Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[SunEagle]

There is good evidence available from things like rock samples and ice cores to show that the CO₂ level in the Earth's atmosphere has fluctuated over a very wide range in the past. In the same order of magnitude as the fluctuations we are seeing now.
However, those fluctuations took place over tens of thousands of years or more. Geologic time. And associated with very extreme changes in the plant and animal life on the planet.
The changes we have recorded over the last 400 years or so have been at a rate which is several orders of magnitude greater than any of the historic fluctuations.
I will bet that those pesky industrialized humans currently clinging to the crust of the planet have something do to with that.
And if the rate of change continues, the overall excursion in the CO₂ content will be larger than anything in the historic record for the several million years in which humanoid life has been present on the planet.

Just sayin'....

I have not doubt that those pesky humans are contributing to CO2 buildup. What I am saying is that I do not totally believe (along with a lot of people) that CO2 is the main cause of climate change. I think you have a few people that have manipulated and convinced the masses that CO2 is the main reason for climate change. When it comes to scare tactics a little "truth" can be expressed in a way that makes people believe in anything.

Even if the US completely stopped adding carbon to our air (which would bankrupt us) I just don't believe it would be a major reduction in the total amount being released due to the other high carbon output countries. And even if the amount of carbon is significantly cut I don't believe it will make a difference to affect climate change to go back the other way.

If you are concerned about global temperature rise then find a way to cool the planet. Stopping carbon output won't be enough to stop the temperature rise. There are other natural occurrences at work affecting the climate change that us humans have little to no control over.

[inetdog]

There is good evidence available from things like rock samples and ice cores to show that the CO₂ level in the Earth's atmosphere has fluctuated over a very wide range in the past. In the same order of magnitude as the fluctuations we are seeing now.
However, those fluctuations took place over tens of thousands of years or more. Geologic time. And associated with very extreme changes in the plant and animal life on the planet.
The changes we have recorded over the last 400 years or so have been at a rate which is several orders of magnitude greater than any of the historic fluctuations.
I will bet that those pesky industrialized humans currently clinging to the crust of the planet have something do to with that.
And if the rate of change continues, the overall excursion in the CO₂ content will be larger than anything in the historic record for the several million years in which humanoid life has been present on the planet.

Just sayin'....

[pleppik]

I don't question that climate is changing. The effects of the various components of the atmosphere and how they all interact with the general environment is NOT known. Anyone that says it is fully understood - aerosol effect for example - is full of BS.

That's why scientists provide error bars and confidence intervals. We understand the science well enough to be over 95% certain that the global climate is changing as a direct result of human activity. Look it up.

Any Chem E knows that if they stop to think about it. There are many new concepts thrown into the calculations along with SWAGs and a whole lot of WAGS - then various parties fudge the outcome to suit what they had already decided - if you don't like that then go blow smoke up your own backside.

Did you bother to learn anything about climate science before making this statement? Or are you claiming to be smarter and more informed than the people who study this as their life's work?

As anyone can guess, I am not a member of the Holy Church of Climate Change - that is all the current chatter is - religion plus people like Al Bore getting rich.

And here we have the real problem: you disagree with the politics, and therefore you refuse to believe the science and ignore evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Recommended Reading: Confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect, IPCC 2013 Summary for Policymakers

[JCP]

Despite what an oil co may say, I read the USA has a huge portion of the world's
coal reserves, and a lot more than 80 years. And there is plenty of uranium worldwide.

Bruce Roe

I love this kind of argument. Ignore the facts and make some new ones up when it's convenient.

[bcroe]

Sorry to confuse you with facts, but according to BP, we only got about 100 years of coal reserves. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporat...-reserves.html

Hardly a long run solution.

Despite what an oil co may say, I read the USA has a huge portion of the world's
coal reserves, and a lot more than 80 years. And there is plenty of uranium worldwide.

Bruce Roe

[russ]

I don't question that climate is changing. The effects of the various components of the atmosphere and how they all interact with the general environment is NOT known. Anyone that says it is fully understood - aerosol effect for example - is full of BS.

Any Chem E knows that if they stop to think about it. There are many new concepts thrown into the calculations along with SWAGs and a whole lot of WAGS - then various parties fudge the outcome to suit what they had already decided - if you don't like that then go blow smoke up your own backside.

As anyone can guess, I am not a member of the Holy Church of Climate Change - that is all the current chatter is - religion plus people like Al Bore getting rich.

[JCP]

I agree that there is a global climate change happening.

My question is exactly how much of that change is due to air temperature rise and how much of the temperature rise is due to CO2 emissions.

On top of that, what percentage of CO2 are humans contributing and how much is coming naturally from the Earth?

There have been many global climate changes on this planet for multimillion years. What caused the CO2 to rise in the past before humans and what raised the temperature up and then back down again for the ice ages?

I really don't think there is a good answer to those questions although I believe there is a lot of guessing based on very little data collected over the past century.

That's just silly. There are plenty of scientists who believe that we have enough data that shows the rise in human activity lead to the current climate change. Then again, we have plenty of people who still believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Science is not for everybody, I guess.

[SunEagle]

LOL. Let me guess, the earth is flat and climate change is a green conspiracy?

I agree that there is a global climate change happening.

My question is exactly how much of that change is due to air temperature rise and how much of the temperature rise is due to CO2 emissions.

On top of that, what percentage of CO2 are humans contributing and how much is coming naturally from the Earth?

There have been many global climate changes on this planet for multimillion years. What caused the CO2 to rise in the past before humans and what raised the temperature up and then back down again for the ice ages?

I really don't think there is a good answer to those questions although I believe there is a lot of guessing based on very little data collected over the past century.

[JCP]

Another 100 or 500 or 1000 years - people get tired of the sky is falling stuff.

LOL. Let me guess, the earth is flat and climate change is a green conspiracy?

[Shockah]

Decoupling Fee?

[russ]

Of course the sky is not falling, but at some point, we do run into a wall. Now, whether the wall is in this century or the next does not really change the issue.

Another 100 or 500 or 1000 years - people get tired of the sky is falling stuff.

[JCP]

Don't believe that at all - thorium in particular is supposed to be plentiful. There can also be breeder reactors.

I have been hearing the "were running out of " all my life. I am 69 - we have to be more inventive but it happens as long as people with some idea of what is happening are at the lead - the past 6 years has been green feel time and nothing more.

Of course the sky is not falling, but at some point, we do run into a wall. Now, whether the wall is in this century or the next does not really change the issue.

[pleppik]

It works a bit like cellular telephone by putting small passive nuclear plants in a grid like fashion in a city or region that can fit in a typical house basement. If one plant has to shut down for maintenance of low demand, the surrounding plants pick up the slack.

IIRC you mentioned this idea before. I still say this is pretty darn pie-in-the-sky unless you can show me an actual operating power-producing nuke with under 100MW of capacity. Even a protoype.

There are lots and lots of paper reactors out there, but nobody to my knowledge has actually built and tested one (and I have looked). The reasons should be obvious: no sane person is going to take the risk of a design flaw with dozens of reactors deployed throughout a city.

I agree that, in theory, the new generation of designs should be safer than older designs. But while in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.

Would you bet Manhattan on flawless execution of a new design? I wouldn't.

[JCP]

Sure looked like BP data had North America at about 244 years. Of course that will be extended if we reduce consumption based on the new EPA rules. Maybe by then someone will have developed Fusion as a power source or something not even though about yet.

Look. I am all for developing and using renewable energy. But the fact is we still need energy 24/7 and renewable energy will not provide that. There has to be a "base" generating system of some kind to support the energy needs. Fossil fuels will be a big part. I am hoping for a rebirth of Nuclear to take the lead.

The problem is the "gap" time moving from one energy source to another. If you delay the start then there will be power shortages. Best practice for us all is to reduce the impact of an energy gap by reducing our consumption.

No disagreement from me.

I take issue with others on this thread who indicate that CA emphasis is misplaced and that the silver bullet is to build a bunch more non renewable power plants. Numbers just don't add up (see above). We'll most likely need a bunch more plants to accommodate our country growth, but focus has to be on conservation as well. If the rest of the country had followed CA lead where consumption per capita has actually decreased over the last 10 or 20 years, we probably would not need any new plant for a while. Again, there's no silver bullet. Conservation won't solve everything. More gas fired plants won't do it either (in the long run), and neither will a bunch of solar panels. But, if we attacked all angles, our odds would be a whole lot better.

Based on my little googling, base load is about 40 to 50% of peak capacity. That leaves quite a bit of room.

[russ]

Proven reserves of Uranium are about 80 years, and may reach 240 with new finds. And that's only based on today's consumption.

Don't believe that at all - thorium in particular is supposed to be plentiful. There can also be breeder reactors.

I have been hearing the "were running out of " all my life. I am 69 - we have to be more inventive but it happens as long as people with some idea of what is happening are at the lead - the past 6 years has been green feel time and nothing more.