Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

The Meltdown We Really Can't Afford

By Kerry Trueman, AlterNet. Posted October 10, 2008.


We are in danger of passing an extremely dangerous tipping point, with the frightening discovery of massive deposits of sub-sea methane in the Arctic.
Advertisement

Hey, ho, where's the cash flow? Wasn't the bailout supposed to get those streams of credit flowing again? But while the titans of trickle-down and the free-reign rainmakers pray for new rivers of revenue to float their boats, some venerable bodies of water beyond the canyons of Wall Street are in danger of literally evaporating -- and all the money in the world won't bring them back once we pass that terrible tipping point.

London Bridge isn't falling down, but the river it spans may be drying up, according to the Guardian:

Britain's rivers could nearly run dry because long hot summers caused by climate change will not be sufficiently compensated by wetter winters ... the overall average trend is toward drastically reduced river flows across the country.

And, to get truly biblical, the BBC reports that years of drought have helped decimate the Sea of Galilee. Should Jesus decide to revisit his old stomping grounds any time soon (as Sarah Palin reportedly expects him to), the miracle worker who fed the multitudes will be hard-pressed to find even two fish in the dregs of this ancient sea, doggone it.

But while rivers and lakes all over the world are simply vanishing into the ether, something really insidious is bubbling up from the Arctic seabed. Scientists have just discovered that "massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats." This could speed up climate change to an unprecedented degree, as the Independent reports:

Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.

Never mind the "negative feedback loop" that's strangling Wall Street. If we don't get a handle on this positive feedback loop -- which, let's be clear, is not a positive development -- it's going to hang us all, and the future of our financial markets won't matter one molecule.

Yes, it's awful that our nation's debt has ballooned so badly that, on Sept. 30, we passed the $10 trillion mark and the National Debt Clock ran out of room. The Durst Organization, which maintains the billboard, had to bump the dollar sign to accommodate all those zeroes.

But the figure we need to focus on now is not measured in trillions, or billions -- it's parts per million (ppm), the way we measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we had a billboard tracking that figure (maybe the Durst Organization would care to donate one?), it would currently read "385 ppm." Unfortunately, James Hansen and his climatologist colleagues have concluded that if we hope to escape catastrophic climate change, we've got to get back to 350 ppm ASAP.

That's why Bill McKibben, the environmental activist and author, founded 350.org, a Web site devoted to getting the word out about how our collective goose is getting cooked. There's still time to pull ourselves out of the fryer -- but just barely. McKibben, who has been sounding the alarm on global warming for nearly two decades (see The End of Nature), told a group of bloggers the other day that the scientists he has been talking to for the past several decades about climate change are "just panicking" at this point. By the year 2012, these experts say, it will be too late to avoid the most dire consequences of global warming, at the rate we're going.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, 350 ppm, 350.org

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Would the extinction of Homo Sapiens have an economic impact?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 10, 2008 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

OIL SHALE, TAR SANDS AND COAL MUST BE LEFT IN
THE GROUND TO AVOID THE EXTINCTION OF US
HUMANS.
We have to convert to plug-in hybrid cars so that electricity made
by low-CO2 methods powers most of our driving. Nuclear power
produces the least CO2 of ANY source of electricity.
32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb.
The top 4 producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal
fired power plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China,
India and Russia. Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050
requires drastic action in the USA, China, India and Russia.
Coal, oil shale and tar sands must be left untouched in the ground.

I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks Bill McKibben, but you can't hold it to 450 ppm without nuclear power.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 10, 2008 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output. The refereed scenarios from the IPCC
failed to hold the CO2 down to 450 parts per million. You can't without building
something like 10,000 new nuclear power plants world wide to replace every coal
fired power plant on the planet. The 10,000 includes replacing all Generation 1
[Chernobyl style] power plants with safe American Generation 4 technology.
Let's get it done.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour. Is the
sun shining the most when you are cold? Of course not. It is winter because
the days are shorter. Is the wind blowing the most when you are the coldest? I
don't know, but chances are 3 to 1 that it is not.]

Wind and solar look like bad bets for keeping you warm in the winter unless you
live in a very unusual place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Solar heat potential Posted by: bornxeyed
» The real best solution Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Like most who talk up nuclear power... Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
» and leftist, but pro nuclear Posted by: bornxeyed
» oops Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: and leftist, but pro nuclear Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
» You do realize.... Posted by: bornxeyed
It is time to be scared. Methane isn't supposed to be bubbling out of the Arctic ocean yet.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 10, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

'Six steps to hell' - summary of Six Degrees as published in the Guardian
23 April 07:

1ºC Nebraska ...shortened... These innocuous-looking hills were once desert, part
of an immense system of sand dunes that spread across the Great Plains from
Texas in the south to the Canadian prairies in the north. Six thousand years ago,
when temperatures were about 1C warmer than today in the US, these deserts may
have looked much as the Sahara does today. ....shortened... devastating
agriculture and driving out human inhabitants on a scale far larger than the 1930s
“Dustbowl” exodus.....shortened...

2ºC ....shortened...Two degrees is also enough to cause the eventual complete
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise global sea levels by seven
metres. ...shortened...

3ºC Scientists estimate that we have at best 10 years to bring down global carbon
emissions if we are to stabilise world temperatures within two degrees of their
present levels. ....shortened... 3C may be the “tipping point” where global
warming could run out of control, leaving us powerless to intervene as planetary
temperatures soar. The centre of this predicted disaster is the Amazon, where the
tropical rainforest, which today extends over millions of square kilometres, would
burn down in a firestorm of epic proportions. ...shortened... Once the trees have
gone, desert will appear and the carbon released by the forests’ burning will be
joined by still more from the world’s soils. This could boost global temperatures
by a further 1.5ºC – tippping us straight into the four-degree world.
....shortened...

4ºC At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed,
it could happen much earlier. ....shortened... hundreds of billions of tonnes of
carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt
zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense
quantities. ....shortened...

5ºC ....shortened... methane hydrates. This unlikely substance, a sort of ice-like
combination of methane and water that is only stable at low temperatures and high
pressure, may have burst into the atmosphere from the seabed in an immense
“ocean burp”, sparking a surge in global temperatures ....shortened... . Today vast
amounts of these same methane hydrates still sit on subsea continental shelves. As
the oceans warm, they could be released once more in a terrifying echo of that
methane belch of 55 million years ago. In the process, moreover, the seafloor
could slump as the gas is released, sparking massive tsunamis ....shortened...

6ºC ....shortened... end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. By the end
of this calamity, up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is
the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting
through space. ....shortened... most of the world’s plant cover was removed in a
catastrophic bout of soil erosion. Rocks also show a “fungal spike” as plants and
animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to
turn them stagnant and anoxic. ....shortened...
Whatever happened back then to wipe out 95% of life on Earth ....shortened... we
mess with the climatic thermostat of this planet at our extreme – and growing –
peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coal contains far more than enough URANIUM and Thorium to fuel our nuclear plants:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 10, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD,
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

Coal is a $100 Billion per year industry in the US alone. That is why stopping
coal is going to be difficult.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recycle nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 10, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The
army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons
effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor.
Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/
x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreport
s/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I
never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Last Chance
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 10, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" I couldn't figure out how there could be forest fires in wintertime, but eventually I learned it's methane released because the planet is overheated with industrial pollution. So we need to convert to green technology immediately and establish family planning programs to reduce the human population immediately, that is, if we want to save our children. Otherwise, it's suicide to continue business as usual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Last Chance Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Last Chance Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Last Chance Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Last Chance Posted by: bornxeyed
» OH damn you got me! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: OH damn you got me! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: OH damn you got me! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: OH damn you got me! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: OH damn you got me! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: OH damn you got me! Posted by: pacto
Charles Pogue's vapor carburetor
Posted by: Jeff Greef on Oct 10, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1930s, Charles Nelson Pogue of Winnipeg (or Manitoba?) patented a vapor carburation system that supposedly got 200 mpg with a Ford V8.

Sounds nutty and impossible, but the patents exist. Vaporizing the gasoline before it is burned causes it to burn efficiently. Current carburetors mist the gasoline, it doesn't burn efficiently and thus you need a catalytic convertor to complete the burning process or you get all these unburned hydrocarbons causing smog.

We don't want to admit that Pogue's vapor carburetor was real because it proves that we were duped. It means that all your life you have been paying far too much for gasoline- even when it was cheap. This story doesn't square with our sense of identity as free Americans in charge of our destiny. Therefore, we don't want to look at it.

But now we need to. Efficient carburation is the bridge between petro-technology and solar technology. Here's how we can reduce carbon emissions quickly, while lowering energy costs and eliminating foreign imports.

Before an idea reaches its time, anything can stop it, and Pogue was effectively stopped. But the idea has reached its time. All we have to do is acknowledge it openly. But, you'll have to admit something about yourself that doesn't square with your sense of independence.

What's more important, your concept of self, or reducing CO2?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Furthermore ... Posted by: bornxeyed
Nice bit of literary license there author.
Posted by: bornxeyed on Oct 10, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I loved you alliterations but...

London Bridge isn't falling down, but the river it spans may be drying up

London Bridge has been in Arizona for the last 20 years or so and it hasn't spanned a river the whole time it as heen there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Faith In The Buck
Posted by: melpol on Oct 10, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The value of stocks have been dropping for over a year and have lost trillions in value. Many have seen their life savings gone with the wind.But there is still hope that the downward slide will hit a bottom and stocks will rise again.The big question is: Where is the bottom?. The correct answer is that the bottom is zero. The American currency is backed only by faith that it is worth something. If the public loses that faith it is worthless. There was a time when each dollar could be redeemed by gold. If you would rather hold gold, a teller at the bank would exchange it. The dollar was worth its weight in gold. In 1933 it all changed Franklin D.Roosevelt helped pass the law that it was illegal to possess gold. Then the dollar had value only on the faith that it was worth something. My advice to the public is to keep the faith and we shall overcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faith In The Buck Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
» RE: Faith In The Buck Posted by: bornxeyed
And yet...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Oct 10, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both major party candidates seem clueless about any of this. Both propose further use of fossil fuels as the back bone of their energy policies. McCain is all for drilling and Obama says cleverly he plans to make us free of dependence on MIDDLE EASTERN oil, not oil itself. His plan, I fear, will be revealed to encompass using Canadian oils sands as his "solution."

I just don't think people really can grasp the magnitude of this thing at all. You tell them this is a very likely scenario and their eyes roll back and they ask you how they're supposed to gas up their cars...
The disconnect is huge. All across the country bond measures for mass transit, bullet trains and other ways of getting masses of people around without each of them burning gallons of fossil fuel every day to do that are voted down because we've come to love our isolation units... our cars, our private transport.

Hey lemmings... Can't you see that cliff up ahead?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A willingness to suffer for beliefs
Posted by: PaulK on Oct 10, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, this article is a magnet for:

1. Exxon's ad agency, which will send global warming denier spammers to post here, far in excess, and not caring about anything but their preset talking points.

2. The nuclear industry's ad agency, which will send nuclear spammers to post here, far in excess, and not caring about anything but their preset talking points.

I say that nuclear has nothing whatsoever to do with ameliorating global warming or the oil deficit, as it eats up as much oil in the entire mining/processing/decommissioning process as it produces in electricity. We could have just burned the oil except for Congress's porky subsidies. Worse, we need that increasingly scarce pork money to convert to net energy-gaining, sustainable energy producers.

Our velvet gloved lobbyist guy, who has posted above, has cared less about what I think (he'll change the subject to something on his script) and I sure don't care about his script anymore.

That said, I think the article is overly optimistic. The various whisperers are successfully scamming many U.S. voters, unless perhaps they lived in Houston, Galveston or New Orleans and they got hurt already. Only victims get it. So, nothing at all will be done.

Let that sink in. Nothing at all will be done. There is no political will to do even little things to ameliorate global wierding.

Global wierding will stop, first, when ordinary citizens demonstrate their willingness to suffer for their deeply held beliefs, and second, when a great number of citizens demand that their government be proactive to problems. We might get the second. The first is the issue at hand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it makes me wonder Posted by: bornxeyed
» CO2 Stats with no cred Posted by: PaulK
Methane escaping from the Siberian tundra is already burning.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 10, 2008 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw a picture of it. It looks like snow is burning. I didn't keep the picture or the
reference. It might have been Astrobiology magazine or another one of the NASA
web zines. I don't know where the spark came from.

Methane + air = a fuel-air explosive.

At 5 degrees centigrade of warming, there will be enough fuel-air explosions to
make an all-out nuclear war look like a picnic. Homo Sapiens will have a hard
time not going extinct. Very few people will survive this time. Is it beginning to
sink in how desperate we are? The Siberia methane positive feedback is
beginning to take control out of our hands. Really draconian measures are
required NOW.

Free methane in the air slowly reacts with the oxygen. It doesn't have to oxidize
fast enough to constitute a fire. Sunlight can cause one atom at a time to
dissociate from its molecule and become available as a free radical. Free radicals
will react without a spark. If methane and oxygen are together, they will become
water and CO2 either slowly or fast, but they will never remain as methane and
oxygen over geological time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a gigantic arctic fart
Posted by: susy3c on Oct 10, 2008 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So basically what you are saying is that mother nature has been saving up a gigantic arctic fart to kill off the species that has done nothing but defecate on her in increasingly harmful ways especially since the industrial revolution? Where's the justice in that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Revolutionary new clean energy source
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Oct 11, 2008 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to announce the arrival of a clean, cheap, abundant, and portable form of energy production that will make burning fossil fuel obsolete.


The German physicist Heinrich Freidrich Lenz stated in 1833 the direction of an electromagnetically-induced current (generated by moving a magnet near a wire or by moving a wire in a magnetic field) will be such as to oppose the motion producing it.


Today, most of our electricity is produced by "electromagnetic induction," where a magnet is moved in and out of a coil of wire in a closed circuit.


In other words, we now have to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire to produce electricity.
Instead, wind a solenoidal coil around a magnet, and apply electricity. The magnetic field is amplified, and the magnetic gradient can be exploited to yield more electricity than was used powering the solenoidal coil.


In other words, we avoid having to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire, and can instead have a solid state power generator.


It has been reported that previous attempts to commercially exploit this simple principle failed. Not because such solid state power generators failed to produce a net gain in electricity production, but because the source of the net gain in electricity couldn't be explained.


A private California company called Magnetic Power Inc ( www.magneticpowerinc.com ) exceeded breakeven (i.e. produced more electricity than it used) with a prototype in late 2004. Here is an abstract of their patent application:


US Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0163971 A1

Solid State Electric Generator

A solid-state electrical generator includes at least one permanent magnet, magnetically coupled to a ferromagnetic core provided with at least one hole penetrating its volume; the hole(s) and magnet(s) being placed such that the hole(s) penetrating the ferromagnetic core's volume intercept flux from the permanent magnet(s) coupled into the ferromagnetic core. A first wire coil is wound around the ferromagnetic core for the purpose of moving the coupled permanent magnet flux within the ferromagnetic core. A second wire is routed through the hole(s) penetrating the volume of the ferromagnetic core, for the purpose of intercepting this moving magnetic flux, thereby inducing an output electromotive force along wire(s) passing through the hole(s) in the ferromagnetic core. The mechanical action of an electrical generator is thereby synthesized without use of moving parts.


I strongly suggest you listen to the first 15 minutes of the radio interview with Chairman Goldes posted on the MPI website. Soon burning fossil fuel for energy will be obsolete, and replaced with a clean, cheap, abundant, and portable form of energy production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Another fool.... Posted by: bornxeyed
Here's an idea
Posted by: bornxeyed on Oct 11, 2008 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chinese believe every crisis is an oppurtunity.

You want an INTERIM solution?

Let's capture and burn all that methane. It reduces the global warming impact by 20 times and it shouldn't be too hard.

Most landfills now have methane capture systems.

I know the one at Fresh Kills in NYC supplies gas to heat 20,000 homes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yeah! Posted by: Jeff Greef
» RE: yeah! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: yeah! Posted by: Jeff Greef
We have enough nuclear fuel for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 13, 2008 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have enough nuclear fuel for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS according to
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby. "Breeding" fissionable
fuel and recycling nuclear fuel greatly extends the supply. We have many
possible uranium mines that we haven't started mining. The reasons we are not
doing so are political and psychological. Most people have an irrational fear of
anything nuclear caused by coal industry propaganda. Rather than waste fuel by
putting it in Yucca Mountain, we should be recycling.

Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton [hydrogen]. That would be a hydrogen atom. An
oxygen atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other
nuclei also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146
neutrons. If it has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238.
Nuclear fuel is only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing
energy. The rest is U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a
neutron is captured by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the
nucleus and the atom split approximately in half and 2 or 3 neutrons are released
because the 2 smaller nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus
captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The
U238 thus becomes Plutonium 239 [Pu239]. In a power reactor, the Pu239
quickly captures another neutron, becoming Pu240. Pu240 is useless for making
bombs, which is why governments that have plutonium bombs have their own
special reactors to make Pu239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that
plutonium is a good fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more
fissionable uranium. If a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an
electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes
U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly. In the
US, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is replaced each
year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the percentage of
fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process, plutonium may be
removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium to the fuel, we can
make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains more than twice as
much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium into uranium. By
reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries long fuel supply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power on average costs 1.72 cents total per kilowatt-hour.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 13, 2008 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are no hidden costs as alleged by the coal industry.
Anybody who is against nuclear power is in favor of coal fired
power whether he knows it or not because coal is the only
alternative to nuclear for most of us.

If you think wind or solar or wave or geothermal will work, go
ahead and bankrupt yourself trying to make it work. America
and the world will not be without power. Just try and let
electricity not be available whenever the wind isn't blowing and
see what reaction you get. Just try and add $10,000/year for
batteries to the average person's electric bill and see what reaction
you get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why geothermal power is not possible in most locations:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 13, 2008 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At sufficiently high pressure, solid cold steel will flow like water.
The same is true of solid rock and any other material. As you
drill into the earth, the pressure increases with depth. The steel
pipe well casing at sufficient pressure changes from a large
diameter thin walled pipe to a small diameter thick walled pipe due
to the external pressure of the "solid" rock. Since the pressure is
equal all the way around and points toward the center of the pipe,
the pipe retains a circular cross section. Under more pressure, the
pipe becomes a solid rod. The deeper you drill, the greater this
effect becomes. The solid rock flows inward, clamping your drill
bit more and more as you drill deeper. For this reason, there is a
limit to the depth of any hole in the ground. The maximum depth
hole turns out to be too shallow to extract geothermal energy in
most locations.

I hope you will agree that drilling into liquid magma would be a
foolish idea. Yes, there are many people who live in Naples, Italy,
right beside Vesuvius. They live there in spite of the fates of
the people of ancient Pompeii and Herculanium nearby. Sorry,
but I am not that foolish.

Geothermal energy can be extracted ONLY where there is a hot,
but solidified, "Pluton" of rock near the surface of the earth. The
pluton is former magma that did not erupt as a volcano, but came
most of the way to the surface and stopped. Since the magma
pluton arrived at its location near the surface of the earth, a long
time, by comparison to a human lifetime, has passed so that the
magma has had time to cool enough to be very solid. The pluton
must still be plenty hot enough to boil water. The pluton must
also be sufficiently large to hold enough heat energy to keep
boiling water for a long time. These conditions are met in a few
places. In those few places, geothermal energy extraction is
possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

heads up
Posted by: pacto on Oct 21, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the human animal has just about run its course:they were to busy with egotism,selfishness,trying to control the world,greed,and so much more.take a deep breath.....that is met