An interesting question has arisen. Is it OK to pollute the Arctic Sea so long as the quest is “noble”? The Catlin Arctic Ice Survey likes to promote their trek as having a low carbon footprint because they are walking on the ice, rather than doing the more efficient flying ice survey (such has already been done), or driving to the north pole with vehicles.
What we don’t see much of from Catlin is how much fuel it takes to support their walking endeavor. They have to get resupplied by aircraft. And, because they have to get “rescued” at some point, refueling is needed for that too since the planes can’t make the flight on one tank. They have to leave a fuel cache on the sea ice.
So what happens to the empty fuel barrels? Or even worse, what happens to full barrels?
WUWT reader Richard Henry Lee writes:
On 26 April at http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/from_the_ice.aspx, the report was:
Yesterday, the plane took off from Resolute Bay, flew north for 3 hours to the weather station at Eureka. The CAS support team hopped off, the pilots re-fuelled and then flew out onto the Arctic Ocean, in order to cache fuel in advance of tomorrow’s flight out to the Ice Team. Once sufficient fuel had been cached, the pilots then flew back to Eureka where they spent the night.
On 3 May, they report:
From a logistical point of view, the main area of consistently bad weather at the moment is over the mid-way refuelling point, rather than at the team’s location or at Resolute. That being the case, the pilots at KBA and the London-based Ops team are currently looking at the possibility of putting in a new fuel cache, so that the aircraft can take a slightly more circuitous route to the team if necessary, in effect bypassing the original refuelling point. The possibility of an airdrop is also now being considered.
So it appears that the original fuel cache is out there on the ice and they are planning to store a new fuel cache because of the weather.
So, what will happen to the old fuel cache that they cannot get to due to bad weather?
If just left there, it would eventually get into the ocean, I presume.
Yes just what does happen to those fuel drums? That is the inconvenient question.
It seems that if they leave them on the ice, empty or full, Catlin may join the ranks of Arctic polluters.
No joke, I have a friend who rides a scooter and assails my Yukon XL because of its large carbon footprint.
In point of fact, her scooter emits about 16 times more noxious emissions than my well-tuned SUV.
But she is the champion of eco-friendliness because she gets better gas mileage from the scooter — regardless of the net emissions footprint.
The cognitive dissonance is stunning!
E.M.Smith (13:47:55) :
I do not disagree! (Talk about a weasel word phrasing 😉
Notice that my thesis was that the Regular Folks would be shifted by their experience. Not the “politically sophisticated”.
I truly appreciate your good-humored riposte. I was addressing primarily jack mosevich’s question, but your response raises a huge number of issues our long-suffering hosts might not want cluttering up their blog. The tenor of your argument is essentially that democracy will prevail. I’m not sure I can agree (ask me again tomorrow, maybe). The “politically sophisticated” are entrenched in the media, academia and government. The financially astute have lined up at the troughs and have no intention of breaking the rice-bowl. The levers of power are already in the grasp of interests who don’t give a damn about the opinions of know-nothings like us. 2010 may be the last opportunity to witness a peaceful transition. Hope I’m really, really wrong.
rephelan:
I predict 2016…
Peeke: “Hydropower is in fact one of the very few *usable* renewable energy sources,”
Hydropower is not renewable. It takes energy out of the Earth-Moon system, pushing the Moon further from the Earth and slowing the Earth’s rotation. Even in the 1970s, human energy usage was twice the natural rate of energy loss in the tidal system. When the Earth’s day is about 55 hours, the Moon will stop retreating, the tides will have stopped, and the forces powering the Earth’s magnetic dynamo will be minimal. Possibly the magnetic field will turn off, in which case cosmic rays will destroy much of life.
Ron House, please provide references to your sources for such claims of the non-renewable nature of hydropower causing the moon to leave orbit.
The fact is that gravity provides the source of energy for hydro. As water turns to vapor it rises up into the atmosphere where it can collect into clouds and eventually collect into larger collections of water molecules also known as rain droplets to most people.
As the water falls it can collect in geographic areas that can contain it but even then it’s being pulled by gravity towards the Earth – the moon has little to nothing to do with this process. Unless you are claiming that the moon is involved in vaporizing water on Earth?
Of course not all geographic areas can contain the water and due to the force, well actually not a force (force is the newtowian view) but the shape of space distorted by the mass of the Earth (the einstienian view), the water moves down hill in things we call rivers. You know about them.
Humans noticed that water really has a lot of potential energy available as it moves from higher ground to lower ground so we built dams. Damn we are smart sometimes. So we learned to collect and harness energy directly from water pushing on turbine blades turning generators which then pump out electricity, you know the stuff that animates our brains along with chemicals.
Anyhow I just don’t see how any of this has anything to do with the moon and it moving away from the Earth. If we didn’t have a moon water would still vaporize to a gas in the heat of the day and would still rise in the atmosphere and still collect into rain drops and still fall to the ground by the Earths gravity not the moons gravity.
Learn to think Ron. Learn some actual science rather than the, ok be polite, silly hypothesis (well it’s not that since he didn’t provide a test to perform). Critical thinking skills are very important, especially in this day and age when there are so many modern technologies that impact our lives.
So contrary to the ranting of Ron, yes, even when the moon moves farther away hydroelectric energy will still be a renewable energy source. A damn good one too!
ron:
How exactly does hydropower affect the moon? I would love to see the science behind that kookery.
I think Ron is confusing hydroelectric power with tidal power. The moon does have an effect there.
E.M. Smith
“Social change is not lead by the leaders, it is lead from the middle. The leaders just run out in front of the parade once the herd picks a direction. At best they can turn it a few degrees one way or the other, but not 90 degrees and certainly not 180… The list of failures is so great: Great Society, War on Drugs, Abstinence Movement, and in many ways the whole Green Movement (look how much trash is still created and buried in land fills…). Leaders make headlines, but the people make the future.”
You are wise. I am collecting a few quotes . With proper attribution of course.
Like the fall of the Berlin wall, the time of reaching the tipping point is impossible to predict with accuracy. But tip it shall.
Ron House (20:42:46) : Hydropower is not renewable. It takes energy out of the Earth-Moon system,
Um, I think you are thinking about tidal power, not hydroelectric generation. Tidal power is partly (mostly?) from the moon, some from the sun, and a tiny bit from other things.
Hydro is from falling rain, driven by sunshine and winds (also driven ultimately by the sun) so it is ‘renewable’ as long as the sun shines enough.
and the forces powering the Earth’s magnetic dynamo will be minimal. Possibly the magnetic field will turn off, in which case cosmic rays will destroy much of life.
And I think present theory has the magnetic dynamo powered by the earths rotation and a liquid metal core. As we slow down it might weaken, but until we hit very low rotation I don’t think it’s much of an issue. More of an issue, IMHO, is that we’ve probably reached the point where there isn’t enough U and Th decay to keep the core molten for another billion or two years; so we loose the molten core just about the time we need it the most, when the sun starts expanding…
Bottom line is that we have about 1 to 2 billion years left before we’re toast (literally) from loss of molten core thus loss of magnetic shielding along with an expanding sun frying us. (Better start making plans to leave now!)
😉
Oh, and just to complete the set, there is also “wave power” that is not tidal nor hydroelectric. It is from wind and storm driven waves. Thus, also an indirect form of solar power.
Wave power often uses floating buoys of some sort. Tidal power often uses ponds, lagoons and related water trapping features that route the trapped water out through a generator after the tide turns. Hydro uses dams up in the mountains to trap rainfall. Oh, and there is a proposed 4th… Current generators. These things are like windmills anchored in major ocean currents (like the gulf stream) and run more or less continuously. What drives them? I’d guess that it’s mostly the sun, but could see a case for a small contribution from orbital gravity effects…
eo (16:30:52) :
I really hope it is not avgas. Here is the link to avgas properties on Shell website. It still contains lead, tetra ethyl lead. It might evaporate very fast in he tropics but considering the frigid temperature in the artic circle, the evaporation rate may not be as fast as what crosspatch anticipated.
The Twin Otter is a turboprop, ergo no 100 octane low lead.
Presumably uses a winterized Jet A or similar?
BTW, per LNG: The market for it will be low cost for a while, but it won’t help the folks with oil heaters… And it takes decades to build LNG terminals and ships. Not much relief for the next few years (and I think AGW is “going down for the count” in less than 5 years; given present temperature trends…)
Per AIG et. al.: The government can do things against public will in the short run, but in the long run it can not. If nothing else, passive aggressive eventually “wins”. Look at what’s happening to California. A slow motion implosion. The inevitable result of folks deciding not to be taxed so much. The government is frantically raising tax rates, and getting less revenue…
But what I really want to know is when the food & fuel drop is happening and how are they going to get Mr. No Toe to a doctor! It would be very interesting to find out their fuel budget and compare it to a SnoCat making the same trek and the same measurements…
The moon? Tidal forces? And I thought I was getting Off Topic. (That’s OT John) 🙂
E.M.Smith (22:31:12) : “Ron House (20:42:46) : ‘Hydropower is not renewable. It takes energy out of the Earth-Moon system,’ Um, I think you are thinking about tidal power, not hydroelectric generation.”
My impression was that the Severn project was about the tidal washes in the river estuary, and I assumed unthinkingly that the use of the term hydropower referred to that. If it is about water flowing down the river from rain, then yes, that is renewable.
In point of fact, her scooter emits about 16 times more noxious emissions than my well-tuned SUV
In ppm, maybe, but your SUV (is that the 5.3 or 6 litre?) will be processing vastly more fuel and oxygen! Since it weighs over 2 tons, I suspect it used rather more natural resources to construct, too…
You might argue that since most of us here don’t worry too much about CO2, then the argument is irrelevant anyway, but I don’t think you can dispute that the oil reserves would last a bit longer if we all rode scooters, or even Harley-Davidsons.
magnetic dynamo
I propose a gyroscopic dynamo, utilising the precessional forces resulting from the effects of the earth’s rotation on a (very) large gyroscope anchored near the equator. I haven’t done the detailed maths (I think it would have to a mile or two in diameter) but the principle is the same as those ‘power ball’ exercisers that you twist in your hand to speed up the flywheel, which in turn resists the motion and requires more effort.
http://www.powerballs.com/
It would make the days longer, eventually, but that’s going to happen anyway… 🙂
“have to” = “have to be”. Oops.
when we poison the sea, we poison ourselves in the end…thanks for sharing 🙂
I’m very pleased to see my comments moderated so swiftly, but I shall feel guilty if they are on local time! Isn’t it time you went to bed?
Reply: San Francisco time, and yeah, I need to get to bed. ~ charles the sleep-deprived moderator.
They have been resupplied. The question is will they get on the plane?
To pwl: I have just double-checked, and the Severn Estuary project that I was answering peeke about IS a tidal power project, as I originally believed. The facts I stated are correct. The technology that both peeke and I were talking about is tidal power, and that is NOT renewable. Please discuss the real issues and the science rather than pouncing on word usage. Furthermore, “hydropower” means “water power” – which is precisely what tidal power is. At least two sources I found in about five minutes (wikipedia, wiki.answers.com) include tidal power in their definition of “hydropower”.
It seems to be they are very much up against a ticking clock that is not in their favor. Each extra day they stay on the ice beyond the “safe” extraction date raises the chance of a very bad outcome for them or the extraction team.
Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists studying Arctic ice die from cold.” The stark difference between AGW theory and reality needs to be painted in such bold, grim colors to snap people out of their slumber to stop this nonsense.
How much suffering has there already been due to the global economic collapse? Carbon regulation is going to cause an even greater contraction of the global economy than we just witnessed. How many people will die sooner due to the reduced living standards, the stress, the hardship? How many people will continue to live in poverty because doors of opportunity were shut? The last global depression led directly to World War II. How many people will die if stress between nations struggling for energy, wealth, and improved living conditions reaches the breaking point and the world goes back to war?
This is not a game people. The stakes are higher than anyone seems to realize. We are at a point in time where the human race desperately needs more energy, more wealth creation, higher technology, and higher standards of living. We need this for stability and peace. People with good jobs and homes aren’t quick to fight and kill and create war. People with nothing will go to war at the slightest suggestion. And we are about to cap energy use and everything that depends on it, creating greater poverty and therefore greater violence.
I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.
James Hansen foolishly stands by coal trains and calls them death cars. Well the recent economic collapse has made me realize just how serious economic contraction can be. I call the cap and trade bill Death Legislation. And that’s how we need to start presenting it. The average person doesn’t think much of the potential damage from carbon cap and trade because they don’t understand it in terms of lost jobs, lost homes, people on the street, and deaths directly caused by lack of energy. (A senior who can’t afford A/C during a heat wave. A child whose parents can’t afford natural gas to keep him warm during a severe illness.)
If I sound radical it’s because I’m heading that direction. We cannot sustain further economic contraction in the globe. It will lead to very, very bad things.
Ron,
So as not to engage in scaremongering, why don’t you show the results of the calculations that show the magnitude of the impact and the timeframes you are talking about?.
At present rates that 55 hour day is nearly 4 million years from now, as we have added 25 leap seconds over 37 years.
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html
Arthur
Ron: Are you by any chance an advisor to Dr. Chu?
In any case, thanks for the giggles!
BBC is reporting that the team has been resupplied.
And now the real spin begins.
Remember, at mission start they were to travel 1,000 km in 100 days. So, after 65 days they’ve done all of just under 400 km. And now they won’t even do 100 days ( the ice is melting, don’t you know). With a start date of 28 Feb, 100 days would have meant they’d be on the ice till 8 Jun. Now it’s being spun that the mission was going to end at the end of May but will be cut short a week. Which gives them about another 20 days or so before being plucked off the ice.
Or, to use the Catlin technique –
550 km in 85 days (okay, maybe 600 km in 85 days).
Not quite as thrilling sounding as 1,000 km in 100 days.
Now I wonder if the BBC will also breathlessly report on the state of the fuel caches?