Global Warming

KAG

Why is it every time global warming or high gas cost come about we look to the goverment to solve our isses. You can build any type of power plant you want, but if you do not conserve it yourself it is a waste of time and discusion. The gov. started s.s.i. and look at what we have today. How about welfare, not just individual but corp. also. Who out there would not like to get paid not to install heating systems (some farmers get paid not to grow crops for a year). I believe if we build it we think we have to over use it. Just look at the auto industry, or the heating industry. 82% effiecent heating equipment and this is considered O.K. when we have the technilogy to provide higher. The pen may be mighter than the sword, but the wallet is the hands down winner every time. Just ask the local wooden wagon wheel manufacture. Let's start with real answer and stop looking for Washington to do it. This would make the founding fathers proud.

Tony Conner_2

Global Warming Test

I really figure that this deserves it's own thread.

For all of those who really believe that human activity is responsible for global warming, here's a test to determine just how solid your convictions are:

Summer is coming. AC is an unbelievable power hog. It just eats electricity, and for the most part is a complete frill. DO NOT run the AC in your house or car during the upcoming hot weather. If you gotta flip it on, I'd suggest that you might want to review your beliefs as to the cause of global warming.

heatboy

Principals.......

.....mean nothing until you have to sacrifice something for them, eh?

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Brad White_9

Add the heat of compression...

On average you will add 30% more heat to the outside than you remove from your interior... oh the humanity!

Tony Conner_2

I Feel...

... a great distrubance in "the force" - a kind of collective squirming ... I LIKE it

Tony Conner_2

I Feel...

... a great disturbance in "the force" - a kind of collective squirming ... And I've got the biggest, most EVIL smile on my face

CC.Rob

OK, for the past 9 years I have passed the test.

Just adding a data point, not necessarily making one....

Tony Conner_2

You Were...

... concerned about global warming 9 years ago? That's the specific reason you stopped using your AC?

S Ebels

Good question Tony

And a telling response from HB. Talking the talk is what ALL of our politicians do and, sad to say most Americans. Walking the walk is what we will have to do because they won't.

I don't have A/C, don't want A/C. As I see it installed and maintained in 90% of the houses I get in, it's not even healthy to be around. (Think green slime in the evap pan, think 70* and 80% RH in the house because it's oversized.

jackchips_2

And those

of us who don't think human activity is responsible will continue to be cool.

Jack

CC.Rob

There were several contributing reasons, but yes. I have been interested in climate change, global warming, etc. for about 23 years (first time I ever added it up -- gee that's a while!). Climate change and its impacts actually comprise a fair bit of my profession.

And no, I would not consider myself a real tree-hugger by any means.

Unknown

Hmm......

I believe without a doubt global warming is not a nautural occurance . I'd never think of shutting down my AC for the summer . I guess my moral fiber quotent is very low , huh ? But .... I never said I wasn't part of the problem . I know I am . I also know wearing seat belts save lives but often I don't bother to buckle it in . Does that mean I shouldn't believe seat belts save lives ?

Tony Conner

I...

... don't necessarily agree with you, but I applaud you for putting your somewhat "sweaty" money where your mouth is.

Ron Schroeder

Ron

I believe without a doubt global warming is not a nautural occurance

Then why am I not now living under a Glacier as one pushed past the very spot I as sitting right now?

Unknown

Semantics ?

OK , Bruce , I know you understood that I meant this recent trend of higher temperatures . Not one that occured thousands of years ago . Let's assume that as a given , shall we ? Ice ages occur . Warm trends occur . It's too much of a coincidence to have a warm trend at the same time we burn so much fuel . My somewhat educated opinion .

Tony Conner

Thanks Steve - I Have A Second Question ...

... and it concerns water use. How much is electricity involved with the water supply? Most people have no idea just how much electrical power is used to get clean water to their taps. For those who don't know, it's a LOT. There are pumps, settling tanks, more pumps, chemical injection points, more tanks, more pumps - it just goes on and on. And these are BIG pumps, with BIG electric motors driving them. And I watch folks here in suburbia just POUR water on their lawns to keep them from cooking to a light brown in the summer heat. First the AC, and now the lawns - the horror...the horror... Then, the POOL HEATERS...oh my god, not the pool heaters!

If folks really believe the current warming trend is man-made, you guys had better saddle-up and ride on frills like this, because that's exactly what they are. If there isn't enough oil to go around, the natural gas is being pulled off to generate electricity, can't burn coal, can't go nuclear, guess what? If all that's really true, we'll be doing well to keep the food supply in gear. If the gas starts to play-out, the windmills will have to go flat out for power just to keep the refrigeration systems running so the food doesn't spoil.

This is not a pretty picture, is it? I think it will be far better to get going on a mix of coal & nuke - and soon. I'm not sure that nuclear plants built in "record time" to deal with an electrical power crisis are a good thing.

The real proof about how much people in North America believe in man-made global warming will be very much reflected by the peak electrical demands this summer.

Mark Hunt

Really?

> OK , Bruce , I know you understood that I meant

> this recent trend of higher temperatures . Not

> one that occured thousands of years ago . Let's

> assume that as a given , shall we ? Ice ages

> occur . Warm trends occur . It's too much of a

> coincidence to have a warm trend at the same time

> we burn so much fuel . My somewhat educated

> opinion .

Mark Hunt

Really?

So according to you the climate change that is "happening" now is due to your own wasetful habits but the changes that happened millions of years ago were just part of the natural order. Fine. You drink that kool-aide. Fact is that if you had the courage to really study the earth's climate changes you would find that the changes were happening LONG before your relatives dropped from the trees.
But you made a statement. Climate change is NOT a natural occurance. Science says you are wrong. So instead of a nuclear winter, we are looking at a global melt down??? Bong hits anyone???
So answer the other posters question. If global warming is a man-made disaster, why is the earth not still in an ice age?????? Oh...I know....Big oil traveled back in time and set the whole thing up. Man you must have killer weed!

Gene_3

ohhh boy

you are talking about beliefs, you do not believe in Global Warming, that is fine, science says otherwise

the same people were saying the same things about the Ozone hole, but when you put a graph of ozone problem and human use of refrigerants over eachother they match

coincidence????

now it appears that HFC's have 25,000 times more ... well read

from :http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/fluorinated-gases-climate-change/article-117491

Fluorinated gases and climate change

In Short:

EU lawmakers in January 2006 struck an agreement on a proposal to cut down emissions of fluorinated gases as part of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. F-gases are widely used in refrigeration and air conditioning but have a high global warming potential and can sometimes stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The agreement mainly seeks to improve the containment and recovery of F-gases and imposes regular checks on industrial refrigeration installations. After much discussion, the compromise allows countries like Denmark and Austria to maintain stricter controls than elsewhere in Europe until 2012. A phase-out of HFC-134a in car air conditioning has also been approved as of 2011 with a complete ban applying from 2017.



now could it be that the U.S dropped out of Kyoto so that Walmart and other stores would not lose profit selling R134A to numbnuts who shouldn't be working with refrigerants????

also from same article

Environmental organisations have been calling for an immediate phase-out of F-gases because of their high global warming potential and have supported Austria and Denmark in their efforts to maintain their own, stricter national rules. "Austrians and Danes have a lot to celebrate," commented Mahi Sideridou, EU climate and energy policy director at Greenpeace after the agreement was announced. "We welcome the reduction [in greenhouse gas emissions] that the bill will create." However, in her view, the compromise misses out on the much greater reduction potential that the bill initially offered. "It is mostly a failure of the Commission," says Sideridou who believes the EU executive caved in to pressure from chemicals producers such as Dupont and Solvay. Greenpeace advocates the use of alternatives such as CO2 or hydrocarbon-based coolants as well as its own 'Greenfreeze' technology.

Concerning car air conditioning, alternatives to HFC-134a are still in the development phase and cannot be mass-produced at the moment, said F-gas producers at the EFCTC. The European car maker association (ACEA) said the phase-out was "challenging" but feasible and indicated that car makers are now focusing on finding viable alternatives. Japanese car makers (JAMA) said phasing out HFC-134a is not a problem for them as the Japanese market is already led by strong consumer demand for environmentally-friendly air conditioning.

One car industry expert said he believes most manufacturers will opt for a longer-term alternative to HFC-152a as it is relatively flammable and because it is likely to be phased out at a later stage anyway. He said most will opt for CO2-based mobile air conditioning instead - a technology which still needs further development (for more on car manufacturer's reactions, see EurActiv 18 Oct. 2004).



seeing as this is America I do respect your right to keep posting Global Warming and your opinion about it, but it is your opinion only and is not based on logic or any scientific fact or weighing of all the evidence

Tony Conner_2

We Have...

... a new contender for frivolous energy use champ! Residential snow melt! Check out the string on THAT that's currently runnning.

I'd say it's "unbelievable", but it's not. The mind reels...

Bob Gagnon plumbing and heating

I have had radiant cooling

since 2000, using only well water. And I have gone over a year without using any oil for heating or domestic hot water. I use just passive and active solar, and a wood stove. A few years ago I thought global warming was a joke, now I'm not so sure. But it's not just the global warming, what about mercury pollution, the limited supply of oil, and being held hostage by the oil companies and arab terrorists. Bob Gagnon

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Gene_3

interesting

I was going to build one once, I had an old house that had a new well but still had the old one and I was going to pump the water into a chill water coil and use that, sold the house before it happened though.

The second half of your statement hits the mark, we Americans are increasingly arrogant with regard to our imprint and affect on this planet.


Of all the scientific findings of late the one I find interesting is the fact that just 5% bio diesel mixed with regular diesel does so many wonderful things, cuts pollution, is better for your engine, school buses do not need expensive retrofits and catalytic converters to cut childrens exposure and related asthma,more engine lubricity, cleaner boilers, extends our oil resource, etc etc

I believe Minnesota has mandated a 2% mix since June 05, a start in the right direction.

I run 20%, I have done everything I can to cut my use at home, I bought all energy star appliances, changed lights to flourescent, charge batteries & cell off my truck, I shut down my Hot Tub when not in use, {why do I need to run filter cycles all week if I am not even using it??}, and do not make unnecessary trips

what have you done??

if we all try what will happen??

I believe that usage and demand will go down ..... HOWEVER THEY WILL JUST RAISE THE PRICE TO KEEP THEIR PROFITS UP

{sigh}

Constantin

We can all do our part...

... at todays energy prices, it is often economically justifiable to buy energy star rated appliances, windows, etc. to reduce our energy footprint and add $$$ to our wallets also. Between rebate programs, tax incentives, etc. there are many ways to reduce the marginal cost of going high-efficiency.

I disagree with the notion that as usage drops, prices will go up. Typically, the inverse is true (supply vs. dmand). In the context of oil, as more refining, storage, and other spare capacity takes pricing power away from suppliers and gives it back to consumers. The tighter supplies are stretched, the less flexible we are telling a supplier to take a hike with their pricing.

Lest we forget, the US is by far and away the largest user (1/4 of the world demand, IIRC) and importer of oil in the world. Imports of LNG, etc. would also be higher, if only the operators could find a place to land the stuff in the US.

The only time that I have seen your observation to be true is when dealing with municipal services, such as the sewer services. Here, the costs of the operation are spread across the total volume of flow. Since the costs are largely fixed (salaries, equipment, etc.), lower flows due to efficiency increases will result in higher "cost" per unit flow.

JCD

Regarding the test

The original comment that started this string, that argument really deserves a revisit. Lets see, here it is: For all of those who really believe that human activity is responsible for global warming, here's a test to determine just how solid your convictions are: Summer is coming. AC is an unbelievable power hog. It just eats electricity, and for the most part is a complete frill. DO NOT run the AC in your house or car during the upcoming hot weather. If you gotta flip it on, I'd suggest that you might want to review your beliefs as to the cause of global warming.

OK- I get it, I am being told that if I believe (as quite a few Nobel Laureate scientists claim) that global warming is real and I use an air conditioner I’m a hypocrite or a poser.

This is a pretty radical statement up top that positions itself to look sensible. We have all heard this argument before, just in different form.

The prohibition against drinking: The argument that liquor did harm and that there was no such thing as responsible drinking. Abstinence was the only thing a responsible person would do and if not, you are part of the problem. No room for drinking in moderation.

In the short time ago, we were told that either we were with the govt. and everything they did, or we stood with the terrorists. Some sensible people who thought that some things should be done for safety, but let’s not overreach- were called names and had their patriotism questioned. No room for thinking in moderation

The hospital I am working in has the air conditioning on even though most everyone I talk to here has the belief that Global warming is real. Air conditioning dehumidifies the air, and then infections have a harder time taking root in dry conditions. Would it show others that we are true to our global warming beliefs by asking the admin. to turn off the A/C and having patient mortality rates go up? I believe that would be: cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Somewhere in all of this is a middle ground, but the proposition that started this string seem to be more into polarizing the issue than toward a solution.

Do I think that there is a place for coal power generation, yes, if. If the power plant keeps up with and installs the latest technology. Will it cost more, yes, however a lot less than the alternative of doing nothing will cost in the future. But to say that we can keep grandfathering a few power plants that are dragging their heels, that’s like allowing people who throw trash out of their car window to keep doing it.

Now, if you believe in Global warming as I do, and I flip on an air conditioner and use it wisely, is there is a disconnect –no. Sensible people can use and do things in moderation and still be true to their principles, as long as they do these things wisely. There is a middle ground, conserve some, explore other energy sources, and use the rest of what we have in a wise and responsible manner.

But let's avoid these either-or stands. It would seem to me the Wall was started for people to come together and find solutions. These either-or arguments do nothing to promote that. Jim

brad rutherford_2

Being a good steward

The details of global warming and cooling are debateable, but the idea that we need to be good steward's of the environment is not debated by many. I think a good steward would look for sustainable ways of promoting or providing energy. Solar fluid-power, thermal, and photovolatic,along with wind and geothermal need more support and promotion. It would be hard to abandon fossil fuels overnight, but a determined public, a determined government, or a determined contractor can make a differnce in this area. A good steward needs to ask about his responsibility in not just energy use, but the obviuos problem of polution. The air we breath is not as good as it use to be.

Unknown

My good dear Caterpillar

I usually don't respond to people without a valid email addy AND an assumed name , but I'll make an exception .

I thought I made it clear that I am part of the problem , didn't I ? I will assume in your life when you know something YOU do is bad for the environment , your health , the economy , you immediately reverse course ? Of course you do . You always eat healthy foods , you don't smoke , you drive the most economical car so as not to deplete the earths oil , you don't drink because you know it'll rot out your liver . You are my new hero . Or I should say you would be , if I knew who you are . Take it from me and the rest of the rational thinking world - knowing something you do is wrong and abstaining from doing it is not always mutually exclusive . Not even close .

I also thought I made it clear when I say "Global Warming " , just like when you hear about it every day on the TV , in the papers , on the net - is about the temp change happening these past few decades , maybe years . Is this going to be your serious rebuttal of my opinion ? You keep insisting I said EVERY climate change that happened is not a natural occurance ? Who's taking hits from the bong ?

And try growing a set and post your real name and a valid email addy , coward .

Constantin

LOL!

Ron, you're my hero! ;-P

But seriously, I agree with you that there is a big difference between recognizing a problem and changing our own lifestyles. Feeding the trolls is probably not advisable, however. They may come back for more!

Unknown

Oh

He would be back even if I didn't respond . Cowards who hide behind a keyboard always do . Usually someone will step up and chime in with the true identity of the troll . That usually humbles them back to responding like they would in a real face to face . I know Cat wouldn't talk that way personally to me . Not for long .

Tony Conner_2

You Will...

... notice that I specifically said "residential AC" right? It's like residential snowmelt - there are always exceptions. There are places like hospitals where it's important.

I grew up in house with no AC. I didn't even KNOW anybody with even a window unit, let alone central air. Now? Everybody's got it.

My position is that the majority of people who are in the human caused global warming camp, while at the same time using LOTS of electricity, and are blocking new generating plants. Something's gotta give, dude.

Here's a couple of links from a magazine I get - "Power":

http://www.tradefairgroup.com/powermag/powernews.asp?d=042706&a=11

http://www.tradefairgroup.com/powermag/powernews.asp?d=042706&a=3

tom_49

a/c a complete frill?


Athough a/c can be a electricity "hog" as Tony stated, it also is an absolute necessity to some folks. Particulary the elderly and sick. France lost hundreds of elderers during last summers heat wave.

I always recommend to my customers (or potential customers) the use of the highest seer rated unit they can afford and most of them agree and we install mostly 2 speed units in their homes w/ ecm motors( in NE ).

I know ALOT of other HVAC contractors wouldnt even be promoting 13 seer if the gov't didnt make them. They say theres no payback, we gotta get over this payback BS, the real payback is our children being able to live on this planet

People arent going to shut of their a/c units, they are to spoiled by the comfort ( myself included ). I installed a 2 speed unit in my house w/ zoning 2 years ago, it replaced 2 10 seer units I had. My electric costumption for a/c went down over 60%.

W/o a/c we would be less healthy,less productive at work and school.

I honestly dont worry about global warming to much, I do worry about running out of oil.

tom_49

Oh,

everyone turn of your computers NOW! Your wasting electricity

Constantin

Heh...

Good point, Gene. Many computers have energy-saving modes and other means of reducing their energy footprint.

As for the AC debate mentioned one post up, France didn't need AC in most parts of the country because people were either used to it (in the south, for example) or the high mass of buildings combined with a usually temperate climate kept temperatures inside within the habitable range. What happened in 2003 is that the EU was gripped by a heat wave that persisted for weeks. Eventually, even thick walls turn into effective radiators...

AC needn't be installed everywhere in a home to bring enough comfort to make the hottest conditions habitable. My wife and I were quite OK with our 11.2 SEER windowshaker in the bedroom of our former rental. The 21 SEER units we have now ought to do a pretty good job of efficiently cooling the home also.

Supply House Rick

Leave my Son Alone!

Caterpillar is a good man and not a pothead like some of you think. He cares about the environment, babies, moonlit walks on the beach and feeding the poor in Kercrapastan! He even munches on leaves. Someday Caterpillar will spread his wings and fly! Oh and Constantin "LOL" What are you 11?
Moth Mom

Tony Conner

OK...

... so you like AC, have doubts about mans influence on global warming, and are concerned about the oil supply. Me too. How do you feel about new coal and/or nuclear power plants?

leo g_13

Tony

I think that the Alberta tar sands should be "milked" by nuke power. The idea of using natural gas to free up the oil is ludricus!!! One report I read said that the payback from the oil is only 20% more then the energy used from the gas!

Question for you, would it be possible to build nuke plants underground? Less of a target for terrorists, and if there is a meltdown, another layer of confinement.

Leo G


To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Tony Conner

That's...

... why a lot of navy's have nuke subs - they can stay underwater almost indefinately. They don't need air for combustion, since there is no combustion. That's also why they don't need smokestacks on nuke power stations. It's technically very possible to have a nuke cogen at Fort McMurray - the reactor generates steam, drives a turbine-generator set, then the exhaust steam gets used for processing. The same thing could be done with coal. There is no technical reason to use unbelievable amounts of natural gas to extract & process this oil.

My understanding (I'm no expert on this technology) of "meltdown" is that things have gone so wrong - all kinds of safeguards have failed in combination with a whole series of unbelievably stupid human errors - that the nuclear material has overheated, and melted through the floor of the plant, and the rock beneath it. It keeps melting it's way down, until it hits groundwater. Then, there's a massive explosion as huge amounts of this water flash into steam. This potential event is what spreads radioactive material pretty much everywhere. I don't think that even Chernobyl had a meltdown, but it was - and still is - pretty nasty.

If people really believe that the current warming trend is man-made, then the choice becomes nuke power, or get ready to live in essentially a subsistance farming economy. The idea that some hold that we'll be able to carry on as we are using windmills, solar power and biofuels is pure fantasy. We can certainly carry on using some of that technolgy for power, but get ready to do a LOT more manual labour. This will mean far more than just doing without the electric can opener. This will require a massive change in how society functions. I don't think most people will accept it if there's an alternative like nuke power just sitting there un-used.

Brad White_63

Moth...

SWAT!
SPLAT!

Constantin

Interesting Idea...

... one of the benefits of the Alberta operation being powered by Nukes is that Nukes produce lots and lots of steam and love being run on a baseline basis... a great opportunity for the nuke to bypass the power generation step and its related inefficiencies.

With all the talk of renewable fuels and the like, I still believe that conservation will usually pencil out to be the most efficient means of reducing consumption. However, I have not had the opportunity to review the numbers, so I'll keep an open mind...

Tony Conner

We...

... live in a society where the emergency preparendness folks have to specifically tell people to have a manually operated can opener in their kit. That suggests that vast numbers of the population don't even bother to open their cans manually. Folks will have to give up their AC, electric clothes dryers, etc. etc. in addition to actually - my god - OPENING THEIR OWN CANS... Like the line from Seinfeld - "This is going to be a shame."

I'd still use the nuke steam to run a turbo-gen set at the oil sands before it left the plant. You don't get as much electrical power generation with a back-pressure turbine as compared to units that condense, but you use the steam twice. That really is the most efficient, and it's hard to find loads where the electrical output matches the thermal demand. This application sounds about as close to ideal as you can get.

Unknown

I have to say

I was all for finishing the nuke plant at Shoreham . What an absolute waste of billions of dollars . But studies at the time said if it went on line the plant wouldn't have saved ratepayers any money ( highly debatable now ) . Coupled that with no easy way to emergency evacuate millions of people and safe removal of the spent fuel , they s-canned the whole thing .

I often hear that cold fusion and extracting hydrogen from water easily for energy is decades away , if at all . I wonder how much time could be cut out of the equation if we made a Manhattan Project effort ( like a fellow Wallie suggested ) to jump start these options ? The cost would be tremendous and the payoff years away , but doesn't things like this have to be done eventually ?

tom_49

Tony,

I dont doubt man-made global warming, I just fear peak oil more.

As far as nukes and coal, i dont know enough about coal to voice an opinion but it seems nukes may be the only feasible answer.

I dont think wind can generate enough power to quench are thirst for power.

Conservation is a big part of the answer, but us big, fat, americans wont hear of it.(yet )