Over at the Air Vent, Jeff Id has a very interesting story by Roddy Campbell, and in particular one graph that struck me as thought provoking. When I first saw it, these two stories immediately came to mind:
Breaking: NASA GISS Dr. James Hansen – arrested yet again
Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS arrested
You see, Dr. Hansen of NASA GISS, has been using his position to protest the use of coal in America. That’s certainly his right. But, since his concern is global CO2 produced by coal, is he really being effective by protesting here? It seems that he should think locally, but act globally. Have a look at this graph and see if you think he’s making any difference in the places coal is being used the most:
Now have a look at this graph and narrative I found from the same source as the one above.
What the chart doesn’t tell you is the composition of each country’s energy consumption. While many are aware the US is a heavy user of oil, there is less attention paid to China’s heavy use of coal. Let’s compare the two, shall we? Oil in the US represents nearly 39% of total energy use from all sources. But in China, oil barely represents 19% of total energy use. Most important of all: China’s coal use is four times its oil use.
Dr. Hansen, I’ll gladly take up a collection here for you to buy you a round trip ticket to any place in China you wish to go and protest, in the same manner you have done here in the USA. Just say the word.
Read the rest at the Air Vent here, and be sure to have a look at the graph showing China’s plan for airport expansion.
I am highly surprised no one has mentioned the following possible connection yet:
From the first graph, coal use in the “developing” world has skyrocketed, currently on a fast-rising curve starting from around 1998-99 but a similar one was going until 1996-97, with a brief slightly-decreasing period between them. This matches up with findings revealed by Dr. Phil Jones in February 2010, that there has been no statistically-significant global warming from 1995 to the present, and a non-statistically-significant negative trend (possible global cooling) from January 2002 to the present.
Coal use goes up, CO2 and likely other emissions go up, global temperatures stagnate.
Of course, for climate science purposes, at least another twenty years or so of observations will be needed to confirm there is a possible cause-and-effect relationship present, and to reveal if there really is a true statistically-significant cooling trend. As a general observation, it looks like we’ll get those twenty years, at least.
If you want him to go, buy a round trip ticket. Don’t worry, if he does protest, it would be a one-way trip.
Coal is great for cheap power, no doubt about that. However, there are serious problems involving mercury, radioactive U and Th, acid rain (S scrubbing helps), and soot. Fly-ash is radioactive and has a peak of size distribution in the right range for efficient deposition in the lungs. I am aware of no studies of the potential carcinogenic properties of coal soot. The focus seems to be on radioactive radon gas, which is actually silly if you think about it. Good ventilation solves the problem since it doesn’t stay in the lungs.
Wind and solar power are very expensive, and require an invasive smart grid. The smart grid network penetrates your home and business. Some new computer power supplies network with smart grid through the power cord and provide a new route of potential hacking you might not be aware of. ‘Data mining’ via smart grid is unrestricted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Nuclear power is the right alternative. However, we need to begin thinking about integrated fast reactors (IFRs) instead of even the current new designs. Solving the waste problem requires either reprocessing or IFRs. Yucca Mountain should have been closed, since burial of the ‘waste’ would be a terrible waste. Typically, 97% of the uranium load is unused.
IFRs can burn almost 100% of the fuel load and eliminate most of the actinide fission products. They can burn thorium as well as uranium. Many designs are smaller, even air cooled, and thus are much safer (est. 1000 times safer). These typically use liquid sodium or liquid fluoride to transfer heat from the reactor to water. They have naturally safer emergency shut-down properties that don’t require elaborate plumbing. They don’t need vast volumes of water for cooling. Construction time is short, and thus, they are far less expensive to build.
We have enough U and Th now to last for centuries.
What are we waiting for?
Jeff Alberts says:
November 15, 2010 at 8:59 am
R. de Haan says:
November 15, 2010 at 4:48 am
Hanson is a hypocrite. He is out to bring down industrialized America to secure the future of his grand children.
“Industrialized America is already gone. Most of the heavy industry has been shipped overseas. We’re a service-oriented country now, importing far more than we’re ever going to export. When you have an American company named “Pride” who’s products are made in China, something’s wrong”.
I don’t agree with your point of view.
The US still has it’s power generation industry, cement industry, steel industry, chemical industry, arms industry, off shore industry, glass industry, we still produce heavy equipment, cars, aircraft etc, you name it.
Yes, I agree a lot of manufacturing and jobs went oversea but please don’t exaggerate
the factual situation. We have a lot to loose.
Anthony, you said: “Dr. Hansen, I’ll gladly take up a collection here for you to buy you a round trip ticket to any place in China you wish to go and protest at, in the same manner you have done here in the USA. Just say the word.”
—–
Save your money and buy him a one-way ticket. If he protests in the PRC like he does everyplace else, he’ll have a long stay.
I am familiar with modern coal firing systems (both smaller industrial boilers and power stations pulverized coal fired boilers) and apart from CO2 emissions (probably minor environmental concern if not completely irrelevant) other real pollutants (particles, CO, NOx, SOx…) are relatively easily controlled and kept reasonably low at relatively low costs.
He won’t go to China, he knows there’s a chance the Chinese will take him seriously and lock him away for the rest of his natural as a threat to their state. I suppose there may be an upside to an overmighty government after all!
China’s cheap and easy coal is already gone, just like the cheap and easy oil in the US.
US oilproduction peaked in 1970 and has been falling since.
China’s coalproduction will peak in 2011 (maybe 2012) and will start falling after.
This is all so very troubling.
Will the wonder of “Life After People” ever come about?
http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people
What a beautiful planet it would be.
“tallbloke says:
November 15, 2010 at 2:52 am
I wonder what China’s reserves of natural gas amount to. They will develop the infrastructure to deliver it to domestic and commercial consumers eventually.”
They have some shale gas deposits that are staggering. The Strategic Research Centre for Oil and Gas of MLR also set a goal to locate one trillion cubic metres of recoverable shale gas reserves, build 15-30 billion cubic metres of production capacity and produce 8-12 percent of China’s natural gas from shale gas wells by 2020.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE67N00R20100824
Garry says: November 15, 2010 at 3:41 am
According to the World Nuclear Association, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has more nuclear reactors on order or proposed (14) than the UK (13).
The USA has 21 on order or proposed while China – no surprise here – beats everyone with 39 on order and 120 reactors proposed (169 total).
——————————————————
True, but I prefer nearer term projects. China currently has 23 large nuke power plants under construction compared to zero in the US and Australia. Same reference:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
Yes, it says there is one in the US, but that one (Watts Bar 2) was started more than 30 years ago, then abandoned, then restarted.
Of course China signed the Kyoto treaty; it requires them to do NOTHING (as a developing nation) to clean up their act, while it hobbles their competitors.
Hansen works for NASA. The head of NASA said their purpose is outreach to Muslim countries (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space).
Muslim countries export oil. This is why Hansen is protesting against coal – he is surreptiously promoting oil to help increase Muslim exports.
Alan Cheetham says:
November 15, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Machiavellian! But good!
Since the subject of coal – and by inference, alternatives thereto – here’s an interesting report just out .
Renewable Energy Committee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics (NAREEE) Advisory Board http://www.ree.usda.gov/nareeeab/reports/062510rec_final_report.pdf .
Excerpt:
USDA/REE should validate the development of a cellulosic feedstock system and determine which feedstocks indicate significant sustainable potential in various regions of the US.
After two decades of research without a sustainable technical breakthrough to make cellulosic ethanol competitive, it appears that it is time to reevaluate the research. There are two additional options for consideration. First, cellulosic biomass to power (burning to produce electricity) has real potential for being a useful bridge for cellulose to ethanol. With this approach, it can at least be demonstrated that large amounts of cellulose can be grown, harvested, stored, transported, and used to produce electricity.
——————————————————————————————————-
So to translate – lets burn the trees (etc. ) down for electricity to see if we can grow them fast enough to make ethanol. And if you don’t think that trees are on the menu, think again. I’ve already had a discussion about this with the CEO of a new ethanol plant going up near me, since I have some acreage in trees.
The rest of the report discusses other feedstocks, each with their own set of problems in terms of growing, harvesting, transporting, conversion, etc.
——————————————————————————————————–
Given the number of climate zones in the US, different feed-stocks must be grown in different regions of the country. Primarily, growing feedstock is outdoor manufacturing, so the production is always at the whim of the weather. Having diverse biomass production systems spread over many states will lower the risk of the system and assure an adequate supply. With many different feedstock crops being grown in different climates, the production system gives almost every state an opportunity to provide renewable fuel for this country. Other advantages include the use of existing infrastructure for these new crops, and utilizing local labor and other resources.
—————————————————————————————————–
Nice spin on this part. Following the above logic, we should eventually be growing our own in our backyard garden and running it thru a still. Not exactly new technology there. Just ask any moonshiner in the South. 😉 ‘course the city folk might be at somewhat of a disadvantage. Tough cookies.
Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:
November 15, 2010 at 9:29 am
Alex the Skeptic: Bravo! Excellent summation of the left’s desire to return to the “Good old days”.
Thanks, just was thinking aloud and trying to do my little bit to ACTUALLY SAVE THE PLANET from those who think they want to save the planet.
Forgot one thing: Before the age of cheap and abundant energy, during donkey power, the world population was counted in millions but life was worth nothing. Today its counted in billions and each life really counts. The warmists just want to reduce the population back to less than one billion by reintroducing poverty in the western world. There are two ways to eliminate poverty:
1: By providing cheap and abundant energy ( eg: modern China)
2. By letting the poor starve to death.
The hypocrites choose the second option. We choose the first option.
And the planet loves CO2 as is being proven by the biosphere itself: More biomass, more food, less poverty.
Repeat: Hansen et cohorts should be tried [f]or crimes against humanity.
I meant to write:
Repeat: Hansen et cohorts should be tried FOR crimes against humanity.
Thanks
Fun to read all about China, here (in China) this website is blocked and it’s almost impossible to reach it. Finally I found the method, a public VPN client and the public server in Japan ….
Verity Jones says:
November 15, 2010 at 12:54 am
“Dr. Hansen, I’ll gladly take up a collection here for you to buy you a round trip ticket to any place in China… “
Can’t we make that a one way ticket? I’m sure you’d get a even bigger response 😉
LOL!!! Phew, it was empty mouth too, thank God.
It would be good for him to go so he can be greeted with the same tone President Obama was greeted with.
snl parody ;o)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/obama-hu-jintao-snl-g-20/
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
snl parody ;o)
longer version
http://dailybail.com/home/snl-presidential-mockery-hu-jintao-asks-obama-why-you-not-ki.html
The manufacturing we still have is a shadow of what it was only 30 years ago. That’s a fact. Our steel industry isn’t what it was, don’t know about glass, aircraft are produced in many more places now than in the US, we’re not the leader we once were.
Outside US, the rest of the world has long way to go to catch up with US in terms of Energy used and Waste generated on per capital base.
Don’t you know there are still millions of people in China and India that don’t have electricity at all.
It is also the fact that US and developed country has been “polluting” the air with CO2 from fossil fuel for much much longer time than China and India, it is their turn to “pollute” now
John F. Hultquist says:
November 15, 2010 at 9:13 am
The reports in the link you refer to were produced by SPPI, that’s where I got the 13 day mention. Hmm, maybe not, they say 1/20 of a year and China would replace all off our savings.
You may be thinking of another set of reports that I saw in relation to the task force, but the product of the task force was pretty much done from scratch.
There’s a more recent report released by the state chapters of Environment America, but the only uniquifier was the state organization’s logo.
I see Jimbo is still wearing that “Bwana Bill” sun hat that nearly covers his ears. Somehow, I don’t think those glassy eyes lit up with an unnatural glow and peering out from under that ridiculous hat brim convey the serious image Dr. Jim imagines.
Claude Harvey,
Whatever are you talking about? Jimbo gave a couple of citations. That’s all.
MikeinAppalachia says:
BP are sloppy about their drilling practices, and they are sloppy about their statistics. If you read the Oil Drum article, there is a reference to the China figure of one trillion tonnes.