[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Sep 23, 2008, at 00:05 , wa2egp at att.net wrote:

>> I'm sure some percentage of corporations try to be neutral, but at
>> some level anyone who works for a company is influenced by that
>> company's interests no matter how pure they try to be.
>
> So now you're saying that all scientists are influenced by their  
> bosses.

No, I said those who work for corporations are influence by it.

I work for a small company, and I'm influenced by it.

Everyone is influenced by who they work for and with.

>> ...that scientists are all great guys like those you work with, with
>> no corporate influence, and they always behave like an idealized
>> Einstein on every endeavor.
>>
>> ...that global warming theory is irrefutable and perfect.
>>
>> ...that all other theories are impossible bunk.
>>
>> ...that consensus means that the object of consensus is by nature
>> correct.
>>
>> I think that's classically myopic.
>
> If that's what you're hearing, you're listening to the wrong people  
> or that's what you think you're hearing.

The wrong people?

The idea that there are "wrong people" is decidedly unscientific.

For one thing, you can't refute someone you don't listen to.

In any case, I'm listening to everyone.  I don't believe in listening  
to only those you agree with or even those you think are "right" or  
qualified.

>> So if "most" of a profession is not doing research, then none of them
>> are scientists?
>
> You're the one who claimed doctors were scientists.

Some of them are.  I still say it.  I know a couple of them.

> You used evidence of a localized area with two medical schools.   
> What about an area without any medical schools?  I think you biased  
> your analysis.  Of course you have no figures.

Do you really believe this.  You have to be kidding or you are tired.

There are scientists who are doctors, engineers, electricians,  
gardeners, etc.

Where do you get this idea that there is some kind of polarization to  
who is and is not a scientist?

>> For an oil company to sponsor research to refute things like global
>> warming, they would have to use scientists that were thoughtless,  
>> took
>> money, and worked for corporate interests.
>
> Isn't that you claim before?

Didn't you claim that no scientist would do that?

>> So, you don't think that a scientists might also join the consensus,
>> to avoid looking bad or going against the flow?
>
> Some might but I would hope that would be a small minority.  The  
> rest of the scientific community would probably not view that as  
> desirable.

Well, I would hope so too, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Scientists in the past have certainly jumped behind incorrect theories  
and practice, so I see no reason why it can't happen again.

I was always taught that science and research were dominated by  
failure, as a necessary process toward successes, so I don't see it as  
totally bad in itself.

What I see as bad about it is because society in general in recent  
years has moved rather heavily toward a mob rule mentality which I  
believe is very dangerous.

> Not all scientists work for companies or companies with vested  
> interests.

No, but some do, and you seemed before to be denying that they would  
be influenced by that.

Maybe you didn't mean it.

>> Electric cars (just for example) ultimately change where the exhaust
>> pipe and fuel filler are located.  I like them, when they work, but
>> too many people don't understand the compromise.
>
> So far, the only compromises I can think of are the lack of range on  
> a charge, the amount of energy that can be carried per unit weight  
> or volume, price of the battery and possibly the lifetime of the  
> battery.

Compromise... wrong word maybe.

What I mean is that most people believe electric == zero emissions.

In some cases it is higher emissions.

For example, coal power in Virginia is not scrubbed.  Dominion Power  
is buying clean coal from offshore instead of putting scrubbers on  
their plants.  It's a dumb move for a lot of reasons, especially when  
we need more plants now.

> I don't know if that is a public or scientific consensus.  I've  
> never heard scientists refer to electricity in that way.

Refer to electricity?

I'm not talking about electricity, I'm talking about the real  
difference between a gas powered car and an electric one: you move the  
exhaust pipe and fuel, but you still need both.

Also, I didn't say scientists, I said people.

> It does seem to be a relatively efficient way of transferring  
> energy, electric motors can be designed to be fairly efficient  
> (>90%) but our storage techniques suck.

So does transmission.

> Our power grid is not yet maxed out, the power companies have not  
> constructed new plants to handle the increased demand.  Would be  
> best to reduce the demand though.

I disagree.

For example, the 2003 blackout was caused by exceeding maximum capacity.

Dominion Power lowers voltage to handle peak load already, which means  
part of the year we are over 100%, and they've worked out deals to cut  
power for large operations during people.

Cutting back is not a happy solution.

It's difficult to get companies to build more plants because the  
margins suck or can be negative.

Also, a lot of our plants are fueled with natural gas which is running  
out.  Some of the larger fields have already peaked in the US.

My point is that electric cars are viewed as a solution, and they  
really aren't.

The real solution is on the ultimate sources of power, and in  
improving the total equation, not just the point of usage which most  
people focus on.

> When are we running out of nuclear fuel?  We don't have breeder  
> reactors because U-235 is relatively plentiful in the US.  Other  
> countries have little so they have to go to breeder reactors with  
> their associated problems.  We just slowed down constructing them  
> because of the cost, the problems with maintaining a plant and  
> public perception.  It was not known that the radiation will destroy  
> the metal structure of the reactor so they "wear out" more quickly.

The point is that current nuclear reactors and fuel are not  
sustainable.  There is a finite amount in the ground.

We need better ones.

The other issue is cost.  It seems like we would need hundreds if not  
thousand of more nuclear plants, and I wonder how we could pay for them.

I'm not sure focusing on a single solution like that is a good idea  
anyway.

Even if we knew how to build fusion reactors right now, it wouldn't be  
an easy or cheap job to move to them.

I think what our government needs to do is remove the obstacles to  
varied alternative energy usage.  Right now government policy and laws  
tend to cause us to focus narrowly rather than try everything and see  
what wins.

>> I am hopeful that we can solve those problems, but it scares me that
>> we are diving headfirst into this without a whole lot of thought  
>> about
>> the consequences, or the realities of what it really means.
>
> That's the whole thing about the global warming.  If it is true,  
> shouldn't we be rethinking our methods of producing energy?

We should always have been doing that, for a whole lot of reasons.

Engineers have known something that almost no one else seems to get:  
you plan for the storm, not the sunny days.

We've spent centuries planning for the sunny days, with rare exceptions.

We could even end up with global cooling, I don't believe we really  
know for sure.

Either scenario is something we need to be thinking about.

For that matter, global warming isn't our only problem and I don't  
think it is even our worst problem.

We don't put enough effort into any of them, especially since the  
global warming hype storm started.

>> The military has already gone down that path.
>
> The only problem is carbon is carbon no matter what form it is in.   
> Hopefully more efficient so we don't have to burn as much to get the  
> same amount of energy.

Liquid coal is cleaner than gasoline as far as burning it goes, more  
like coleman fuel according to the Air Force and some local ground  
crew guys.

It's supposed to have reduced maintenance because it is cleaner and  
has less abrasive properties.

Producing it is another matter.  There is more than one way to refine  
coal and coal gas into liquid fuel.

Newer and better methods use carbon capturing and other techniques  
that are supposed to make it quite a bit cleaner than refining oil  
based fuels, supposedly because it is easier to do with coal.

So, I guess it's real impact depends on the refining method.  I read  
one article where the Air Force says it only buys fuel that is cleanly  
produced.

Of course, who knows.

Also, the real reason for moving to liquid goal has nothing to do with  
how clean it is.

The real reason is that we estimate we have 300-400 years of coal  
supplies even at accelerated usage levels.

We would probably be using it no matter what, and for awhile anyway,  
we might not have a choice.

After all, it takes a log of energy to come up with new forms of it.



-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com