http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html

# Kat Says:
November 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

It’s high time the United States show some leadership on poilicies that will mitigate global climate change. Our refusal to help stop this runaway freight train is a national shame, and I am relieved and heartened to FINALLY see some bi-partisan problem solving.

Sen. Graham is to be commended for pulling his head out of the sand and looking for win-win solutions. If the rest of his party would stop singing the tired old song that environmental stewardship and economic progress are mutually exclusive, we could bring more American ingenuity to bear even faster. Similarly, expecting our industrial pollutors to volunteer to clean up their acts is a fantasy we cannot affort to indulge any longer.

Cap-and-trade is not a perfect strategy, and it will not solve everything, but it is an important piece of the puzzle. As a nation we need to grow up and stop thinking either/or, and accept that this complex situation requires a multi-faceted response.

As far as excess CO2 being a pollutant tell that to the plants that rely on CO2 to grow. As CO2 levels increase so does the level of plant life. Without CO2 mankind would not exist.

I agree that we must reduce our dependance on foreign oil and develop economical sources of renewable energy. But I also believe that we should do so for the right reasons and manmade global warming is not the right reason. The present carbon cap and tax bill that the US Congress and the Senate are developing will only pass higher costs on to the citizens of this country, cripple industry, and result in a much less reliable power grid. No matter how smart it is it doesn’t matter if there is no power.

If it were possible to generate all of our power with wind and solar we would reduce our present oil demand by less than 2%. Very little power is presently generated in the US with oil. India, China and quite a few third world countries use heavy fuel oil to generate electricity. Mike was absolutely correct when he said if the wind stops so does the electricity. J Jones statement that “there are over 90 GW of pumped hydro energy storage alreay installed world wide” may be true WORLDWIDE but unless that smart grid can transmit electricity across the ocean the total usable storage is much lower. The installed capacity in the US is 15,800 GW so even if all 90 GW were here it is not anywhere near enough if wind and solar are to make up 20% of our generating capacity as the carbon cap and tax bill edicts.

Power storage is an issue given little attention by lawmakers but would go a long way to improving generation now. Some utilities are looking at using compressed air as a means of power storage by using large compressors to pump air into underground caverns and when needed releasing the air through a turbine to generate electricity. However, until power storage is developed wind and solar need backed up by spinning reserves powered by hydro, natural gas, or coal. Unless you don’t mind blackouts.

We should reduce our dependance on foreign oil by developing our own oil reserves both in ANWR and offshore while promoting electric vehicles through tax incentives. To supply the increased electrical demand due to electrical vehicles we need to develop our natural gas reserves, the Marcellas Shale area holds a 100 year supply of natural gas, clean coal, wind, and solar. This is common sense but will not appease the environmentalists whose agenda is to make a quick buck off of us. Goldman Sachs and all of the other brokerage firms have invested heavily in schemes that will benefit significantly with any carbon cap and tax bill. Truth be known so have many of our so called servants in Washington.

First, the “smart grid” which is being developed because we need a reliable transmission system, not because of wind and solar, will have tons of storage capacity. For example, there are over 90 GW of pumped hydro energy storage alreay installed world wide, and a number of other storage technologies are also in development.

Second, as for plugging all those cars in at night — go to Wikipedia and look up the Low Level Jet (LLJ). It is a meterological phenomenon that occurs a few places on earth. But the U.S. Great Plains is the best and biggest example. The LLJ occurs nocturally and is a flow of warm moist air about 200 km wide that flows from the middle gulf coast up into the central Great Plains. It is very reliable, in fact the only time it has been known to fail resulted in the dust bowl during the Great Depression, when that moist air was not being transported northward. Because of the LLJ, new wind systems, which will be much higher in altitude than the current ones, will generate, very reliably, large quantities of wind energy every night. Some can be used for charging automobiles and some can be stored.

We need oil to produce paint, polymers, jet fuel, drugs and other medical devices like artifical kidnays, etc. Let’s not just burn it all up because it is here. Let’s conserve it. The U.S. Great Plains is unique in the world. At the higher altitudes, where the largest wind turbines will be installed, the U.S. Great Plains actually has at least 3 times the energy generating capacity that we use in the U.S., and that number may be as high as 8 times. The farmers and ranchers who live on the Great Plains struggle many years because of crop failure, weather problems, diseases, etc. By giving up just 3% of their agricultural land to wind systems, many of them can double their income, and have a reliable source of income as well.

All over the world, the U.S. Great Plains is referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”. We have so much wind power available that we can easily become an energy exporting country, and produce huge amounts of revenue to offset our balance of payments problems with Asia. Now that wind has “crossed the line” and wind is cheaper than the average cost of energy in many parts of the U.S., it is time to take advantage of it — make money from it — and become, once again, a very wealthy nation.

This statement is, of course, completely wrong. Elements absorb “a certain wavelength of light” — molecules always absorb in bands of wavelengths. Actually, in work that I did for the U.S. Army almost two decades ago, I studied the visible and non-visible light absorbtion characteristics of both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, in arc plasmas.

Larry Friedline also said: “CO2 has gone up AFTER warming periods.” This is also not true. The carbon dioxide levels increased prior to the increase in global temperatures. This does not mean that carbon dioxide is, in fact, a causal agent, the two events could be completely independent. However, for at least three ice age cycles, the carbon dioxide level, and the temperature level curves appear to be similar in their periods, and general functional shape.

The data I cited about sea level rise, actually, in my opinion throws some significant doubt on the “man made” global warming theory. However, the predictive models vary quite widely, some showing a cooling trend (which, of course is false since the sea level has obviously been rising for 210 centuries in a row); and some showing wildly increasing temperatures, which, most likely are not correct either. The average of the moderate models predicting a sea level rise of 36 cm in the next 91 years is in line with the average increase per century of the last 210 centuries — all of which was caused by natural, not man made effects.

If those models prove to be wrong and the temperature increase is significantly larger, then carbon dioxide levels could be the blame. Unfortunately, climate modeling for the entire Earth is just in it’s infancy, and we as scientists should be careful to draw hard conclusions from very soft data. But, man made global warming is certainly one, very viable, potential cause — but only one of many which cannot yet be eliminated with complete certainty.

How does this affect the U.S.? Well, we are the largest generators of carbon dioxide, but China and India are rapidly catching up with us, and Europe produces their fair share too. Should the U.S. pay the bill by itself? Certainly not. But, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are not just up slightly, they are DOUBLE the higest level seen in at least the last 1/2 million years. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant — it does harm to many animals and at high enough levels will kill humans. We as humans naturally give off a lot of things, some of which in high enough concentrations are lethal (e.g., urea, uric acid, etc.). So, given that carbon dioxide can be harmful, and we are seeing unprecedented increases, we should take steps to reduce its emissions.

It is not all that expensive. We need additional energy sources, we will also be retiring old electric generating plants that we must replace. Why not use wind energy. It is actually, now, one of the lowest cost sources. The average generated cost of electricity in the U.S. in 2008 was 6.7 cents per kW-hr. Wind plants, in the right places, with good wind, and properly operated and maintained, can generate electricity for about 4 cents per kW-hr. Hydro is cheaper, fully depreciated coal plants are cheaper. But “clean coal” is very very expensive — it will cost much more than wind when, and if, the research is successful.

The largest manufacturer of wind turbines is a solid U.S. company, GE, and Clipper Windpower has a very cool new design and they are also a good U.S. company. So, why not invest in the U.S. build lots of wind systems, which will lower the cost of our energy, and at the same time reduce the amount that we buy from foreign sources, some of whom will spend the money to attack us. If we do this, Cap and Trade will be good for the U.S., and will provide some of the financing needed to install wind systems as our demand grows and as we retire old coal and natural gas plants. Then, if it does turn out that carbon dioxide is a problem, we will have contributed to the good of the earth as well.