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 CO2KEY 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.