coal2nuclear.com
A Plan for Our Planet
►to Home
Page
Site Map /
Contents
> APPENDIX 2
page.
Appendix 2 -
Sidebar Notes
See
Appendix 1 for technical notes.
How Global Warming might soon
be ended.
Levitt and Dubner tell the horseshit story as a prelude
to discussing climate change:
Is there a quick fix for the
climate? by Elizabeth Kolbert November 16, 2009 - The New Yorker
Keywords
Climate Change;
"SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide
Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance" (William Morrow; $29.99);
Steven D. Levitt; Stephen J. Dubner;
Al Gore;
"Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis" (Rodale; $26.99);
Global Warming
In the eighteen-sixties, the quickest, or at least the most popular, way to get
around New York was in a horse-drawn streetcar. The horsecars, which operated on
iron rails, offered a smoother ride than the horse-drawn omnibuses they
replaced. (The Herald described the experience of travelling by omnibus as a
form of "modern martyrdom.") New Yorkers made some thirty-five million horsecar
trips a year at the start of the decade. By 1870, that figure had tripled.
The standard horsecar, which seated twenty, was drawn by a pair of roans and ran
sixteen hours a day. Each horse could work only a four-hour shift, so operating
a single car required at least eight animals. Additional horses were needed if
the route ran up a grade, or if the weather was hot. Horses were also employed
to transport goods; as the amount of freight arriving at the city's railroad
terminals increased, so, too, did the number of horses needed to distribute it
along local streets. By 1880, there were at least a hundred and fifty thousand
horses living in New York, and probably a great many more. Each one relieved
itself of, on average, twenty-two pounds of manure a day, meaning that the
city's production of horse droppings ran to at least forty-five thousand tons a
month. George Waring, Jr., who served as the city's Street Cleaning
Commissioner, described Manhattan as stinking "with the emanations of putrefying
organic matter." Another observer wrote that the streets were "literally
carpeted with a warm, brown matting . . . smelling to heaven." In the early part
of the century, farmers in the surrounding counties had been happy to pay for
the city's manure, which could be converted into rich fertilizer, but by the
later part the market was so glutted that stable owners had to pay to have the
stuff removed, with the result that it often accumulated in vacant lots,
providing breeding grounds for flies.
The problem just kept piling up until, in the eighteen-nineties, it seemed
virtually insurmountable. One commentator predicted that by 1930 horse manure
would reach the level of Manhattan's third-story windows. New York's troubles
were not New York's alone; in 1894, the Times of London forecast that by the
middle of the following century every street in the city would be buried under
nine feet of manure. It was understood that flies were a transmission vector for
disease, and a public-health crisis seemed imminent. When the world's first
international urban-planning conference was held, in 1898, it was dominated by
discussion of the manure situation. Unable to agree upon any solutions-or to
imagine cities without horses-the delegates broke up the meeting, which had been
scheduled to last a week and a half, after just three days.
Then, almost overnight, the crisis passed. This was not brought about by
regulation or by government policy. Instead, it was technological innovation
that made the difference. With electrification and the development of the
internal-combustion engine, there were new ways to move people and goods around.
By 1912, autos in New York outnumbered horses, and in 1917 the city's last
horse-drawn streetcar made its final run. All the anxieties about a metropolis
inundated by ordure had been misplaced.
This story-call it the Parable of Horseshit-has been told many times, with
varying aims. The latest iteration is offered by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J.
Dubner, in their new book, "SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic
Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance" (William Morrow;
$29.99). According to Levitt and Dubner, the story's message is a simple one:
if, at any particular moment, things look bleak, it's because people are seeing
them the wrong way. "When the solution to a given
problem doesn't lie right before our eyes, it is easy to assume that no solution
exists," they write. "But history has shown again and again that such
assumptions are wrong."
Levitt and Dubner tell the horseshit story as a prelude to discussing climate
change: "Just as equine activity once threatened to stomp out civilization,
there is now a fear that human activity will do the same." As usual, they say,
the anxiety is unwarranted. First, the global-warming threat has been
exaggerated; there is uncertainty about how, exactly, the earth will respond to
rising CO2 levels, and uncertainty has "a nasty way of making us conjure up the
very worst possibilities." Second, solutions are bound to present themselves:
"Technological fixes are often far simpler, and
therefore cheaper, than the doomsayers could have imagined."
. . . .
"By far the
preferred way to confront climate change", Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul
Crutzen has written, "is to lower the emissions of greenhouse gases."
-- more:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert?printable=true#ixzz0WlZDQntR
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An inconvenient truth for the
"willfully blind"
antinuclear environmentalists:
Nuclear electricity
produces less than 1% of fossil fuel's carbon dioxide.
Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company, produces
electricity from Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat, and Wind energy
and has produced accredited Environment Product Declarations for all these
processes. Vattenfall finds that, averaged over the entire lifecycle of
their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant
construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the
total amount of CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity
produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall
measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams
per KW-Hr and from Coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr.
Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall emits less than one hundredth the
CO2
of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact, Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to
emit less
CO2
over their lifecycle than even green energy production mechanisms
such as Hydro, Wind, Solar, and Biomass.
GHG Emissions from Electric Supply Technologies DanielWeisser.pdf
GAS ATTACK!
by Santos' CE David Knox (Australia).
"One
thing
I
would
note
about
advocates
of
nuclear
is
that
they
often
ignore
natural
gas
and
its
role
in
power
generation.
Often,
they
gloss
over
the
existence
of
gas
and
simplistically
abbreviate
the
debate
to
one
of
‘if
renewables
fail,
then
we
have
to
go
nuclear’
as
was
reported
in
last
week’s
Advertiser.
Gas
already
delivers
close
to
70%
of
the
carbon
intensity
reduction
that
a
shift
from
coal
to
nuclear
would
achieve
in
eastern
Australia,
but
at
far
less
expense
and
with
none
of
the
sociopolitical
challenges.
In
short,
the
real
competitor
to
nuclear
power
in
Australia
will
be
natural
gas."
Response by
professor Barry Brook in 'Brave New
Climate.' "Consider the greenhouse gas
intensities. From the
recent meta-analysis in Energy
by D. Weisser (2007). These include upstream
and downstream emissions, so are more
conservative than the optimistic figures
Knox gives for gas in his talk, which only
considers operating stage emissions (aside:
these are zero for nuclear):
Coal
= 950 to 1,250 kg CO2eq / MWh
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine = 440 to 780 kg
CO2eq / MWh
Nuclear
= 3 to 24 kg CO2eq / MWh
Australia’s cumulative yearly GHG emissions from the
electricity sector would be 17 times greater than if we went for nuclear (88 Mt
vs. 5 Mt)."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This Site's
Major Novel Ideas
1. Nuclear repowering. The idea that coal burning
power plant
boilers can be replaced with a small
fourth-generation nuclear boiler. A power plant's boiler
is the unit that makes all that Global Warming CO2.
KEY is the fact that the incremental cost of energy from a nuclear
reactor is extremely low. Buying a repowering nuclear boiler that has
twice the output of the coal burning boiler being replaced creates a situation
whereby additional electricity can be obtained at about 1/4 the current new coal
burning power plant cost.
By repowering an existing
power plant, the time and economic savings potential
is large and access to existing electricity grid, water resources, and
transportation is already established, permits to operate such a facility exist
and local support to keep the facility running is strong.
2. The realization that an extremely
small number of the world's power plants are making 2/3 of Global Warming's CO2.
3. The cost of super large power
plants caused their
population numbers to be small.
4. By devising a "Universal
Remediation Reactor" - a high temperature
nuclear replacement boiler optimized for fossil fuel mitigation applications and
based on a well-proven nuclear technology capable of a near-closed fuel cycle,
future electricity generation fuel costs will be optimally minimized. Little further improvement in fission technology
fuel economy is anticipated.
5. By adopting a "Worst First"
policy, the mitigation results are maximized, mitigation delay and costs are
minimized.
6. The idea that "Selective
Global Warming Mitigation," i.e., selectively choosing which aspects of
Global Warming to eliminate, may prove to be quicker and more cost-effective
than just willy-nilly trying to eliminate all sources of Global Warming CO2
at once.
7. By ending natural gas burning,
35% of Global Warming CO2 will be ended. The natural gas not burned could then
be used as feedstock for making (by synthesis) twice the
oil the United States is currently importing from the mideast.
8. Individual countries are not set
up to deal efficiently with subtle global impingement issues such as Global
Warming's atmospheric accumulation of carbon dioxide. By shifting Global
Warming mitigation responsibility from individual
countries to a United Nations Corps of Engineers, a coherent global CO2
mitigation program can be established and executed.
9. The
anti-nuclear
environmentalists, by facilitating the "Coal Renaissance," have caused a
clustering in time of the construction of the super-large power plants that are
the major contributors to Global Warming. This created an equipment base
that is relatively young and therefore is well worth repowering with new nuclear
boilers.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why create this web site?
There may be things about the
phenomena of Global Warming the author is unaware of but, having followed it as
an "Air Pollution" issue since the late 60s as a design engineer of automobile
emissions analyzers for the Kal-Equip Company, Otsego, Michigan, no hints of
anything sinister have ever come to my attention.
Most countries have the best
leadership money can buy. That's how a relatively simple technical issue
can grow into the mess Global Warming has become.