rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Dec 15, 2019 6:35:47 GMT -8
When I was growing up in a Cleveland suburb, the Cuyahoga river caught on fire. Actually this happened several times but that was a big one. My family liked bass fishing, but we didn’t fish in Lake Erie because you couldn’t eat the catch- too much mercury. They had to stop us from swimming in Lake Erie because so much raw sewage was being dumped it was easy to get sick. People complained about the terrible smog in LA, but on my first visit there my reaction was- this isn’t so bad, you should see Cleveland where it rains sulfuric acid.
All that got fixed. You can eat the fish and swim there and the river never catches fire. People figured out that the dumping of waste, industrial, utilities, exhaust, all of it ruins our lives.
If you build a utility plant now, or start a mining operation you have to plan for funding the cleanup and the removal and straightening up of your operation when you are done decades in the future. If you go bankrupt, you must have set aside the cleanup funds so the taxpayer won’t foot the bill.
When humans started digging fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them, some early scientists in the 1800’s pointed out that the waste CO2 would cause the earth to heat up. If we started this whole thing now, we would realize that we’ve got to set aside the money to clean up the CO2 waste because it will destroy us. The cost of clean up would have been added into the cost of the fuel. Instead we got cheap fuel and we polluted our atmosphere big time.
We cleaned up a lot of the environmental messes from my youth, and we’ll fix this one. The only question is who pays.
I read the chemistry news, and a lot of funding has gone into CO2 sequestration. It looks like several approaches will make it possible to continue the use of fossil fuels with major extraction of the CO2 from the smokestacks and the atmosphere. Eventually the cost of the fuel will reflect this cleanup cost. Who knows the details on how we’ll get there? Not me.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Dec 15, 2019 11:26:10 GMT -8
The cleanup cost should not be passed onto customers, greedy multimillionaires owners should cover this from there pay-checks. unfortunately corrupted governments can’t make that legislation call it a free market.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Dec 15, 2019 12:44:39 GMT -8
The cleanup cost should not be passed onto customers, greedy multimillionaires owners should cover this from there pay-checks. unfortunately corrupted governments can’t make that legislation call it a free market. Actually this is a wonderful example of an ecological disaster that the government is wholly in charge of and won’t do ###. Every major rain storm in Toronto, Rochester, and other Great Lakes left wing urban area dumps millions of gallons of raw sewage into the lakes. This of course is illegal. But nobody is arrested, nobody fined, no services discontinued and nothing is fixed. Because it’s government that is fully responsible and wholly at fault. So why should i trust these idiots at a global scale? |
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Dec 15, 2019 13:25:49 GMT -8
My guess at the way it will be:
So what does the future of Global Climate change look like.
One recent technology involves building a plant. Using a fancy CO2 capture technique to grab CO2 out of the air or cheaper, out of smokestacks. Then pump the CO2 into underground cavities where it can sit for millions of years. This needs energy, and if you got it by burning fossil fuel, it would be no good and really stupid. So you use renewable, solar, wind, tidal, wave or nuclear.
That technology would need about 30,000 plants worldwide (To grab enough CO2 to bring the atmosphere back to before things were warming much), and they already know where the underground storage can be found.
For me, I buy a gallon of gasoline for my car now and I pay the cost of pulling the oil out of the ground, refining it, shipping it to me and it costs maybe $2.50. Other places like Europe often put a big tax on it so maybe $5-$8. I did not pay for the chunk of CO2 my car exhausts when I burn that gallon. There have been estimates of how much more it will cost to include the cleanup of that bit of CO2, but it depends on what approach is used for capturing the CO2. Basically I will have to pay more for the gallon of gas. If my electricity comes from fossil fuel burning, then my electric and my gas bill will go up. Some people say what about India or China, and yes they will only pay if they use fossil fuel. They are both scrambling to switch to renewables like some of the US.
That’s the future. We can whine and gripe all we want. Deny global warming is caused by burning fuel if it makes you feel good, but the science is done. Now we just need the scientists and engineers to develop cheaper ways to solve this crisis. Can’t expect much help from politicians. Although note that all the new technology is funded by our government and our military. We just had a friend visit from Washington DC. He has been a big funding manager for the US air force during his long career. He assures us the military has been aware of how much the climate crisis is going to hurt us and have been looking for a solution for years.
Also you can individually do little things which are more symbolic if it makes you feel better, but eventually we will all pay more for the luxury of burning fossil fuels. Personally I don’t do much symbolic gesturing. Put your energy and money where it will do real good.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 15, 2019 14:25:28 GMT -8
Well, today they pushed the decisions a year down the road, because they couldn't agree on proposals at the conference in Madrid.
Adam.
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Dec 16, 2019 5:34:08 GMT -8
Yes, the Madrid conference demonstrated again that progress will be slow. Countries can agree to aim for goals and then change their minds. Countries can fail to reach the goals. Countries can completely refuse to cooperate. When the science/engineers have a clear and affordable solution to the climate problem, it will probably help countries reach an agreement. The longer we take, the harder reversing the problem will be. It will probably take a string of natural disasters to wake up more people before we get going on the solution. Maybe a couple more decades?
A short while back Gaspipe mentioned briefly the Stratosphere Ozone thing that got a lot of attention a couple decades ago.
It has a lot of parallels with Climate Change except it worked out the way it should.
Scientists discovered we humans were destroying the ozone layer which protects us from too much UV light exposure. Some people think it is pretty important for making earth habitable. We were making and releasing lots of CFC chemicals (ChloroFluoroCarbons aka Freons). These last a long time and drift up to the ionosphere and catalyze the destruction of ozone. The “Ozone hole” in the southern hemisphere was growing to where Australia was getting increased UV already.
The Montreal Protocol was an agreement by all nations to ban the production of the CFC’s. We mostly used them for air conditioners and aerosol sprays.
There was resistance by the chemical companies that make CFC’s, but they didn’t get organized like the fossil fuels and start a lying-to-the-public campaign. In the end, the chemical firms all made lots of money by coming up with replacements for the bad freons and selling lots to replace the bad freons.
The stratospheric ozone has been slowly recovering since then. Really a big success story.
In contrast, fixing the CO2 problem has become a political nightmare.
Rick
|
|
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Dec 17, 2019 19:32:31 GMT -8
I plugged in a few numbers to see what we would have to pay extra for our gasoline to cover the cost of pulling the CO2 back out of our air. It looks like estimates range from $24 to $39 for a ton of CO2 and one gallon of gas gives about 20 lbs of CO2. So you could figure on paying an extra 30 cents a gallon to fix the CO2 problem.
This is really crude and depends a lot on how efficient will be the CO2 extraction. For me that would be no big deal but for poorer people who have to drive a long distance to the job, that might be a lot. Years ago, when I think we were paying about $1.50 for a gallon, congress wanted to add a 5 cent tax to the gasoline. The public went hysterical and any congressman wanting to stay in office had to vote it down.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Dec 18, 2019 14:02:26 GMT -8
I plugged in a few numbers to see what we would have to pay extra for our gasoline to cover the cost of pulling the CO2 back out of our air. It looks like estimates range from $24 to $39 for a ton of CO2 and one gallon of gas gives about 20 lbs of CO2. So you could figure on paying an extra 30 cents a gallon to fix the CO2 problem. You math is pretty much spot on. Carbon goes at about +- $30/ton in the California market. This is the amount that future generations subsidize us for releasing that CO2 - only given the time value of money, the costs to mitigate 20lbs of carbon in 30 years will likely be higher than the 30 cents today adjusted for inflation. It's always cheaper to clean up your mess today, rather than expect your kids to clean it up tomorrow. Superfund clean up costs are a great example. Instead of paying modest fees to proper dispose of pollutants in the past, companies often dumped wastes in ways that they knew were wrong (but saved them money at the time). Later, the costs to clean up the mess are higher and the companies are often long gone, meaning that they successfully passed those costs onward to you and me as tax payers. As a business strategy - it's perfect. Maximize profits today, and pass deferred mitigation costs off to the public at a later date. Essentially we subsidize past bad business behaviors. And that is what is happening with CO2. We do not pay the full costs associated with burning fossil fuels today, because we're cheapskates and because we know that future generations will pick up the costs and subsidize our behavior. john |
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Dec 18, 2019 17:43:01 GMT -8
I plugged in a few numbers to see what we would have to pay extra for our gasoline to cover the cost of pulling the CO2 back out of our air. It looks like estimates range from $24 to $39 for a ton of CO2 and one gallon of gas gives about 20 lbs of CO2. So you could figure on paying an extra 30 cents a gallon to fix the CO2 problem. You math is pretty much spot on. Carbon goes at about +- $30/ton in the California market. This is the amount that future generations subsidize us for releasing that CO2 - only given the time value of money, the costs to mitigate 20lbs of carbon in 30 years will likely be higher than the 30 cents today adjusted for inflation. It's always cheaper to clean up your mess today, rather than expect your kids to clean it up tomorrow. Superfund clean up costs are a great example. Instead of paying modest fees to proper dispose of pollutants in the past, companies often dumped wastes in ways that they knew were wrong (but saved them money at the time). Later, the costs to clean up the mess are higher and the companies are often long gone, meaning that they successfully passed those costs onward to you and me as tax payers. As a business strategy - it's perfect. Maximize profits today, and pass deferred mitigation costs off to the public at a later date. Essentially we subsidize past bad business behaviors. And that is what is happening with CO2. We do not pay the full costs associated with burning fossil fuels today, because we're cheapskates and because we know that future generations will pick up the costs and subsidize our behavior. john My god what nonsense. You can figure all the costs you want. All the money to waste on Green Deals and no one has any clue what if any impact they have because there is no way to factor in the innumerable variables that are involved . |
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Dec 18, 2019 18:10:03 GMT -8
Gaspipe, you are living back in the stone age. Sure you can’t make a guess whether the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, anything might happen.
The rest of us have learned a few things including how to make predictions of the future which usually come true. What was all that science that led to these computers, our medicines, weapons, building materials? We continually use our vast learning and knowledge to make accurate predictions about the future. Maybe you can’t but others can.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Dec 18, 2019 18:27:02 GMT -8
Gaspipe, you are living back in the stone age. Sure you can’t make a guess whether the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, anything might happen. The rest of us have learned a few things including how to make predictions of the future which usually come true. What was all that science that led to these computers, our medicines, weapons, building materials? We continually use our vast learning and knowledge to make accurate predictions about the future. Maybe you can’t but others can. Rick Funny weather a week ahead can’t be predicted but climate predictions are undeniable . I may be in the Stone Age but at least my head isn’t stuck in the sand . |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Dec 19, 2019 5:05:23 GMT -8
The rest of us have learned a few things including how to make predictions of the future which usually come true. What was all that science that led to these computers, our medicines, weapons, building materials? We continually use our vast learning and knowledge to make accurate predictions about the future. Maybe you can’t but others can. Rick Not to argue against the key element your point. However, note that experts have repeatedly failed to predict the stock market, which is 100% a manmade phenomena. And after 40 years, they’ve not only failed, but exacerbated, crime and poverty in leftist controlled urban area. Another 100% manmade phenomena. Thus I must beg forgiveness for being suspect of experts. This is not denying climate change; they are not mutually bound. But then again I cannot say they are both independent variables. Chuck Chuck |
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Dec 19, 2019 6:51:30 GMT -8
Gaspipe,
“Funny weather a week ahead can’t be predicted but climate predictions are undeniable . I may be in the Stone Age but at least my head isn’t stuck in the sand .”
Gaspipe you are correct- it is amazing, funny and unexpected if you are a shallow thinker.
However it is reality that lots of short term phenomena are almost impossible to predict but lots of long term phenomena are much easier. This is something scientists and mathematicians see very clearly. This is why predictions of the 1800’s about the climate implications of fossil fuel burning have been verified. A simple calculation back then pointed to the consequence of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Exoticimports:
“Not to argue against the key element your point. However, note that experts have repeatedly failed to predict the stock market, which is 100% a manmade phenomena.
And after 40 years, they’ve not only failed, but exacerbated, crime and poverty in leftist controlled urban area. Another 100% manmade phenomena.”
Rick:
I have watched the stock market for most of my life, even done some modeling and tried various schemes for technical trading (on paper to prove these do not work). My wife and I have gone from not much money, student loans etc, to gobs of money by investing mostly in stocks (and saving every penny we earned of course). I agree totally that short term is hard to predict, long term much better.
My field was the so-called hard sciences. Modeling works. Your computer works because the microelectronic business works miracles using models of what will happen if they make some change. For a lot of the real world modeling is highly effective.
Weather is very hard to model.
Most human phenomena are also close to impossible to model successfully. A sister-in-law is a transportation engineer who once was a manager for the New Jersey Transit Authority. She knew it is really hard to predict traffic even in a system you have studied for decades. You can’t say how many accidents your buses will have today, but you can make a good guess of how much money you will need next year for repairs.
The stock market is totally dependent on the feelings and emotions of the investors. Rumors rule. Longer trends are easier to see. The early 2000’s housing bubble (or the dot-com hysteria) was discussed daily in the WSJ. All the experts could see a disaster would happen some day. Predicting when- that was the hard part.
What I was saying about global warming is that the science is understood. Solutions are known but cost money and I gave an example of one approach. Because we are talking humans here, I do not try to guess or predict if and when and what approach will happen.
Bigger phenomena like a super volcano, a nuclear war, a comet impact or a super plague virus, all make the future a question mark. The betting money would say we will muddle along and then scramble to fix things when it is almost too late and we panic. Some people are panicking now while others are in denial.
Rick
|
|
leptraps
Banned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,397
|
Post by leptraps on Dec 19, 2019 8:58:12 GMT -8
It seems that we could reduce emission by connecting leptraps to gaspipe I already have a Gas Pipe. It works extremely well. Some of you have a very large opening on your Gas Pipe. Did I say that right?  ? ... |
|
|
|
Post by gaspipe on Dec 19, 2019 10:19:33 GMT -8
Gaspipe, “Funny weather a week ahead can’t be predicted but climate predictions are undeniable . I may be in the Stone Age but at least my head isn’t stuck in the sand .” Gaspipe you are correct- it is amazing, funny and unexpected if you are a shallow thinker. However it is reality that lots of short term phenomena are almost impossible to predict but lots of long term phenomena are much easier. This is something scientists and mathematicians see very clearly. This is why predictions of the 1800’s about the climate implications of fossil fuel burning have been verified. A simple calculation back then pointed to the consequence of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Exoticimports: “Not to argue against the key element your point. However, note that experts have repeatedly failed to predict the stock market, which is 100% a manmade phenomena. And after 40 years, they’ve not only failed, but exacerbated, crime and poverty in leftist controlled urban area. Another 100% manmade phenomena.” Rick: I have watched the stock market for most of my life, even done some modeling and tried various schemes for technical trading (on paper to prove these do not work). My wife and I have gone from not much money, student loans etc, to gobs of money by investing mostly in stocks (and saving every penny we earned of course). I agree totally that short term is hard to predict, long term much better. My field was the so-called hard sciences. Modeling works. Your computer works because the microelectronic business works miracles using models of what will happen if they make some change. For a lot of the real world modeling is highly effective. Weather is very hard to model. Most human phenomena are also close to impossible to model successfully. A sister-in-law is a transportation engineer who once was a manager for the New Jersey Transit Authority. She knew it is really hard to predict traffic even in a system you have studied for decades. You can’t say how many accidents your buses will have today, but you can make a good guess of how much money you will need next year for repairs. The stock market is totally dependent on the feelings and emotions of the investors. Rumors rule. Longer trends are easier to see. The early 2000’s housing bubble (or the dot-com hysteria) was discussed daily in the WSJ. All the experts could see a disaster would happen some day. Predicting when- that was the hard part. What I was saying about global warming is that the science is understood. Solutions are known but cost money and I gave an example of one approach. Because we are talking humans here, I do not try to guess or predict if and when and what approach will happen. Bigger phenomena like a super volcano, a nuclear war, a comet impact or a super plague virus, all make the future a question mark. The betting money would say we will muddle along and then scramble to fix things when it is almost too late and we panic. Some people are panicking now while others are in denial. Rick Whoever you are ; and I guess at your affiliations ; those who disagree with you are condemned. Other opinions are not to be seen as credible. Fact is it is impossible to predict if radical rapid , changes you advocate will have any impact . Because I am not panicking I must be in denial. Please keep your posts shorter I fell alsleep half way through. |
|
?