dis-believers" is not at all scientific. The IPCC work is based on "Consensus Science", and this term itself was promoted by the IPCC itself. True Science is based on fact and truth, while Consensus Science is based on belief and agreement. "Consensus Science" is an oxymoron.# At this point in time, I feel we have three fundamental choices:
1: Do nothing.2: Assume we can reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward reversing GCC.3: Assume we cannot reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward adapting to GCC.
# What do you feel is the most sensible way for the World to proceed?
Best wishes,Kevin Chisholm
> The U.K.—the birthplace of coal mining— offers an example. Production
> grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, then fell as supplies
> were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
> regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
> rest of the world’s coal fields, Rutledge concludes that the world will
Herbert Eppel
> On 19/08/10 19:40, Dave Elliott wrote:
>
>> Much of the debate is about what mix of mitigation and adpatation we
>> need and can afford . Mitigation can involve investment which will take
>> time to pay off in climate terms ; adapation can deal with immediate
>> problems, but doesn't help much long term.
>
> And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is to say,
> money spent on mitigation now saves a fortune in adaptation later.
>
> Furthermore, within the power sector, everything we have to do for
> mitigation, we have to do at some point anyway, because the fossil fuel
> supply is finite.
>
> So, at a conference somewhere, a renewables presentation ends with the
> summary:
> * Clean, safe, endless energy
> * No more resource depletion
> * Huge reductions in local and global pollution
> * Traffic much quieter
> * Air much cleaner
> * higher energy security
> * freedom from strategic dependences on fuel imports
> ... and at the back, a voice squeaks: "but what if global warming is a
> giant conspiracy, and we've built a better world for nothing?"
Excellent!
See also this video, which demonstrates in a rather simplistic but
pretty clear way that non-action re. climate change would be plain
stupid: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related>
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
Dave McG
Lets add displacement to the lexicon
Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
http://www.regentech.co.uk
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may
be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If
you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this
e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and
destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to
the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail
-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Smith
Sent: 20 August 2010 00:09
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
**
Andrew
--
Frank Holland
>
> We face the autumn closing of the fossil era. Can we as a species
> survive long enough to come through the winter which if we do not
> prepare will be harsh.
>
>
Dave,
It will be harsh whether we prepare or not, we can but ease the pain
mainly by massive reduction in our energy usage. It seems to me that the
perceived view on this list is that it will be business as usual, all
the talk about renewables, CCS, nuclear etc apparently aiming to match
our present energy use. Never a mention of Olduvai, see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqj4wN2BR7Q . By 2030 we will have as
much energy per capita as my parents had in 1930.
Frank
Bill Bordass
I think the only way Western countries will be able to make the space to re-engineer the supply will be to shrink demand radically. And that means personal and organisational commitment, not green business as usual.
Is your journey really necessary?
With good wishes
Bill
Herbert Eppel
I'm not sure whether you are still expecting a more detailed reply from me, but in addition to the video link I posted in another reply (see <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related>) I think this short newspaper article sums up my thoughts on the matter quite nicely: <http://prowa.org.uk/files/Mercury_FirstPerson_HE_6March09.jpg>
Regards
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----From: Herbert EppelSent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:35 AMSubject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy
Dear Kevin
I'm not sure whether you are still expecting a more detailed reply from me, but in addition to the video link I posted in another reply (see < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related >)
# The logic is good, but the premise, in my opinion, is flawed: The premise is that decisive action by Man can reverse Climate Change. That is the fundamental flaw I question.
I think this short newspaper article sums up my thoughts on the matter quite nicely: <http://prowa.org.uk/files/Mercury_FirstPerson_HE_6March09.jpg>
# Our "spheres of agreement" do overlap to a high degree:1: We are heading for a period of Climate Change2: It could be a disaster for much of the World, and "Life as We Now Know It" will be very different.3: We should be making a serious effort to reduce our fossil energy consumption.Where we seem to disagree is that the People of the World will be able to reverse climate change through their actions.
# Consider, for example, the extreme case where the World totally ceased consumption of fossil fuel: would that be sufficient to stop "Climate Change?"OR,in order to stop "Climate Change", would we have to remove a significant portion of Man's CO2 contribution from the atmosphere, in addition to completely ceasing consumption of fossil fuels?
On 19.08.2010 15:34 UK Time, Herbert Eppel wrote:
Dear Kevin
Thank you for your reply.
You commented on the National Post article but not the Spiegel article Jo had sent - any comments?
# I read the Spiegel Article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,712113,00.htmland find the interview with Hans Joachim Schellnhuber to be very sensible. I am impressed with his open-mindedness and science based approach to the the problem. In the Article, he seems to feel that Climate Change is anthropogenic in nature, but this brief article does not elaborate on his reasoning.# At the first part of the second page of the article, he is cautious about the impact that Climate Change will have on Germany... maybe good, maybe bad. My guess (and it certainly is a guess) is that the "Ocean Engine" will slow, as a result of a warming globe, leading to reduced Gulf Stream flow, with consequent cooling of the parts of Northern Europe that are presently being warmed by the Gulf Stream. I am also guessing that another consequence of the slowed "Ocean Engine" will be reduced rainfall in these same areas, in that "less warmth from the Gulf Stream will result in less moisture content in the air flowing over it."
As for the three fundamental choices you offered, option 1 is certainly not the most sensible way for the World to proceed.
# Of course, to do nothing in the face of change is probably the wrong way to go. It strikes me that the World has two fundamental problems: 1: increasing costly fossil energy supplies, and 2: changes in climate (or at least changes in weather.)(As an aside, it is not clear to me how long a "weather change" must persist for it to be considered "climate change". Certainly, in my location (North Eastern Nova Scotia), the "weather" has changed over the past 10 years... milder winters with less snow, but cooler summers with a longer frost free season, and similar rainfall.)
I'll send a more detailed reply on my view of the most sensible way forward in due course, but I need to get a few translation jobs out of the way first.
# To me, it makes eminent good sense to implement all forms of energy cost reduction having a simple payback period of 5 years or less. That would be an excellent start, and would be self-financing, with the peripheral benefit that the key objective of the Anthropogenic Climate Change Believers (reduce fossil fuel consumption) would be supported, in a painless manner.
Meanwhile, I hope you will find this short video entertaining: <http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/walking_the_dinosaur#63248>
# It is entertaining, but "Clean Energy" has no helpful impact on climate change. Correct me if I am wrong, but "Clean Energy" is a euphimism for fossil fuel combustion with sulphur, particulate matter, mercury and arsenic capture. The CO2 emissions per kw-hr energy from combustion are inherently higher from "cleaned coal", due to extra processing energy requirement, and due to liberation of CO2 from the limestone used to capture the SO2.Best wishes,Kevin
On 19.08.2010 14:54 UK Time, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
Dear Herbert----- Original Message -----From: Herbert EppelSent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:52 AMSubject: Re: Question about Academic Literature on Energy...del...
As for the Spiegel article - I was about to post it myself as recommended reading for Kevin Chisholm, who may also find this article of interest: <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0uIrxcAqA># I read the article, and did find it interesting. It is basically an Editorial Opinion that "people on the fringe" can act irresponsibly if they have views that go contrary to "the mainstream."
# Perhaps GCC is 100% caused by Anthropogenic Activity, and perhaps it can indeed be reversed in a sensible and affordable manner. I do not know. However, I do know that when the IPCC eliminiates the possibility of natural causes from consideration, their basic premise is faulted. Certainly, there are some skeptics who advocate silly positions, and the "Entirely Anthropogenic" supporters are quick to dismiss them with fact but they then go on to dismiss all skeptics as "deniers" and "dis-believers". Science is based on fact, not belief. Dismissing skeptics because they are "dis-believers" is not at all scientific. The IPCC work is based on "Consensus Science", and this term itself was promoted by the IPCC itself. True Science is based on fact and truth, while Consensus Science is based on belief and agreement. "Consensus Science" is an oxymoron.# At this point in time, I feel we have three fundamental choices:
1: Do nothing.2: Assume we can reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward reversing GCC.3: Assume we cannot reverse GCC, and direct our resources and activities toward adapting to GCC.
# What do you feel is the most sensible way for the World to proceed?
Best wishes,Kevin Chisholm
> The U.K.—the birthplace of coal mining— offers an example. Production
> grew through the 19th and early 20th centuries, then fell as supplies
> were depleted. Cumulative production curves in the U.K. and other mature
> regions have followed a predictable S shape. By extrapolating to the
> rest of the world’s coal fields, Rutledge concludes that the world will
Dave Elliott
Overall it's quite a package. The government is clearly aware that some elements will be controversial. For example, many in the renewables industry will no doubt be very unhappy at the proposed restructuring of the RO- and many environmentalists will be unhappy to see nuclear included in its replacement. The government proposals for a Feed In Tariff may help win some over , but they, like other Centre right governments, have chosen the most market driven variant. One reaction may be to try to defend the status quo- the RO! As a sop, the government has suggested maintaining the RO until 2017 for new projects to 'allow those developers who are making initial plans now under the RO to avoid disruption' and continue with projects while the new arrangements are being developed'.