PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal [View article]
John Petersen - - -
Thank-you for keeping the latest in front of usd.
The McKinsey chart was eye-opening. I am reminded though, as I read the comment stream, that the debate often evolves to two sides: (1) the views of those grounded in the present and (2) the visionaries.
The McKinsey chart is an excellent snapshot. But it is no more. It is a snapshot with a time stamp. The snapshot in 10 years will be radically different, and in 20 years totally changed again. For those who wonder what I am talking about, think about what would have been the 10-year plan for computer technology in 1975, then 1985 and again in 1995. The three plans would seem to have come from different planets.
I think that making even five year projections for utility energy, as well as transportation energy, is particularly difficult at this time. I do think that nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. is not a difficult thing to support because it is a relatively small portion of our electrical generation capacity currently and we can always use it through plant end of life, even if other generation technologies become more widely utilized.
It would be interesting to know what assumptions went into the McKinsey analysis. I doubt that they included the ancillary costs (such as environmental) of each of the options, because no one knows (as far as I can determine) how to do that in Euro or dollar terms. However, whatever the assumptions, many will be totally obsolete and incorrect in a few years. (Refer to my computer technology analogy.) The menu for cost of carbon reduction is a moving target. I expect the target is moving far faster than most of us can imagine today.
I have reviewed the Hyperion Power Generation information. Here's a summary:
1. The will make portable nuclear power generation units.
2. They expect to have a "couple of delivery dates available" in 2013.
3. They are privately funded (that's why they are not on your radar, John).
4. Units are cylindrical, about 1.5 meters in diameter and 3 meters tall.
5. Units are ... "Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail."
6. Units cost $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.
7. Units produce 25MW for 5 years before they are "recharged" at the factory. That translates to $0.57 to $0.69 per kwh. This is 4-7 times what most in the U.S. pay for electricity. (I pay $0.10 in North Carolina.) I don't know how much the Hyperion cost for the first five years is increased by delivery, installation and "secuirty detail" costs. Also, there is no information given by Hyperion on how much the cost might be reduced in five year periods after the first (recharged periods).
Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
John Petersen - - -
I can only echo the praise of other commenters. You have so expanded my horizons in the energy storage business and in getting a much better understanding of the various technologies.
Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
John Petersen - - -
Thanks for this article. It addresses a question I posed a couple of weeks ago in another comment. When you look at the abundance of lithium in the earth's crust, it is similar to lead, nickel and other metals. The question then is cost of recovery. I see that is now under discussion. Good job.
Alternative Energy Storage Stocks: Review and Outlook [View article]
John Petersen - - -
This update is terrific. I hope you keep monitoring the vital signs of this vital developing area thoughout 2009 and beyond.
DiggerUK - - - Thanks for the "open letter". I thought that was the case but I do appreciate the confirmation.
billp37 - - -
Useful information about a solarthermal application. Thanks.
To all - - -
I have been daydreaming about a hybrid photovoltaic-thermal generating system. It is a generating facility that levels electrical production across 24 hours and multiple days by using PV when the sun shines and stores the thermal energy for generation in other hours. The idea is based on the waste of thermal energy when doing PV and the waste of PV energy when collecting thermal energy.
Confession: I don't have the foggiest idea about what such a configuration might look like.
Questions:
1. Is this, like many day dreams, a fantasy?
2. Is there any merit to having an integrated facility or would seperate thermal and PV generators make more sense?
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
patio, Dr. Wirth, derryl - - -
I am satisfied that we all got relevant facts, as well as our individual opinion, on the table. We may have used too many words along the way, but anyone who has the patience to read all the way through the comment stream should get a pretty good idea of where a good deal of thought is coming from on climate change, causes, effects and changes that may (or may not) have an effect.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
patio - - -
I think from past comments that we agree on many more things than we disagree. I do enjoy a good debate, though, so I have continued our exchange above on that basis.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
DiggerUK - - -
Hi and love right back at you.
The statement you refer to was a quote from Dr. Wirth which I was debating.
Oppenheimer (and his co-workers) discovered how to tap a previously unexploited source of energy, the release of energy when an atomic nucleus is split. He invented a process (splitting the atom). He did not invent the energy, it was always there.
This is a good example of how a new discovery can radically change the spectrum of useful energy sources available to mankind.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
Patio - - -
You said "But don't let data get in the way of a pet theory."
I would like you to give a reference that I could review to evaluate your contentions.
I would refer you (and anyone elso who wants to see some data) to en.wikipedia.org/Tempe... You will find a discussion of the difficulties in making global temperature estimates and measurments, along with graphs of published data. One of the graphs shows the wide range of published estimates and indirect measurement of temperatures that occurred over the past thousand years.
A second graph shows the reported direct temperature measurements over the past 150 years. It will be seen that year-to-year temperature fluctuations have, at times, been dramatic. For example, the highest temperature in the past 10 years occurred in 1997 and the lowest (nearly 0.3 degrees C less) occurred in 1999. From the graph it is clear that nothing in the measured temperature record disproves global warming. The moving average trend is still up.
Now, for the counter argument. The trend of the past 100 years supports the concept of global warming. IT DOES NOT PROVE IT! (Sorry for shouting, but I have to be heard - I don't think you (Patio) have really understood what I have been trying to say.)
In summary, I have been saying that using year-to-year comparisons of weather behavior is irrelevant to supporting or rejecting global warming. The temperature trend of the past 100 years does not prove global warming. The relative sources of contribution are still under debate. The increase in carbon dioxide over the past 150 years (about a 35% increase) has provided a few percent increase in solar energy absorbtion by our atmosphere. About 70% of the energy is absorbed by water vapor and that has been shown to be quite constant over this time period. Yes, patio, as the temperature has risen carbon dioxide (and other gases) trapped in melting glaciers, the oceans and other terrestial sources have been released into the atmosphere. But the amount of carbon dioxide released by the dramatic increase in combustion over that time has been calculated and it is larger than the other sources.
Is global warming going to continue and if so, how will it affect living on this planet? The fact that no one can give a definitive answer on the subject until after the future has unfolded does not mean that we should not hope for the best (your position) and plan for the worst (my position).
The bottom line is that I don't know the future, but (respectfully, please) neither do you.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
Dr. Wirth - - -
You wrote:
"I carefully researched all possibilities in scientific and government studies, and there are no alternatives available for avoiding this catastrophe. peakoilassociates.... Human ingenuity is great, but the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that we cannot invent energy. There are not even plans of how to use the sun's energy to get the liquid fuels we need. Even if we had some answers (and we don't), it is far too late to develop a trillion dollar make over of the energy economy. This is why I focus on preparing for Peak Oil impacts: survivingpeakoil.blogs... and suggest that people come live here in a sustainable location. Come visit clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com."
I have to debate your contention that there are "no alternatives available" to address the decline in the availability of cheap oil. I believe you are selling short the potential of mankind. I'll conclude my argument with the observation that more than 100 years ago legislation was introduced in congress to abolish the U.S. Patent Office because everything of value had been invented. My point is that I believe the unknown is greater (infinitely greater, until proven otherwise) than the known.
My second point of debate regards your statement "...the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that we cannot invent energy." I believe you are referring to the first law of thermodynamics, which has two parts:
1. a. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change form. b. The energy of the universe is a constant.
I would contest your "invent energy" argument on several counts:
1. While man can not invent energy (or not invent more energy), I contend that man can discover forms of energy not previously recognized. This does nothing to change the total energy of the universe.
2. The size of the universe is beyond our current comprehension. This implies a toal amount of energy beyond our current comprehension. It is true that we are currently concerned with the energy accessible to the planet we know, but that does include such things as electromagnetic energy (which we don't use for anything but compass needles) and the forces of nature in such things as weather. There is tremendous energy available in weather patterns that there is no credible attempt to capture that I know of at the present time, other than wind mills and wave/tidal flow turbines.
I maintain there is no realistic limit to energy as far a human needs are concerned. We are limited only by the limits of discovery. I prefer to embrace the search for discovery. You prefer to be restricted by what is known at the current instant in time.
I haven't even mentioned the infant technology of harnessing the gargantuan energy of our sun, through thermal processes or photovoltaic effects. You correctly criticize the lack of a technology plan to harness this energy for human use. However, the same arguments could have been made 125 years ago about the limited capability of petroleum to become a significant energy source.
Dr. Wirth, this is a debate that could go on for many exchanges, but I would like to summarize. I believe I understand your position to be:
The entrenched economy is too dependent on oil to react to the increasing costs to come and we must make necessary adjustments to live with increasing costs for a long time into the future.
I am trying to paraphrase your position.
My position:
It is the creative nature of mankind to seek better and more efficient ways to meet the needs of commerce and humanity. The process has been called "Creative Destruction". I am not sure who originated that (Peter Drucker?), but Tom Friedman has used the quote. The scope of human knowledge is infinitely small compared to the unknown. Couple human ingenuity with the emensity of the unkown and I foresee a different future in the coming decades than you do.
I may have totally misunderstood the meaning behind your words. If I have misrepresented you, please reply in another comment. It won't be the first time I have been disabused of a misconception.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
patio - - -
I totally agree with your statement: "Conservation, alternative energy, and not polluting locally are all reasonable ideas,..."
That said, the rest of your comments show as much understanding of scientific fact as those you criticize for the "human life will end because of global warming" proclaimations. As a scientific person with good training (Ph.D. in chemistry), I have to modify your stated opinions with facts.
A list of facts (admittedly not complete) and examples of scientific reasoning:
1. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases average earth temperature.
2. Over geologic time, carbon dioxide has varied from less than we have today to as much as 20 times current amounts. Earth temperature has risen or fallen with carbon dioxide changes. There have been times in earth's history when there was no winter ice (snow) throughout the year anywhere because of elevated temperatures.
3. Carbon dioxide production is generally considered to be divide between two sources: geologic and biologic (including all human activities). Although, over geologic time there have been periods where massive volcanic eruptions have affected the earth's atmosphere, over the past several thousand years (at least), geologic variation has been small compared to human impacts of the past 100-200 years.
4. Climate variations from year to year can mask longer term climate trends. More snow and colder temperatures in one year does not disprove global warming, just as less snow and warmer temperatures in the previous year does not prove it.
5. Climate trends are measured over decades and centuries and can, but not always persist for many millenia.
6. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 30-35% over the past 100-150 years. This is a more rapid change than for similar periods of time over the time of human existence.
7. There are very few scientific publications that provide any experimental evidence contradicting the volume of experimental results regarding increases in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) and changes in global climate. All these scientific publications are public knowledge and subject to the examination of scientists around the world. The highest form of achievement for a scientist is to discover something that is new, and especially when the discovery disproves a conclusion drawn from previous data. This is a powerful force that has driven scientific progress. I am unaware of any scientific publication refuting carbon dioxide measurements and climate change measurements that has withstood this critical scrutiny.
8. Global warming does not impose insurmountable difficulties for human existence. If it persists, such things as habits, location of human habitat, food sources, etc will probably change significantly, but I know of no credible research that projects human extinction from this source.
9. Various climate change models have projected average sea levels to rise by a few feet over the next century. If sea level were to rise 2 feet over 100 years, would you notice the average annual change of less than 1/4 inch?
10. There is no debate that I know of about the relevant data collected for what has happened up to now. The debate is forward looking. Most responsible scientists use models (which you criticize) to project possible outcomes for established data trends. The projections these scientists make are than usually expressed as a range of outcomes with various probabilities of occurrence. One problem the non-scientist has with this is difficulty in conceptualizing the significance of probabilities. A news reporter may write and article on a paper (or talk) by Dr. X, who made a statement like: "Based on data trends over the past 159 years, and estimated carbon dioxide production if fossil fuel combustion continues at its current rate, we estimate the average temperature of the earth will increase between 1.2 and 5.4 degrees celsius (one standard deviation limits) over the next 100 years." The news article may state "Dr. X predicts temperature rise as much as 5.4 degrees over the next century."
By the way, the numbers are not real. I made them up for the purpose of this discussion.
The news reporter would be wrong if he inferred in his article that the temperature was "sure to rise by at least 1.2 degrees over the next century". The scientist actually said (by inference, not directly) that there was approximately one chance in three that temperature rise would be less than 1.2 degrees. There is nothing in the statement the scientist made to indicate whether or not his model shows some probability that temperature could even fall over 100 years.
patio, you may not have wanted a science lecture, but I offer it anyway. I would just say one thing in conclusion: the past is fixed and the future is variable.
Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance [View article]
John - - -
I really anticpated your answer because I have read much of what you have written. So let me suggest Plan B: Can you keep pushing this question as a challenge and maybe some reader will seize the challenge and add to the discussion.
I recognize that the questions I ask, if thoroughly addressed, would be worthy of a Ph.D. thesis in Economics or Materials Science.
On Dec 26 03:02 PM John Petersen wrote:
> John, it's one thing for me to talk about what the finished products > costs are and another entirely to estimate what they might be. That > kind of work requires detailed manufacturing expertise that I simply > don't have. In a perfect world, the various manufacturers would publish > white papers about their relative costs and expected future economies. > But it's hard enough right now trying to get to reliable costs per > kWh. This baby is changing fast and I'm sure the rules we have today > won't apply forever. So the best I can do is try to keep on top of > developments and talk about what is, rather than what might be.
PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal [View article]
Thanks for your comment in reply. I was hoping you wouldn't tell me to go read the whole report. I'll bookmark it for later. (Sigh.)
PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal [View article]
Thank-you for keeping the latest in front of usd.
The McKinsey chart was eye-opening. I am reminded though, as I read the comment stream, that the debate often evolves to two sides: (1) the views of those grounded in the present and (2) the visionaries.
The McKinsey chart is an excellent snapshot. But it is no more. It is a snapshot with a time stamp. The snapshot in 10 years will be radically different, and in 20 years totally changed again. For those who wonder what I am talking about, think about what would have been the 10-year plan for computer technology in 1975, then 1985 and again in 1995. The three plans would seem to have come from different planets.
I think that making even five year projections for utility energy, as well as transportation energy, is particularly difficult at this time. I do think that nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. is not a difficult thing to support because it is a relatively small portion of our electrical generation capacity currently and we can always use it through plant end of life, even if other generation technologies become more widely utilized.
It would be interesting to know what assumptions went into the McKinsey analysis. I doubt that they included the ancillary costs (such as environmental) of each of the options, because no one knows (as far as I can determine) how to do that in Euro or dollar terms. However, whatever the assumptions, many will be totally obsolete and incorrect in a few years. (Refer to my computer technology analogy.) The menu for cost of carbon reduction is a moving target. I expect the target is moving far faster than most of us can imagine today.
Long Live the Cleantech Revolution [View article]
I have reviewed the Hyperion Power Generation information. Here's a summary:
1. The will make portable nuclear power generation units.
2. They expect to have a "couple of delivery dates available" in 2013.
3. They are privately funded (that's why they are not on your radar, John).
4. Units are cylindrical, about 1.5 meters in diameter and 3 meters tall.
5. Units are ... "Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail."
6. Units cost $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.
7. Units produce 25MW for 5 years before they are "recharged" at the factory. That translates to $0.57 to $0.69 per kwh. This is 4-7 times what most in the U.S. pay for electricity. (I pay $0.10 in North Carolina.) I don't know how much the Hyperion cost for the first five years is increased by delivery, installation and "secuirty detail" costs. Also, there is no information given by Hyperion on how much the cost might be reduced in five year periods after the first (recharged periods).
The web site is www.hyperionpowergener...
Huge Incentives for Energy Storage in Today's House Bill [View article]
I have to assume you would also remove the $4B a year in subsidies to the traditional energy sector?
Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
I can only echo the praise of other commenters. You have so expanded my horizons in the energy storage business and in getting a much better understanding of the various technologies.
Thanks again.
Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage [View article]
Thanks for this article. It addresses a question I posed a couple of weeks ago in another comment. When you look at the abundance of lithium in the earth's crust, it is similar to lead, nickel and other metals. The question then is cost of recovery. I see that is now under discussion. Good job.
Alternative Energy Storage Stocks: Review and Outlook [View article]
This update is terrific. I hope you keep monitoring the vital signs of this vital developing area thoughout 2009 and beyond.
DiggerUK - - - Thanks for the "open letter". I thought that was the case but I do appreciate the confirmation.
billp37 - - -
Useful information about a solarthermal application. Thanks.
To all - - -
I have been daydreaming about a hybrid photovoltaic-thermal generating system. It is a generating facility that levels electrical production across 24 hours and multiple days by using PV when the sun shines and stores the thermal energy for generation in other hours. The idea is based on the waste of thermal energy when doing PV and the waste of PV energy when collecting thermal energy.
Confession: I don't have the foggiest idea about what such a configuration might look like.
Questions:
1. Is this, like many day dreams, a fantasy?
2. Is there any merit to having an integrated facility or would seperate thermal and PV generators make more sense?
Enough dislosure about my daydreams.
Happy New Year to all.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
I am satisfied that we all got relevant facts, as well as our individual opinion, on the table. We may have used too many words along the way, but anyone who has the patience to read all the way through the comment stream should get a pretty good idea of where a good deal of thought is coming from on climate change, causes, effects and changes that may (or may not) have an effect.
I love a good deebate. Thanks to you all.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
I think from past comments that we agree on many more things than we disagree. I do enjoy a good debate, though, so I have continued our exchange above on that basis.
Happy New Year
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
Hi and love right back at you.
The statement you refer to was a quote from Dr. Wirth which I was debating.
Oppenheimer (and his co-workers) discovered how to tap a previously unexploited source of energy, the release of energy when an atomic nucleus is split. He invented a process (splitting the atom). He did not invent the energy, it was always there.
This is a good example of how a new discovery can radically change the spectrum of useful energy sources available to mankind.
Happy New Year to you, as well.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
You said "But don't let data get in the way of a pet theory."
I would like you to give a reference that I could review to evaluate your contentions.
I would refer you (and anyone elso who wants to see some data) to en.wikipedia.org/Tempe...
You will find a discussion of the difficulties in making global temperature estimates and measurments, along with graphs of published data. One of the graphs shows the wide range of published estimates and indirect measurement of temperatures that occurred over the past thousand years.
A second graph shows the reported direct temperature measurements over the past 150 years. It will be seen that year-to-year temperature fluctuations have, at times, been dramatic. For example, the highest temperature in the past 10 years occurred in 1997 and the lowest (nearly 0.3 degrees C less) occurred in 1999. From the graph it is clear that nothing in the measured temperature record disproves global warming. The moving average trend is still up.
Now, for the counter argument. The trend of the past 100 years supports the concept of global warming. IT DOES NOT PROVE IT!
(Sorry for shouting, but I have to be heard - I don't think you (Patio) have really understood what I have been trying to say.)
In summary, I have been saying that using year-to-year comparisons of weather behavior is irrelevant to supporting or rejecting global warming. The temperature trend of the past 100 years does not prove global warming. The relative sources of contribution are still under debate. The increase in carbon dioxide over the past 150 years (about a 35% increase) has provided a few percent increase in solar energy absorbtion by our atmosphere. About 70% of the energy is absorbed by water vapor and that has been shown to be quite constant over this time period. Yes, patio, as the temperature has risen carbon dioxide (and other gases) trapped in melting glaciers, the oceans and other terrestial sources have been released into the atmosphere. But the amount of carbon dioxide released by the dramatic increase in combustion over that time has been calculated and it is larger than the other sources.
Is global warming going to continue and if so, how will it affect living on this planet? The fact that no one can give a definitive answer on the subject until after the future has unfolded does not mean that we should not hope for the best (your position) and plan for the worst (my position).
The bottom line is that I don't know the future, but (respectfully, please) neither do you.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
You wrote:
"I carefully researched all possibilities in scientific and government studies, and there are no alternatives available for avoiding this catastrophe.
peakoilassociates....
Human ingenuity is great, but the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that we cannot invent energy. There are not even plans of how to use the sun's energy to get the liquid fuels we need. Even if we had some answers (and we don't), it is far too late to develop a trillion dollar make over of the energy economy. This is why I focus on preparing for Peak Oil impacts: survivingpeakoil.blogs... and suggest that people come live here in a sustainable location. Come visit clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com."
I have to debate your contention that there are "no alternatives available" to address the decline in the availability of cheap oil. I believe you are selling short the potential of mankind. I'll conclude my argument with the observation that more than 100 years ago legislation was introduced in congress to abolish the U.S. Patent Office because everything of value had been invented. My point is that I believe the unknown is greater (infinitely greater, until proven otherwise) than the known.
My second point of debate regards your statement "...the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that we cannot invent energy." I believe you are referring to the first law of thermodynamics, which has two parts:
1. a. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
b. The energy of the universe is a constant.
I would contest your "invent energy" argument on several counts:
1. While man can not invent energy (or not invent more energy), I contend that man can discover forms of energy not previously recognized. This does nothing to change the total energy of the universe.
2. The size of the universe is beyond our current comprehension. This implies a toal amount of energy beyond our current comprehension. It is true that we are currently concerned with the energy accessible to the planet we know, but that does include such things as electromagnetic energy (which we don't use for anything but compass needles) and the forces of nature in such things as weather. There is tremendous energy available in weather patterns that there is no credible attempt to capture that I know of at the present time, other than wind mills and wave/tidal flow turbines.
I maintain there is no realistic limit to energy as far a human needs are concerned. We are limited only by the limits of discovery. I prefer to embrace the search for discovery. You prefer to be restricted by what is known at the current instant in time.
I haven't even mentioned the infant technology of harnessing the gargantuan energy of our sun, through thermal processes or photovoltaic effects. You correctly criticize the lack of a technology plan to harness this energy for human use. However, the same arguments could have been made 125 years ago about the limited capability of petroleum to become a significant energy source.
Dr. Wirth, this is a debate that could go on for many exchanges, but I would like to summarize. I believe I understand your position to be:
The entrenched economy is too dependent on oil to react to the increasing costs to come and we must make necessary adjustments to live with increasing costs for a long time into the future.
I am trying to paraphrase your position.
My position:
It is the creative nature of mankind to seek better and more efficient ways to meet the needs of commerce and humanity. The process has been called "Creative Destruction". I am not sure who originated that (Peter Drucker?), but Tom Friedman has used the quote. The scope of human knowledge is infinitely small compared to the unknown. Couple human ingenuity with the emensity of the unkown and I foresee a different future in the coming decades than you do.
I may have totally misunderstood the meaning behind your words. If I have misrepresented you, please reply in another comment. It won't be the first time I have been disabused of a misconception.
Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics [View article]
I totally agree with your statement: "Conservation, alternative energy, and not polluting locally are all reasonable ideas,..."
That said, the rest of your comments show as much understanding of scientific fact as those you criticize for the "human life will end because of global warming" proclaimations. As a scientific person with good training (Ph.D. in chemistry), I have to modify your stated opinions with facts.
A list of facts (admittedly not complete) and examples of scientific reasoning:
1. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases average earth temperature.
2. Over geologic time, carbon dioxide has varied from less than we have today to as much as 20 times current amounts. Earth temperature has risen or fallen with carbon dioxide changes. There have been times in earth's history when there was no winter ice (snow) throughout the year anywhere because of elevated temperatures.
3. Carbon dioxide production is generally considered to be divide between two sources: geologic and biologic (including all human activities). Although, over geologic time there have been periods where massive volcanic eruptions have affected the earth's atmosphere, over the past several thousand years (at least), geologic variation has been small compared to human impacts of the past 100-200 years.
4. Climate variations from year to year can mask longer term climate trends. More snow and colder temperatures in one year does not disprove global warming, just as less snow and warmer temperatures in the previous year does not prove it.
5. Climate trends are measured over decades and centuries and can, but not always persist for many millenia.
6. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 30-35% over the past 100-150 years. This is a more rapid change than for similar periods of time over the time of human existence.
7. There are very few scientific publications that provide any experimental evidence contradicting the volume of experimental results regarding increases in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) and changes in global climate. All these scientific publications are public knowledge and subject to the examination of scientists around the world. The highest form of achievement for a scientist is to discover something that is new, and especially when the discovery disproves a conclusion drawn from previous data. This is a powerful force that has driven scientific progress. I am unaware of any scientific publication refuting carbon dioxide measurements and climate change measurements that has withstood this critical scrutiny.
8. Global warming does not impose insurmountable difficulties for human existence. If it persists, such things as habits, location of human habitat, food sources, etc will probably change significantly, but I know of no credible research that projects human extinction from this source.
9. Various climate change models have projected average sea levels to rise by a few feet over the next century. If sea level were to rise 2 feet over 100 years, would you notice the average annual change of less than 1/4 inch?
10. There is no debate that I know of about the relevant data collected for what has happened up to now. The debate is forward looking. Most responsible scientists use models (which you criticize) to project possible outcomes for established data trends. The projections these scientists make are than usually expressed as a range of outcomes with various probabilities of occurrence. One problem the non-scientist has with this is difficulty in conceptualizing the significance of probabilities. A news reporter may write and article on a paper (or talk) by Dr. X, who made a statement like: "Based on data trends over the past 159 years, and estimated carbon dioxide production if fossil fuel combustion continues at its current rate, we estimate the average temperature of the earth will increase between 1.2 and 5.4 degrees celsius (one standard deviation limits) over the next 100 years." The news article may state "Dr. X predicts temperature rise as much as 5.4 degrees over the next century."
By the way, the numbers are not real. I made them up for the purpose of this discussion.
The news reporter would be wrong if he inferred in his article that the temperature was "sure to rise by at least 1.2 degrees over the next century". The scientist actually said (by inference, not directly) that there was approximately one chance in three that temperature rise would be less than 1.2 degrees. There is nothing in the statement the scientist made to indicate whether or not his model shows some probability that temperature could even fall over 100 years.
patio, you may not have wanted a science lecture, but I offer it anyway.
I would just say one thing in conclusion: the past is fixed and the future is variable.
Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance [View article]
I really anticpated your answer because I have read much of what you have written. So let me suggest Plan B: Can you keep pushing this question as a challenge and maybe some reader will seize the challenge and add to the discussion.
I recognize that the questions I ask, if thoroughly addressed, would be worthy of a Ph.D. thesis in Economics or Materials Science.
On Dec 26 03:02 PM John Petersen wrote:
> John, it's one thing for me to talk about what the finished products
> costs are and another entirely to estimate what they might be. That
> kind of work requires detailed manufacturing expertise that I simply
> don't have. In a perfect world, the various manufacturers would publish
> white papers about their relative costs and expected future economies.
> But it's hard enough right now trying to get to reliable costs per
> kWh. This baby is changing fast and I'm sure the rules we have today
> won't apply forever. So the best I can do is try to keep on top of
> developments and talk about what is, rather than what might be.
Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance [View article]
I wrote "...you have been effectively against the monument."
Insert the word "pushing": ...you have been PUSHING effectively against the monument.
Entirely different implication. Sorry.