Tuesday, November 30, 2010

CLEAN Coal! (Say WATT?)

The December 2010 issue of the Atlantic shows an amazing turn-around by the Global Warming alarmists! Yes, they are still alarmed and predicting imminent climate change disaster, but ...

BUT, they have reversed themselves on their previous 'ol devil coal! (This follows their equally sharp reversal on nuclear energy over the past few years.)

Turns out we need coal to generate Watts of electricity for our electric cars and, they say, we can do it in a way that is environmentally correct.

The cover story, by respected author James Fallows, is titled Why the Future of Clean Energy is Dirty Coal. {Click the link to read it free online.}


"To environmentalists, 'clean coal' is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal— ..."

Recall that, only last year, a leading alarmist, NASA's James Hansen, one of the key science advisors on Al Gore's The Inconvenient Truth movie, wrote:


"..coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet. ... The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretense that they are working on “clean coal”..." and "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death."
Amazingly, while atmospheric CO2 is still the bogeyman of what alarmists say is an imminent Global Warming disaster, coal, which is nearly all carbon and generates CO2 when burned as intended, is part of the solution! Fallows writes:


Before James Watt invented the steam engine in the late 1700s—that is, before human societies had much incentive to burn coal and later oil in large quantities—the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million, or ppm ... By 1900, as Europe and North America were industrializing, it had reached about 300 ppm.

Now the carbon-dioxide concentration is at or above 390 ppm, which is probably the highest level in many millions of years. “We know that the last time CO2 was sustained at this level, much of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets were not there,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State, told me. Because of the 37 billion annual tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, the atmospheric carbon-dioxide level continues to go up by about two ppm a year. For perspective: by the time today’s sixth-graders finish high school, the world carbon-dioxide level will probably have passed 400 ppm, and by the time most of them are starting families, it will have entered the 420s. ...

Michael Mann told me. “What we have with rising CO2 levels in general is a dramatically increasing probability of serious and deleterious change in our climate.” He went down the list: more frequent, severe, and sustained heat waves, like those that affected Russia and the United States this summer; more frequent and destructive hurricanes and floods; more frequent droughts, like the “thousand-year drought” that has devastated Australian agriculture; and altered patterns of the El NiƱo phenomenon, which will change rainfall patterns in the Americas. ...
You should recognize Michael Mann as the creator of the deceptive "hockey stick curve" at the center of many of the Climategate emails. (See this and this and this and this.)

So, what is the solution? Fallows writes:


Isn’t “clean energy” the answer? Of course—because everything is the answer. The people I spoke with and reports I read differed in emphasis, sometimes significantly. Some urged greater stress on efficiency and conservation; some, a faster move toward nuclear power or natural gas; some, an all-out push for solar power and other renewable sources ...

“Emotionally, we would all like to think that wind, solar, and conservation will solve the problem for us,” David Mohler of Duke Energy told me. “Nothing will change, our comfort and convenience will be the same, and we can avoid that nasty coal. Unfortunately, the math doesn’t work that way.”...

Coal will be with us because it is abundant: any projected “peak coal” stage would come many decades after the world reaches “peak oil.” It will be with us because of where it’s located: the top four coal-reserve countries are the United States, Russia, China, and India, which together have about 40 percent of the world’s population and more than 60 percent of its coal. ...

“I know this is a theological issue for some people,” Julio Friedmann of Lawrence Livermore said. “Solar and wind power are going to be important, but it is really hard to get them beyond 10 percent of total power supply.” ...

What would progress on coal entail? The proposals are variations on two approaches: ways to capture carbon dioxide before it can escape into the air and ways to reduce the carbon dioxide that coal produces when burned. In “post-combustion” systems, the coal is burned normally, but then chemical or physical processes separate carbon dioxide from the plume of hot flue gas that comes out of the smokestack. Once “captured” as a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide, this part of the exhaust is pressurized into liquid form and then sold or stored. ...

“Pre-combustion” systems are fundamentally more efficient. In them, the coal is treated chemically to produce a flammable gas with lower carbon content than untreated coal. This means less carbon dioxide going up the smokestack to be separated and stored.

Either way, pre- or post-, the final step in dealing with carbon is “sequestration”—doing something with the carbon dioxide that has been isolated at such cost and effort, so it doesn’t just escape into the air. ... All larger-scale, longer-term proposals for storing carbon involve injecting it deep underground, into porous rock that will trap it indefinitely. In the right geological circumstances, the captured carbon dioxide can even be used for “enhanced oil recovery,” forcing oil out of the porous rock into which it is introduced and up into wells.
According to Fallows, China is in the lead on this clean coal technology, with help from American and other western corporations. While it is good that at least some of the Global Warming alarmists are warming up to coal as a necessary part of the solution, it would be better IMHO, if they were also more realistic about the actual dangers of climate change and the likelihood (again IMHO) that most of the warming of the past century is due to natural cycles not under human control and that we are likely already in a multi-decade period of stable temperatures, and perhaps a bit of cooling.

Yes, I think we need to do something about the unprecedented steady rise in CO2 levels, but we have to do it is a way that will not destroy our economies or force us to drastically reduce our lifestyles. One thing I agree with James Hansen about is that an across-the-board carbon tax, assessed equally against all sequestered fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and collected at the mine, well, or port, is the best solution, far more suitable to the task than the "cap and trade" political scam, and more likely to work.

Rather than have governments pick winners (and mess up as they did with corn ethanol subsidies that raised food prices and reduced gas mileage without doing much to control CO2 emissions) I prefer to tax carbon progressively a bit more each year and let industry and other users decide for themselves how to adapt to the higher prices. Nothing stimulates action and invention like saving your own money. Nothing wastes money like government taking money from "Mr. A" and giving it to "Mr. B" for the "good of society".

***************************

Another story in the same issue of the Atlantic is about famed physicist Freeman Dyson and The Danger of Cosmic Genius.{Click the link to read it free online.}

They write:
In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment?
Does it occur to them that the Global Warming alarmists may be the ones who are wrong?


Ira Glickstein

7 comments:

Ira Glickstein said...

WELCOME visitors from Watts Up With That and Climate Debate Daily.

THANKS for coming and PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT.

Watts Up With That is the premier climate science Blog, with a fair and balanced moderate green skeptic view. It is run by Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist who, like me, has driven a hybrid Prius for many years.

Climate Debate Daily gives equal access to reasonable Calls to Action and Dissenting Views.

Thanks to links from those blogs, we have received nearly 100 hits today, more than ever before (but a tiny fraction of what the two mentioned above get every day).

Ira Glickstein

Howard Pattee said...

Ira appears shocked that someone has changed his mind. He makes fun of it. I rejoice! This is a good sign, especially if it is in the face of new evidence. I wish all extremists would change, or at least open, their minds.

Most environmental scientists are quiet, open-minded, non-political, and agree that climate is not understood in enough detail to make good predictions. Earth's ecology acts as a complex and highly nonlinear system, with changing regions of stability and instability that may be unpredictable. The polemics originate from a few scientists, websites, organizations with agendas, and politicians like Gore. These arguments are not about the rational use of knowledge. They are polemical because of ignorance and ideologies. Is this so different from the arguments over taxation policies and the economy?

Even conservative politicians understand that the global economic meltdown was caused by relatively small changes in parts of the financial system. The response of global markets to US toxic debt and sub-prime mortgages was nonlinear and far-reaching. For some reason they do not appear to understand the possibility of global environmental meltdown being triggered by a small nonlinear change in man-made products. (Trying to assign 10% warming to humans and 90% to nature is meaningless in a nonlinear or unstable system.)

It is understandable that the climate-skeptic movement has a large amount of conservative money behind it from businesses that produce pollutants. The movement is also organized along the left–right ideological axis. Liberals usually view science as a force that could benefit society. Conservatives and populists generally see science as a threat to society, largely as a result of the conflict with their religious beliefs.

But none of this is science. Most climate scientists are quietly busy finding more data and better models. These polemics are largely ideologies and politics misusing the name of science.

Howard

Ira Glickstein said...

I agree with Howard that "The polemics originate from a few scientists, websites, organizations with agendas, and politicians like Gore. These arguments are not about the rational use of knowledge. They are polemical because of ignorance and ideologies. ... politics misusing the name of science."

Where I disagree is when Howard says "Most environmental scientists are quiet, open-minded, non-political, and agree that climate is not understood in enough detail to make good predictions." Sadly, not so!

Hugh, politically-directed dollops of taxpayer money have prostituted climate science. Virtually all environmental researchers and their universities are on the same public-sponsored gravy train. Those in charge of the grants and peer-reviewed climate journals are feeding out of the same man-made Global Warming emergency trough.

When Al Gore famously featured the deceptive "hockey stick" graph in his movie and, from his mountaintop (an elevated platform on the stage) proclaimed "the science is settled" he was quoting scientists who should have known -as you do- that "climate is not understood in enough detail to make good predictions".

Yes, it could get much warmer (or colder) over the coming centuries, as it has in the past, but not in mere decades as the cry wolf crowd claims. The biosphere has been there, done that several times in the past and will adapt in the future.

We are not near any kind of global warming "tipping point" because Earth's ecology (consisting of natural forces plus the biosphere) is ponderous and has built-in negative feedbacks that have evolved over eons. I agree it is complex and non-linear, but not highly non-linear" as you claim, nor is there any credible "possibility of global environmental meltdown being triggered by a small nonlinear change in man-made products".

Where is the evidence that "the climate-skeptic movement has a large amount of conservative money behind it from businesses that produce pollutants"? Eminent scientist Freeman Dyson, who is blasted by the Atlantic as "so dumb about the environment" has no need for subsidies from conservative rich guys. The responsible skeptic websites like Watts Up With That and Climate Audit are run by retirees. The FOIA requests by the Climate Audit guy and others that finally broke Climategate were submitted by private individuals with no connection to polluting industries. Indeed the self-proclaimed "green" guy (Anthony Watts) who runs Watts ... drives a Prius like me. He also has solar heating on his modest home.

BOTTOM LINE: The theological environmentalists who delayed nuclear power and who block coal death trains will, like the Atlantic continue to cry wolf about the environment. Even as the facts force them to reverse course on nuclear and coal, they will continue to cry the sky is falling and blame it all on humans as if they are from another planet. Perhaps they are?

Ira Glickstein

Howard Pattee said...

Ira asks, “Where is the evidence that "the climate-skeptic movement has a large amount of conservative money behind it from businesses that produce pollutants"?”

Just one of dozens of examples at Lay Science. This is so obvious, I’m surprised Ira doubts the fact. Of course there are also skeptics not influenced by lobbies.

Where is Ira’s evidence that, “politically-directed dollops of taxpayer money have prostituted climate science. Virtually all environmental researchers and their universities are on the same public-sponsored gravy train.”

Of course money and politics are never pure, but there are thousands of sources of research funds. There are almost 200 countries represented at climate discussions. There is no agreement on the science or the economics of climate control.

Climategate was a PR disaster, but was scientifically trivial. The fact is that almost all scientists care much more about their personal reputation for objective research that what their results show. To claim without evidence that as a group they are prostituted by their sources is slanderous.

I surveyed Watts Up With That. If you think this site is as authoritative as the scientific community that is actively doing climate research you need to go back to school. We need more research, not more amateur polemics.

Howard Pattee said...

Ira’s belief that there is “no credible possibility” of global environmental meltdown being triggered by a small nonlinear change in man-made products is, obviously, just begging the question. That is what is uncertain, and why we need more data and modeling!

We do know that Earth has never in its entire history been subjected to such great artificial interference in its ecology. Even assuming international control, which is unlikely, this interference will continue to increase. Ira has faith that Earth’s buffering will take are of this. I would like more science.

Howard

joel said...

On a broader scale, it seems to me that Ira is calling for free enterprise in research while Howard will never be satisfied with anything but government sponsored research. (Obviously I'm with Ira on this subject.) They will never agree on this subject or even find a meeting of the minds. The L/C brain barrier can rarely be breached by anything but alcohol :^).

Ira Glickstein said...

Howard wrote: "Ira’s belief that there is 'no credible possibility' of global environmental meltdown being triggered by a small nonlinear change in man-made products is, obviously, just begging the question. ... We do know that Earth has never in its entire history been subjected to such great artificial interference in its ecology. ... Ira has faith that Earth’s buffering will take are of this. I would like more science."

I agree artificial release of coal, gas, and oil is unprecendented. Thats why we need an across-the-board carbon tax that goes up each year. Push energy producers and consumers to pay the tax or invent ways to reduce consumption and waste of carbon fuels. Howard agrees that "international control ... is unlikely". Governments cannot make rational and detailed decisions (reference ethanol subsidies :^)

Animals and plants have evolved, survived, adapted, and flourished over a half-billion years, despite much higher and lower temperatures and stupendous levels of carbon gasses. The Arctic was ice-free in human times and froze over again in natural cycles. Over the past century CO2 has risen about 30%. We can live with 1000% or more. Commercial high-CO2 hothouses grow crops faster. I moved from NY to FL and am flourishing despite a temp rise 10 x more than IPCC-claimed Global Warming.

Howard discounts Whats Up With That, writing: "If you think this site is as authoritative as the scientific community that is actively doing climate research you need to go back to school. We need more research, not more amateur polemics."

Well the guy who runs that site led a volunteer survey to photograph nearly all the official temperature stations in the US. Only 10% were at the best NASA-specified levels (CRN-1 & -2) and nearly 70% were at the worst levels (CRN-4 & -5). No taxpayer money was wasted on this project and all results are at SurfaceStations.org. They found many within close proximity to a barbeque grill or air conditioning vents or asphalt driveways and other man-made urban heat sources that have been installed within the past several decades. (Even a 4-year old knows how hot asphalt gets in the Sunlight, but apparently not climate scientists :^) With all the millions spent by NASA, and government employees taking most of the readings, it fell to amateurs to notice and document the problem.

The Climate Audit site I recommended is run by a lone retiree who happend to be a statistics expert. It took him several FOIA requests to get the data -which had been compiled at taxpayer expense so we the citizens already owned it- and he found and exposed serious procedural errors. Of course he could not get his scholarly paper published for several years because he was not a climate scientist. Only members of the cabal of "hockey stick team" insiders got published. Their emails tell the lurid story of years of resisting FOIA requests, trying to get incriminating emails and data deleted from their own government computers, hoping for a climate disaster to validate their wild scientific theories, and having to "hide the decline" in tree ring proxy data by splicing other data in its place. Well, his FOIA requests over the years finally encouraged someone -probably an insider- to release the emails and expose the academic malfeasance.

So, yes, IMHO there is a place for amateurs to volunteer their labor and expertise. Despite all the taxpayer money spent in a dozen countries on climate research, none of those experts thought to survey the basic sources of their data for bias due to encroachment of civilization on their stations, or the misuse of statistical methods to analyse that data. So long as the data and analysis supported their biases and continued funding, they turned a blind eye.

Ira Glickstein