You are currently browsing the Cap & Trade category.
Nuclear power is one of those solutions that I consider key for taking a warmist seriously. A warmist that says nuclear power is not required has already proven themselves incapable of honestly looking at a situation as simple as generating electricity. Nuclear power played an early role in turning me into a skeptic. I got into a discussion about “green” energy and the people were convinced of two things. The first being that CO2 was causing warming and the second that wind power and solar power could produce all the worlds electrical needs. I knew the 2nd idea was false and proving it took only a few moments. They were unswayed by the data and persisted because it was what they had read from a respected source on the issue of global warming. That set off all kinds of warming bells because anyone who thinks the world could produce the same amount of electricity without carbon AND nuclear power is living in a fantasy world.
However, when I do come across a warmist that says nuclear power is the only answer I tend to pay attention because they are really going out on a tree limb for what they recognize as the reality of the situation. That is something I can respect. So I pay attention.
Posted July 19th, 2011. 3 comments
Geo-Engineering seems to be experiencing a resurgence. The IPCC once again seems to be behind the idea that intentionally interfering with the climate is the way to solve the theorized problem that increased CO2 levels cause. Since all of the ideas will be very expensive and be paid for by tax-payer money and be run by the scientists that propose them, they might seem like good ideas to the scientists that are proposing the idea.
The key quote from the latest article about the IPCC push for Geo-engineering really explains the whole situation.
Posted June 16th, 2011. 2 comments
I have had numerous people send me articles about Google and their search results about Global Warming. Other blogs have picked up on this and the overall discussion from the skeptic side is that Google has failed in their maxim of “Do No Evil.” I happen to disagree with this.
First off Google is public business and as such is almost required to stick to the idea that global warming is real. Find me a public company that takes the official stance that global warming isn’t real. I have not been able to find one. So I don’t really care that Google takes the stance about global warming that it does. Public companies must show environmental responsibility these days. As an engineer I fully understand the legal and public relations responsibility in that regard.
Posted May 24th, 2011. 7 comments
Biomass used to make biofuels must be carefully sourced, or the biofuels they produce may be no greener than conventional jet fuel.
That’s according to a study that was published this week in the online version of Environmental Science and Technology and was conducted by a group of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Posted May 15th, 2011. 1 comment
The IPCC has released a “draft” report about energy usage for the Earth that might be the worst piece of science ever produced to date by any UN body. That is an incredible achievement in futility. I started writing about it and ended up needing a series of articles to cover just how bad this report really is. The ideas included in this report are so absurd that they make perpetual motion appear reasonable. Dissecting this much bad information will take some time, so I am going to spend the next week or two slowly tearing this thing to pieces. It is so bad that it deserves this kind of detailed attention. I might wrap up early if I finish up, but I will have to include some articles that explain the real science so I can point out just how bad this report really is.
Everything that actually needs to be known about the latest major “draft”report from the IPCC is that the lead author is the renewable energy director of Greenpeace International by the name of Sven Teske. If that doesn’t reek of conflict of interest then nothing ever will. That single fact alone is enough to make me disregard the entire report out of hand because putting someone with a known and vested interest in renewable energy in charge of an international report on the future of the worlds energy ensures the conclusion of the report. There is not even an attempt to make this appear legitimate. That is truly audacious.
Posted May 7th, 2011. 1 comment
Ethanol remains very popular as a ‘green’ alternative fuel to the terrors of gasoline. Ethanol of course is nothing of the sort. It causes more pollution and it decreases the fuel efficiency of your car. The theoretical difference for even a 10% blend of ethanol is only about 3.7%, but over the course of a year it can easily add an extra tank or two, even with such a minor addition of ethanol.
I decided to put this to the test. Over the past few months I have been filling up my car with a no ethanol blend of gasoline and then from stations that use up to 10% ethanol. I did not verify that the fuel from the ethanol stations contained exactly 10% ethanol. I also did the tests in series so all tanks of gasoline and then of ethanol were in sequence. I also drove the tank to near empty each time.
Posted February 19th, 2011. 3 comments
The Scientific American is putting out a four piece series about solar energy. The main point of the article is that solar energy needs government intervention to compete with current methods of generating electricity. The article is straightforward in stating that without government intervention, there is no way that solar will be able to compete. Much like wind power the problem with these “free” sources of energy is that they are not dependable.
Even with the enormous push over the past 10-15 years, solar power in the United States is only now equal to a single nuclear power plant of 1 GW (1,000 MW) of power. Of course even that is misleading as in a single year a 1 GW nuclear power plant will produce 4 times as much total power. That is because all forms of power are rated at their peak capacity. Solar panels produce only enough electricity to rate that peak energy 21% of the time.
Posted February 4th, 2011. 5 comments
The EPA is ignoring the growing evidence that ethanol increases ozone pollution. Every increase in ethanol use as fuel will increases the amount of ozone pollution in the United States. This is one of the times where regardless of a persons views on global warming, the pollution effects of ethanol are real and need to be taken into account.
Posted December 19th, 2010. 4 comments
The recent news that Al Gore has recently admitted that supporting first generation ethanol technology was a mistake. The key term is first generation. He has finally agreed that turning food into fuel is a mistake. The obvious reason is that doing this increases food costs without any benefit to energy. I have mocked the efficiency of ethanol before. I have also pointed out that it causes more actual pollution than gasoline. Clearly, everyone is still missing the point, besides Al Gore I mean.
Posted December 1st, 2010. 7 comments
Standards for fuel and car emissions have been in place for a long time now. As happens in most situations the law of diminishing returns is in play. That means that each additional gain costs more for a smaller gain than the one before. What normally happens in politics is that an idea gets into [...]
Posted November 26th, 2010. 1 comment