flash! flash! warning!!!

[Ian Beardsley]

06 February 2005 Geoffrey Lean writes

“Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable
world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of
2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked
into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed human
civilisation to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may well
identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.”


That is it, we are in deep do-do enouph even without
those problems, as a people at any rate. Is it not
time that we heed H.G. Wells last words:

"Man must go steeply up, or down and out."

And did he not mention the solution:

We must "...enter a new creative phase."

And where does the bright side lay at this point? It
is merely we can hope that the messages and probes we
have sent out into space will be recieved by an
intelligence that somehow survived their own stupidity
(I say stupid if the laws of the universe are the same
throughout the universe) and they go back in time to
retrieve a people who made themselves extinct.

It does not look as if humanity is going to do the
right thing, and I think the right thing is clear to
us all, or should be, given articles like this one are
in abundance and what England is doing and telling the
world.
Ian
:fuming:

[Legs]

So.... do I have time to pack? :chin:

[Ian Beardsley]

So.... do I have time to pack? :chin:
Time to pack yes, a place to go? No.
Ian :yup:

[Legs]

Time to pack yes, a place to go? No.
Ian :yup:


Come now Ian, don't be all doom and gloom on my first day here at ff.

Please tell me your plan for the end of life as we know it? Do you have a Plan A and maybe a couple of back up contingency plans?

[Ian Beardsley]

Time to pack yes, a place to go? No.
Ian :yup:


Come now Ian, don't be all doom and gloom on my first day here at ff.

Please tell me your plan for the end of life as we know it? Do you have a Plan A and maybe a couple of back up contingency plans?

Apparently if the global warming causes the atlantic pump to fail, we could be catapulted into an ice age. I can't think of a single plan for survival other than taking preventitive measures that it looks like as a species we won't take. As chief Joseph of Nezpierce said, "from where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever".
--Ian :popcorn:

[livius drusus]

May I ask, Ian, what this has to do with community activism? If we're all doomed, what's the point?

[Legs]

I can't think of a single plan for survival other than taking preventitive measures that it looks like as a species we won't take.

I have a full length mink.

[Ian Beardsley]

May I ask, Ian, what this has to do with community activism? If we're all doomed, what's the point?
Some times if you realize you are doomed, you can save yourself.
Ian
:D

[livius drusus]

Uh huh. Would you have any suggestions along that score?

[Legs]

Uh huh. Would you have any suggestions along that score?

I believe we have already covered this..... preventative measures, or pack your bags for a one way trip :yup:

[Ian Beardsley]

Uh huh. Would you have any suggestions along that score?

Why sure, curb green house gas emmisions to the levels suggested by research, which we can do, but industry and corporations stand to lose a great deal of profits if they have to, and they seem to be running the show for now.
Ian
:P

[viscousmemories]

I've gone ahead and moved the thread to Sciences. The purpose of the Community Activism forum is for people to have easy access to information and resources directly related to social activism. This seems like more of a theoretical exploration to me...

[Crumb]

I have a full length mink.

Hmm...if you were to arrive at my door wearing only that, I might be able to arrange your survival for the next ice age. ;)

Welcome to FF legs.

[Legs]

Hmm...if you were to arrive at my door wearing only that, I might be able to arrange your survival for the next ice age. ;)


LOL... now there is an offer I can't refuse,

Congratulations, you are now my Plan A

[Crumb]

:woohoo:

:bliss:

/me is happy.

ETA: It is sure getting warmer over here. :D

[Legs]

LOL Crumb, I thought about you earlier when I was eating toast, you know how you lick your finger and pick up the little crumbs on the counter? ;)

[Crumb]

:stunned: *gulp*

[xouper]

As much as I hate to interrupt a fascinating derailment here, I suddenly feel in the mood to run my mouth as much as the next guy and express my opinion on the central issue of this thread.

Speaking only for myself, of course, I am highly skeptical of any alarmist who claims to fully understand the mechanism of global climate change and mankind's effect upon it.

I am not interested in actually debating the issue, I am just pointing out that I do not find alarmist rhetoric very persuasive. Like anyone actually cares what I think anyway.

As I said, I just wanted to run my mouth. Carry on. :)

[livius drusus]

I'm right there with ya, xoup.

[Ian Beardsley]

Key word in the quote is "may" be the time when the alarms sounded. We have been through several ice ages already, but humanity started building cities and developing agriculture during a time when the weather allowed for it. But we know now that such long periods of weather conducive to an agricultural society alternate with ice ages that last thousands of years. We know for certain that they come and go, and that we will have another one, but its is understood that industry and transportation as currently used, can trigger one prematurely. Tony Blair has tried to convince the United States that global warming should be considered as more dangerous than terrorism and should be given even more attention. Climatology is not an exact science, but I have read that the current levels of CO2 are dangerously close to those that preceded the last ice age. America contributes most to global warming, but Europe stands to lose the most, as they are further north. So what to do? Keep driving Suv's and Hummers, or take the issue seriously?
--Ian

[xouper]

... So what to do? Keep driving Suv's and Hummers, or take the issue seriously?
This is exactly the kind of alarmist emotional rhetoric that causes me not to take your political agenda seriously.

[livius drusus]

I have a Prius. I still don't get what your point was in starting this thread. :shrug:

[Ian Beardsley]

I have a Prius. I still don't get what your point was in starting this thread. :shrug:
I thought it was an issue worth taking up. Infact, I think it is one of the most important issues of the time to be concerned about. I thought I would not remain silent, it was my concious saying to me I can't be comfortable with myself if I do because this country which, as I said before, contributes most to global warming woudn't sign the Kyoto protocol, therefore the issue deserves attention.
--Ian

[xouper]

Ian Beardsley:... [the U.S.] contributes most to global warming woudn't sign the Kyoto protocol ...
By "sign" I assume you mean "ratify", since the U.S. has already signed Kyoto thank you Al Gore , but has not ratified it and thus it is not binding.

Australia also refuses to ratify Kyoto. There are many good reasons for not ratifying it. For example, China is the second largest producer of "greenhouse" gases and they are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol.

I could say a whole lot more and get sucked into debating this issue, but I prefer to spend my time on other things. Those who are interested in the opposing views on Kyoto can find them on the web. Those who aren't, won't bother.

For example, here is a statement (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/international/kyoto/) by the Australian government:

The Government has decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because, while it has some positive elements, it does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change. There is no clear pathway for action by developing countries, and the United States has indicated that it will not ratify. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Protocol will deliver only about a 1% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

I understand your concern about this important issue, Ian. I do not wish to argue with you about the details. I've expressed my opinion, and I'll let it go at that. The soapbox is all yours. :)

[ceptimus]

Four facts:

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
The percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is rising.
The burning of fossil fuels causes a lot of Carbon Dioxide to be released.
Average global temperatures are rising.

Now the problem is that scientists can't agree about how these facts are related, or whether they are related at all. It doesn't help that the scientists often have vested interests, in that they are employed by oil companies, or by Greenpeace, for example.

The predictions are contradictory, including: an ice age, catastrophic sea level rises of 20 metres or more, increased weather extremes - more storm damage and more flooding. Some scientists think that the effects will be mostly beneficial, leading to more pleasant weather in higher latitudes, with better crop growth, and so on. Other scientists think that nothing much will change.

While the scientists can't agree on what the outcome will be, the politicians have an excuse to take no real action. If the effects of (human caused) global warming turn out to be as bad as the pessimists predict, then by the time the politicians begin to act, it will likely already be too late to prevent great loss and damage.

In any case, what action can be taken? Driving an economical car, and installing more efficient home equipment helps of course, but what about flying? A person taking a long haul flight on a commercial jet, is responsible for generating more CO2 on that one flight, than during several months of motoring. Are people ready to contemplate giving up flying yet?

[xouper]

ceptimus: ... [commentary snipped] ... In any case, what action can be taken? Driving an economical car, and installing more efficient home equipment helps of course, but what about flying? A person taking a long haul flight on a commercial jet, is responsible for generating more CO2 on that one flight, than during several months of motoring. Are people ready to contemplate giving up flying yet?
Excellent commentary, as usual, cep. :)

Addressing your question, another option comes to mind: switch to a fuel that doesn't release CO2 into the atmosphere. Then we can keep our Hummers and jet airplanes. I prefer solutions that allow us to keep using our tools and toys rather than restricting their use.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing? No, I'm not stupid. During the Cretaceous Period Earth was so warm that Antartica had forests. True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe. Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good? Think of the amount of food that could be grown. We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.

[xouper]

SkepticJ: Screw winter.
But, then where will our future professional hockey players come from?

Isn't anyone going to THINK OF THE CHILDREN?? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

SkepticJ: Screw winter.
But, then where will our future professional hockey players come from?

I think we can get by without this sport. We'd have hovercraft bobsledding in Jamaica though.

[beyelzu]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing? No, I'm not stupid. During the Cretaceous Period Earth was so warm that Antartica had forests. True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe. Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good? Think of the amount of food that could be grown. We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.
I have often wondered about that myself.

eloquently put. :bow:

[Ian Beardsley]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing? No, I'm not stupid. During the Cretaceous Period Earth was so warm that Antartica had forests. True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe. Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good? Think of the amount of food that could be grown. We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.
If we don't ice age, then a warmer earth according to Carl Sagan would cause a runaway greenhouse effect, somewhat like what he says happened to Venus, and the world is unihabitable the other way around. In a runaway greenhouse effect, warmer weather continouly causes still warmer weather and so on in a chain reaction. Bill Moyers has said there can either be an ice age, or a runaway greenhouse effect. There was an article in Nature (I will try to find it) that I believe said there is a consensus, contrary to what most of the articles have said, and that is that us causing global warming will result in catastrophe. Now I know we don't know for sure what will, or perhaps what might happen, but it angers me that oil companies are doing what they can to stifle knowledge on this, instead of say allowing us to take what action we are certain can help. My brother has taken action working for the department of agriculture, to teach farmers to grow native grasses that are a better carbon sink than domestic grasses. He says if the grasses become native everywhere, then they will become the second largest carbon sink, second only to the plankton on the ocean, and sinking carbon is the name of the game, and making industry curb there emmisions.
Ian
Ian

[xouper]

Ian Beardsley: ... it angers me that oil companies are doing what they can to stifle knowledge on this, instead of say allowing us to take what action we are certain can help.
Erm ... :eek:

... never mind, I'm staying out of this one.

[The Lone Ranger]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing? No, I'm not stupid. During the Cretaceous Period Earth was so warm that Antartica had forests. True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe. Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good? Think of the amount of food that could be grown. We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.

Probably not.

While a runaway Greenhouse Effect is unlikely, the unprecedented rise in the mean global temperature over the past 150 years is quite alarming to most climatologists, because if it continues it could have very bad consequences in the relatively short run.

Already, changes in migratory patterns, breeding seasons, and other behaviors have been noted in many plant and animal species and related to global warming. The mean global temperature has fluctuated in the past, as revealed by data from ice cores, for example -- but the current rate of change is far faster than has occurred at any time within the past 400,000 years.

It's more or less certain that a great many plant and animal species will be unable to cope with the rapidly-changing climate, and will be driven to extinction.


It has been suggested that global warming might actually be beneficial, because it will lead to longer growing seasons in the far North. However, it's also likely to lead to increased rates of drought and tropical storms in tropical and temperate regions -- so a net decrease of food production there.

More to the point, far northern regions have been dominated by very slow-growing taiga and/or tundra for tens of thousands of years. The soils there are nowhere near as deep and nutrient-rich as are those of much of the temperate and tropical world, and so aren't likely to be especially well-suited to agriculture, even in a warmer world.

Cheers,

Michael

[Ian Beardsley]

What is going on here guys with people just sitting
back and waiting for global warming to take its toll? I found
the answer in Mind at the End of its Tether, by H.G.
Wells. Apparrently, "the mind is retrospective, to the
end." "We live in reference to past experience, and
not to future events, no matter how inevitable." And
he says: "But the masses of our fellow creatures have
not that vision to sustain them, and we have to square
our everyday conduct to theirs." And ultimately: "Homo
Sapiens, as he has been pleased to call himself, is in
his present form, played out." And so forth...
So you see, what is happening here, folks?
:innocent:

[Gurdur]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing?
Let's see, you're in the USA, right ?
How do you feel about large scale droughts throughout the USA ?
Because that's a likely consequence.
True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe.
Australia will be well and truly fucked by droughts.
Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good?
You think that that would be a worldwide thing ?
No way. Effects will be local, and very likely include bad, epidemic droughts in the USA and Australia. Spikes in weather -- i.e. catastrophic, penduluming sudden changes -- will be likely.
We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.
I don't believe any amount of genetic engineering can obviate the need for water.

This issue is a very real issue, and deserves a full discussion. Let's do it.

[Gurdur]

If we don't ice age, then a warmer earth according to Carl Sagan would cause a runaway greenhouse effect,
There are better, more qualified and more recent authorities on this than Carl Sagan.
Try Brian M. Fagan for a good start.

[Corona688]

What is going on here guys with people just sitting back and waiting for global warming to take its toll? What's the deal with you sitting here trolling when you could be planting trees or something? Collectively insulting the entire population of the board in lieu of an argument isn't a good way to get a positive response, which further suggests to me you're just in this for the mess.

You don't have to hit return after every line, by the way. The box will linewrap for you.

It's an issue worth discussing, but you're not discussing it. You're just running around in circles telling us we're idiots.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing?
Let's see, you're in the USA, right ?
How do you feel about large scale droughts throughout the USA ?
Because that's a likely consequence.....Australia will be well and truly fucked by droughts.....You think that that would be a worldwide thing ?
No way. Effects will be local, and very likely include bad, epidemic droughts in the USA and Australia. Spikes in weather -- i.e. catastrophic, penduluming sudden changes -- will be likely.......I don't believe any amount of genetic engineering can obviate the need for water.

Yes, don't like the idea but this is kind of an appeal to emotion logical fallacy(how do I feel), it isn't already? Most of the continent is scrub desert., It was in the Cretaceous, I don't believe any amount can either. Even if the US became a desert and Australia became even dryer(which would be really hard to do) what happens to the rest of the world? Asia is huge, Africa is huge, South America is huge, Antartica has some land under that ice, Europe is really big.

[Ian Beardsley]

What is going on here guys with people just sitting back and waiting for global warming to take its toll? What's the deal with you sitting here trolling when you could be planting trees or something? Collectively insulting the entire population of the board in lieu of an argument isn't a good way to get a positive response, which further suggests to me you're just in this for the mess.

You don't have to hit return after every line, by the way. The box will linewrap for you.

It's an issue worth discussing, but you're not discussing it. You're just running around in circles telling us we're idiots.

I am believe in everything H.G. Wells has said, and that is just the kind of reaction he said I would get. He, once an optimist, has said: "The writer sees the world as a jaded world devoid of recuperative power...[people] won't trouble about it finding such opiates and consolations as they have a mind for." I don't know if that is the way that everyone on the board is, but around where I live it is. They walk like in a trance as if everything is fine, meanwhile the ground might be coming out from under there feet. I have not called anyone on this board an idiot, but I have nephews that I would like to see have a future.
Ian

[Corona688]

I am believe in everything H.G. Wells has said, and that is just the kind of reaction he said I would get. There's circular logic in here. People won't listen to me because they're sheep. They're sheep, therefore they won't listen to me. Maybye if you stopped being so damn condescending, and started talking issues and strategies rather than paranoia, flames, and insults, people would take you seriously. But make no mistake -- not taking you seriously does not mean we're dismissing global warming. Just you.

Take that as a challenge, if you will. Stop telling us why we'll never listen to you -- it's a lame excuse -- and tell us what you would have us do.

[Ian Beardsley]

Take that as a challenge, if you will. Stop telling us why we'll never listen to you -- it's a lame excuse -- and tell us what you would have us do.[/QUOTE]

I would have us cut back on emmisions in industry and transportation, which we can do, but aren't because industry seems to be in control of that and as long is it is not profitable, they will go on buying politicians. Kyoto, from what most scientists say is watered down and not nearly enouph. I would even switch from automobiles that run on fossil fuels to France's new vehicle that runs on compressed air. They say it is entirely clean and can go 200 km for 2 dollars in electricity to compress the air, at 65 miles per hour. We will even need to make a switch over soon enouph, because we are running out of oil quick from miscellaneous articles I have read, but unfortunately did not save.

[Corona688]

Take that as a challenge, if you will. Stop telling us why we'll never listen to you -- it's a lame excuse -- and tell us what you would have us do.
I would have us cut back on emmisions in industry and transportation, which we can do, but aren't because industry seems to be in control of that and as long is it is not profitable, they will go on buying politicians. You're repeating yourself. Yes, we already know cutting down emissions == teh good. You don't have to keep saying it. The question is, what can we do about it? I don't have a personal army of giant robots handy, so I can't exactly conquer the world and force everyone to change the way the way they do things.I would even switch from automobiles that run on fossil fuels to France's new vehicle that runs on compressed air. They say it is entirely clean and can go 200 km for 2 dollars in electricity to compress the air, at 65 miles per hour. I forsee problems with this. I'm sure it's efficient, as are the various solar vehicles, but how practical is it? Are these figures the real numbers for moving your average car-sized vehicle loaded down with people around, or are these figures just for pushing one athelete down a hill? I suspect the latter, but I would like to see some real numbers.

[livius drusus]

I've got to agree with Corona, Ian. When you say "we" you seem to be talking about governments, not FF members. I don't see a single suggestion about what we as individuals should be doing to curb greenhouse gases. I can't cut down industrial emissions, nor can I purchase a compressed air vehicle. A gas-electric hybrid is the best I can do and I've done that.

Now what? Petition government, protest industry, support environmental organizations? What do you, Ian Beardsley, do that is not sitting back and waiting for global warming to take its toll?

[Dingfod]

Compressing air to use as vehicle propulsion is pretty inefficient; inherent power plant inefficiencies (most power plants burn fossil fuels), compressor electric motor inefficiencies, and air compressor inefficiencies (heat generated is wasted). It is innovative, but will it sell in the U.S.? (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6138972)

If we could harness all the power contained in the fossil fuels we do use for transporation we could make do with a lot less fuel. There is an enormous amount of energy wasted as heat in fossil fuel powered vehicles, regardless of size. I remember reading about one guy's experimental car built in his garage back in the late 1970s. He pulled the 7.4L engine out of a Ford LTD Stationwagon, installed a 2.3L I-4 coupled via chain drive and overrun clutch to a rotary motor powered by freon. The freon was flashed to high pressure by heat from the 2.3K gasoline engine; copper tubing was coiled around the exhaust manifold and pipe and the entire engine compartment packed with insulation. To chill the freon back to liquid state there was a rack on the roof with finned copper heat exchange tubes all over it. The advantage was only using the 2.3L motor to power it down the highway, assisted by the freon motor for acceleration. The combined power of the gasoline engine and freon motor was equivalent to the V-8. He claimed the car would get 40 mpg in city driving and nearly that at a steady 55 mph (which was the speed limit at the time).

In the late 1980s, Smokey Yunick, former NASCAR builder and racer (http://www.smokeyyunick.com/) built a car equipped with what he called an heat engine. The car was a conventional Dodge Omni with a special built 2.2L Chrysler I-4 engine equipped with a custom built a turbocharger putting out about 3 bar, with everything under the hood super-insulated. Supposedly the car got over 50 mpg and still had tire burning acceleration. I would have to wonder about the longevity of an engine under those heat-retention conditions. Smokey Yunick Foundation funds research of this kind now.

[godfry n. glad]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing?
Let's see, you're in the USA, right ?
How do you feel about large scale droughts throughout the USA ?
Because that's a likely consequence.

Much of the US west of the Mississippi is arid. High plains or mountainous. Irrigated in order to get to grow anything. The water comes from the rivers. The Missouri, the Platte, the Colorado and the Rio Grande. Most are overpromised in terms of sold water rights. I understand that at times the Imperial River disappears. The Oglalla Aquifer is being drawn down much faster than it is being replaced.

Cadillac Desert is an excellent source on the primacy of water in the US.


True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe.
Australia will be well and truly fucked by droughts.
Hey, Oz is already half way there.

Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good?
You think that that would be a worldwide thing ?
No way. Effects will be local, and very likely include bad, epidemic droughts in the USA and Australia. Spikes in weather -- i.e. catastrophic, penduluming sudden changes -- will be likely.
We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.
I don't believe any amount of genetic engineering can obviate the need for water.

This issue is a very real issue, and deserves a full discussion. Let's do it.

Not to mention the increasing number of humans on the face of the planet and the rising expectations as to what is an acceptable lifestyle. Masses of people don't adapt well to massive climatological change. Famine ensues when insufficient food is left after drought. Famine begets disease and contagion. Massive die off happens. Famine and disease.

And...oh, yeah...about deciding who gets to split up what there is....well, we all know what that means.

Why...

That sounds absolutely apocalyptic.

I dunno....anybody know how possible? 'Cause I'm just shootin' my mouth off, here.

godfry

(I did, however, just finish reading Brian Fagan's The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization. A little climatological determinism never hurt anyone...has it?)

[Ian Beardsley]

I've got to agree with Corona, Ian. When you say "we" you seem to be talking about governments, not FF members. I don't see a single suggestion about what we as individuals should be doing to curb greenhouse gases. I can't cut down industrial emissions, nor can I purchase a compressed air vehicle. A gas-electric hybrid is the best I can do and I've done that.

Now what? Petition government, protest industry, support environmental organizations? What do you, Ian Beardsley, do that is not sitting back and waiting for global warming to take its toll?

I definitely agree with that, there is nothing we can do as idividuals, but rant and rave, complain and grumble. Like they said in Milagro Beanfield War, "That was the 60's, no one signs petitions anymore, mainly because no one reads them."
Ian

[Ian Beardsley]

No, seriously, the researchers that just finished developing this compressed air vehicle said it was clean, efficient and practical and that it was going to be the biggest revolution in transportation so far. Now maybe people won't make the switch over because of global warming, though Europeans are more concerned than we as they will be harder hit than me in
California, but when I was last in Italy, I think gas was like 6 bucks a gallon or so. They may make the switch over because of that.
Ian

[Ian Beardsley]

If you don't believe me, and it first didn't sound believable to me either, it mainly being compressed air all, do a search on the researchers that developed it, MDI.
Ian

[godfry n. glad]

Wouldn't a warmer Earth be a good thing? No, I'm not stupid. During the Cretaceous Period Earth was so warm that Antartica had forests. True it was in a slightly different place but not much different than like Southern Australia is on the Globe. Wouldn't a humid and very tropical Earth be good? Think of the amount of food that could be grown. We could also create and adapt plants we need and want to the new climate; even ourselves via genetics. Screw winter.

Um... If the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melt, wouldn't the sea level rise? I'm curious as to how much. If it does, wouldn't much of the arable soil (low-lying siltation built up by flowing freshwater rivers) be flooded by saltwater?

[Ian Beardsley]

Here is a good link to the Guy Negre air compression vehicle.
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/guynegre.html

[Dingfod]

I have investigated it because it is interesting to me, I like the innovation. Of course the compressed air vehicle is clean, it's powered by air. The pollution is just being relocated to the power generation plants. It's those power plants that generate the electricity that power the air compressors that are the problem. Most electrical power is still generated in relatively inefficient fossil fuel burning power plants (France, with lots of nuclear power, a noteable exception). There are still the built-in inefficiencies in electrical generation, electrical power transmission, electric motors, air compressors, and air motors, both in frictional losses and in electrical transmission losses. These cars may or not be more efficient overall than fossil fueled vehicles, the car in your link can only go 50 miles on a tank when driven at 100 km/hr and takes about $2.50 in electricity to refill. There are a number of vehicles that can exceed that efficiency on fossil fuel, especially considering that there are little or no taxes on electricity. If enough consumers switch to electric vehicles, fuel tax collections will go down, governments will be forced to look at taxing alternative energies the same way they do petrol, or taxing vehicles based on the number of miles driven. I just don't see it as the magic solution; a viable alternative mode of transporation with a feel-good quotient, it is, but the cure-all, it is not.

More nuclear power plants is the answer to energy needs, but what do we do about the spent fuel rods and radiation contaminated materials? Maybe the real answer is a large scale die-off. What better way to acheive that than to do nothing about global "warming"?

[Ian Beardsley]

I have investigated it because it is interesting to me, I like the innovation. Of course the compressed air vehicle is clean, it's powered by air. The pollution is just being relocated to the power generation plants. It's those power plants that generate the electricity that power the air compressors that are the problem. Most electrical power is still generated in relatively inefficient fossil fuel burning power plants (France, with lots of nuclear power, a noteable exception). There are still the built-in inefficiencies in electrical generation, electrical power transmission, electric motors, air compressors, and air motors, both in frictional losses and in electrical transmission losses. These cars may or not be more efficient overall than fossil fueled vehicles, the car in your link can only go 50 miles on a tank when driven at 100 km/hr and takes about $2.50 in electricity to refill. There are a number of vehicles that can exceed that efficiency on fossil fuel, especially considering that there are little or no taxes on electricity. If enough consumers switch to electric vehicles, fuel tax collections will go down, governments will be forced to look at taxing alternative energies the same way they do petrol, or taxing vehicles based on the number of miles driven. I just don't see it as the magic solution; a viable alternative mode of transporation with a feel-good quotient, it is, but the cure-all, it is not.

More nuclear power plants is the answer to energy needs, but what do we do about the spent fuel rods and radiation contaminated materials? Maybe the real answer is a large scale die-off. What better way to acheive that than to do nothing about global "warming"?

Your cause and effect analysis shows more vision than have in projections of an idea, but just let me play the devil advocate here, and see if I can survive your scrutiny, which I doubt. I lived in Oregon for half my life, and is what strikes me as interesting, now in retrospect of living in California, is how cheap electricity was there. They are completely hydroelectric for their production of electricity, and they produce far more than they can use because of the immense river power, five powerful rivers that I can think of, because it rains there three quarters of the year, nonstop. Pours rather I should say. I imagine the same goes for Washington state and Canada. This we call the Northwest, land of one of the last tropical rain forests. But back to the point. Oregon has such a reservoir of unused, cleanly produced electricity, that California would like to buy it. It seems to me that these states could run off of the air compression car, with no pollution in production of the electricity required. There is more and more talk of wind and hydro and making solar efficient, and as such, in a futuristic society, air compression cars would do a great job, even with nuclear as the source of electricity. I would rather not see a massive die off in an ice age, and that is why I am so interested in prevention. I would rather see us, like China, perhaps be as innovative as they are now with two children per person until we reach zero population growth and are at a population that is not over taxing the earth. Also, if we are plumeted into an ice age, it could last thousands of years, and we are actually in another kind of race that does not give us time to rebuild a civilization, namely, a warming sun that will be too hot in about a billion years, and hence the need to colonize the solar system and terraform mars, that is, make it habitable. I know some people don't think there is any reason for humans to make it into space just so we continue on into eternity, but I would like to believe it is our destiny.
Ian

[Dingfod]

Hydroelectric isn't entirely environmentally cost free, the flooding of habitats, interference with fish migration, erosion problems caused by steady flows where flows were naturally intermittent or intermittent peak load flows, drought, and the amount of fuels consumed during construction are all problems. Currently hydroelectric power generation provides about 20% of the world's electricity needs. Some countries like Norway and Iceland generate almost all of the power from hydro, but they are geographically fortunate just like Washington and Oregon. Even though it rains as much or more in the Southeastern U.S. (Tulsa annual rainfall is more than Seattle) low head power generation just doesn't generate the power that the deep lakes in mountainous areas can. And then there are the problems of building new hydro projects, just like nuclear power plants and with nuclear waste, nobody wants it upstream, nobody wants to give up their land or flood their wildlands, the NIMBY syndrome.

Energy needs don't seem to be on the decline even though energy sources will. I think as oil and natural gas production decline and therefor get higher in price human innovation will come through and either the energy needs will be met via alternatives or the consumption will drop either due to a crashing global economy or because of technologies, like hybrid vehicles, compressed air cars, electric vehicles, lean-burn engines, etc. One thing for sure, we cannot consume more energy than there is. I do wish the push for bio-alcohol and hydrogen fuels as alternatives would go away. While they are clearly cleaner to burn as fuel than fossil fuels, they both take more energy to produce than they contain. Without government subsidies these industries will not survive and shouldn't. Anyway, as energy consumption declines with supply, so will pollution, it's inevitable.

I have a hard time planning for next summer let alone five years or a hundred, and completely forget about a billion year plan. I don't think most people are going to worry too much about the sun getting too hot in a billion years. The human species will probably be extinct by then anyway, either in a tragic cosmic event or via our own undoing, i.e. a mass die-off.

Me, I'm planning to reduce my own energy use drastically in about 20 or 30 years by dying like a good earth citizen should. (http://www.vhemt.org/)

[Crumb]

I imagine the same goes for Washington state and Canada. This we call the Northwest, land of one of the last tropical rain forests.

I assume you meant to say temperate rain forest. We do use hydroelectric power here. (Closed down the nuclear plant because people were afraid of it.) But if global warming dries things out we will have to use other sources. Of course, for all I know global warming could increase precipitation here, which would leave us swimming in electricity.

As things stand though we have many people working an alternative ways to generate electricity; some more viable than others. Until we get cleaner sources of energy we should conserve what we have by not wasting it, and we should control and limit emissions as much as we reasonably can. Beyond that there is not much we can do. If the human race dies off due to global warming, it's no big deal, the earth will recover.

[godfry n. glad]

I lived in Oregon for half my life, and is what strikes me as interesting, now in retrospect of living in California, is how cheap electricity was there. They are completely hydroelectric for their production of electricity, and they produce far more than they can use because of the immense river power, five powerful rivers that I can think of, because it rains there three quarters of the year, nonstop. Pours rather I should say. I imagine the same goes for Washington state and Canada. This we call the Northwest, land of one of the last tropical rain forests. But back to the point. Oregon has such a reservoir of unused, cleanly produced electricity, that California would like to buy it.

[niggling prig] First, it's a temperate rain forest, not a tropical one. And it only lasts about a hundred miles inland. After that, it's arid until the peaks of the western ranges of the Rockies, which garner snowmelt that feeds the major rivers feeding into the Pacific.

Second, as a Portland resident of nearly 50 years, I'd like to note that it rarely pours here. That's how the likes of Tulsa and Pittsburgh can have nearly the same annual precipitation levels as Portland and have so much more direct sunlight. It pours in Tulsa and Pittsburgh when it rains, it drizzles for months on end in Portland, Seattle, Vancouver and Juneau. Light rain, continuously. (Although we've had a very central California February this year.)

Thirdly, California already does buy power from the Pacific Northwest. See Bonneville Power Administration. The power grid throughout the western states of the US move excess electrical generation to points away from Pacific Northwest markets, mostly California. Additionally, many of the heavy industry users of cheap electrical power have "interruptable" power contracts, so that in periods of peak use, they are the last served. Power buyers at Portland General Electric (PGE the local electric power company) were implicated in the power buying and selling scheme which caused the rolling brown-outs in California that was part and parcel of the Enron flap. (2000, I think it was.)

Lastly, we do not have sufficient hydro power to cover the peaks in electric energy demandd. During peaks in power demand locally, during extended cold periods and extended hot periods, PGE runs the natural gas generators to boost their hydro generated power to the levels necessary.

I know some people don't think there is any reason for humans to make it into space just so we continue on into eternity, but I would like to believe it is our destiny.
Ian

I believe some physicist has assessed the energy need to launch a self-sustaining "lifeboat" colony and found it prohibitive. Its been years since I've seen colonization of space as a realistic alternative.

godfry

[Corona688]

No, seriously, the researchers that just finished developing this compressed air vehicle said it was clean, efficient and practical and that it was going to be the biggest revolution in transportation so far. Now maybe people won't make the switch over because of global warming, though Europeans are more concerned than we as they will be harder hit than me in
California, but when I was last in Italy, I think gas was like 6 bucks a gallon or so. They may make the switch over because of that.
Ian The site quotes no numbers whatsoever, and the "company website" is dead. Seeing the arguments others have posted here, I'm beginning to realize this thing doesn't exactly obey the laws of thermodynamics. Even if they got such fantastic efficiency from compressed air, it's hardly a "zero pollution vehicle". Do you know where electricity comes from? Here's a hint, they pump it out of the ground...

[Corona688]

This is more like it, the sort of stuff it's useful to talk about :)Your cause and effect analysis shows more vision than have in projections of an idea, but just let me play the devil advocate here, and see if I can survive your scrutiny, which I doubt. I lived in Oregon for half my life, and is what strikes me as interesting, now in retrospect of living in California, is how cheap electricity was there. They are completely hydroelectric for their production of electricity, and they produce far more than they can use because of the immense river power, five powerful rivers that I can think of, because it rains there three quarters of the year, nonstop. Pours rather I should say. I imagine the same goes for Washington state and Canada. Canada's a real mix. We've got everything from coal-fired to nuclear. [edt] Damn, we closed the nuclear plant down? Idiots! :shakefist:

As an aside I agree that hydro power and wind power are viable sources of energy -- I've heard my home province has at least one wind farm somewhere near Swift Current, I ought to go see that thing sometime. Yet wind and hydro definitely have an environmental impact, like killing birds and DAMMING RIVERS.

Another one I found interesting was that heat chimney they figured they might build in the Australian desert. Not much environment to hurt there, and sopping up heat that'd just be wasted otherwise.As such, in a futuristic society, air compression cars would do a great job, even with nuclear as the source of electricity. In the absence of any real facts, I'm not too convinced about these air pressure cars. There's just too many conversion steps for it to look feasibly efficient. As it stands internal combustion's probably the most efficient -- fuel to movement, rather than fuel to movement to electricity to movement to pressure to movement. Especially that electrical step, that's always a bitch to put it delicately.

[Corona688]

I believe some physicist has assessed the energy need to launch a self-sustaining "lifeboat" colony and found it prohibitive. Its been years since I've seen colonization of space as a realistic alternative.

godfry I'm not so convinced. Perhaps that particular scenario is unfeasible -- with current technology -- but there must be others. I agree it's not something likely to happen within my lifetime, but I won't rule out it ever happening.

[godfry n. glad]

More nuclear power plants is the answer to energy needs, but what do we do about the spent fuel rods and radiation contaminated materials?

How many nuclear physicists does it take to change a light bulb?

10,000. One to actually change the bulb, the other 9,999 to figure out what to do with the burnt out bulb.

The questions are: Can our ability to innovate and adapt keep pace with our ability to procreate? And...Can we survive the "curses" of our innovative "blessings"?

[viscousmemories]

More nuclear power plants is the answer to energy needs, but what do we do about the spent fuel rods and radiation contaminated materials?
I know the idea of shooting the waste into the sun has been proposed. Why don't they do that?

[Crumb]

I know the idea of shooting the waste into the sun has been proposed. Why don't they do that?

Launching nuclear waste into orbit is not safe. Imagine a challenger incident, but the shuttle is packed full of radioactive waste. Eek!

[viscousmemories]

Into orbit? I never heard of that. I meant into the sun to be melted.

[Crumb]

The first step toward the sun is off the surface of the earth, which is what I was referring to.

[godfry n. glad]

I believe some physicist has assessed the energy need to launch a self-sustaining "lifeboat" colony and found it prohibitive. Its been years since I've seen colonization of space as a realistic alternative.

godfry I'm not so convinced. Perhaps that particular scenario is unfeasible -- with current technology -- but there must be others. I agree it's not something likely to happen within my lifetime, but I won't rule out it ever happening.

Ah, yes, the Micawber hypotheses...we will be saved by advances in technology. That has done well so far, and it will until...."oops, miscalculation; well, kiss 900 million folks goodbye."

[viscousmemories]

The first step toward the sun is off the surface of the earth, which is what I was referring to.
Oh okay, I see. Yeah, I suppose it would suck to have nuclear waste scattered about the prairies.

[godfry n. glad]

The first step toward the sun is off the surface of the earth, which is what I was referring to.

No, the first step would be to get them to the launch site without incident.

That creates the same problem the salt dome disposal has: "They're not dragging that stuff through my neighborhood, town, city, county, state."

Trojan still has spent fuel rods on site, waiting for some decision as to how they are going to be dealt with...and it's been closed now how many years? (Trojan was/is Oregon's only nuclear power facility.)

[Crumb]

Godd point, godfry, but land transport is a problem we already have. Transporting them to space is just a whole 'nother ball of wax on top of that.

Didn't they unload most of Trojan's waste to Hanford's site in WA? I thought that that was where they took the core. Up the Columbia river, no less.

[godfry n. glad]

Maybe... But I don't remember it (which means absolutely nothing, given my shoddy memory). I was under the impression they were still on site.

[viscousmemories]

It seems so, according to the Oregon Dept. of Energy (http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HTrans.shtml) website:

Low-level waste from hospitals, nuclear power plants and universities in 11 Western and Rocky Mountain states is buried in a commercial disposal site at Hanford operated by US Ecology. This included waste generated during decommissioning of the Trojan nuclear power plant near Rainier, Oregon. Shipments from Trojan decreased significantly during the past two years as decommissioning work was completed.

[Dingfod]

Maybe we could destroy them with nuclear explosion?

[godfry n. glad]

It seems so, according to the Oregon Dept. of Energy (http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HTrans.shtml) website:

Low-level waste from hospitals, nuclear power plants and universities in 11 Western and Rocky Mountain states is buried in a commercial disposal site at Hanford operated by US Ecology. This included waste generated during decommissioning of the Trojan nuclear power plant near Rainier, Oregon. Shipments from Trojan decreased significantly during the past two years as decommissioning work was completed.

Yep... That's the "low-level radioactive waste", like the reactor containment vessel and other physical parts that were affected by contact with radioactive elements.

The spent fuel rods are "high-level radioactive waste" waiting for Yucca Mountain or some other centralized permanent repository. The rods are still there.

See Northwest Labor Review (http://www.nwlaborpress.org/1999/8-20-99Trojan.html) where they note the barging of the containment vessel upstream to Hanford for burial, where the last paragraph reads:

Highly radioactive spent fuel rods will remain on site until a national high-level nuclear repository opens (possibly in Nevada). In the meantime, PGE is encasing the rods in concrete storage canisters.

Of course, this was 1999, but I don't think that Hanford is capable of taking the high-level radioactive materials.

[Dingfod]

Maybe we could destroy them with nuclear explosion?No credit for my idea?

[viscousmemories]

Yep... That's the "low-level radioactive waste", like the reactor containment vessel and other physical parts that were affected by contact with radioactive elements.

The spent fuel rods are "high-level radioactive waste" waiting for Yucca Mountain or some other centralized permanent repository. The rods are still there.
Ahh, okay. That explains the first document (http://www.energy.state.or.us/siting/trojan.htm#Whatabout) I found that's a year old, but says:

Trojan has about 790 spent fuel assemblies stored in the Trojan Spent Fuel Pool. Each assembly is 12 feet long and about 10 inches square. The decommissioning plan calls for PGE to transfer the spent fuel from the pool to dry casks. The dry casks would be located on a concrete pad located in the northeast corner of the Trojan site. Even after the rest of the site is decommissioned, the spent fuel storage area will remain under Council jurisdiction until the federal government can establish a national spent fuel respository. At this point, we do not know when that will happen.
I thought maybe they'd been moved in the interim.

[Corona688]

Ah, yes, the Micawber hypotheses...we will be saved by advances in technology. That has done well so far, and it will until...."oops, miscalculation; well, kiss 900 million folks goodbye." Don't make me be the first person to call strawman on FF. I'm saying "wait and see".

[godfry n. glad]

Ah, yes, the Micawber hypotheses...we will be saved by advances in technology. That has done well so far, and it will until...."oops, miscalculation; well, kiss 900 million folks goodbye." Don't make me be the first person to call strawman on FF. I'm saying "wait and see".

Too late. It's already been done.

If you don't want folks building straw men, stop handing out slender reeds of specious assumptions. The "we will colonize space and be masters of the universe" (another straw man) view seems to encourage a "who cares if we despoil this planet, there's always another one," attitude. This, in my opinion, is just as bad as the "Jesus and the angels are going to usher in a new age of the direct rule of God and I'm amongst the elect" attitude. Speculating that something outside current feasibility is fun, and possibly useful. Speculating something beyond the reasonable stretch of the physical laws as an answer to a recognizable problem is an act of frustrated futility.

"Wait and see" is sitting on one's hands while the barn burns down.

[Corona688]

If you don't want folks building straw men, stop handing out slender reeds of specious assumptions. The "we will colonize space and be masters of the universe" (another straw man) view seems to encourage a "who cares if we despoil this planet, there's always another one," attitude. A view I do not have, ergo an assumption I do not make, therefore a view I do not encourage. I think you misinterpreted my 'wait and see'; I do NOT mean doing nothing while the planet goes to hell. I meant that ruling out a future at this point would be pointlessly cynical. One plans for the worst, and hopes for the best.This, in my opinion, is just as bad as the "Jesus and the angels are going to usher in a new age of the direct rule of God and I'm amongst the elect" attitude. Will you allow me to be agnostic, godfry? Spaceflight is not part of my plans. Working on the environment is obviously more important than trying to build science fiction. Just don't burn the astrophysics books yet, we might want them someday."Wait and see" is sitting on one's hands while the barn burns down. I do not mean "wait and do nothing". Do I look that stupid? (on second thought, don't answer that.)

I mean to work on practical things like saving the planet, and if we manage that then we might have a future of another sort someday.