Comments

• Letting govt. pick winners and losers is bad idea tb5036t on 03/23/2007 at 6:19 PM

  Posts: 2

  No doubt, reducing co2 emissions requires a solution on a massive scale, but having the government pick winners and losers by directing many billions of dollars in research is not a good idea.  There are already promising technologies out there and $500 Million to demonstrate some of those technologies may be money well spent, but ultimately the only viable solution is a carbon tax or a cap and trade system.  The market can then sort out the winners and losers. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	I agree dmm on 03/30/2007 at 1:15 PM
    Posts: 149 Avg Rating:	Raise energy taxes and lower income taxes to make it revenue neutral.  This will provide economic incentive to reduce energy use at every level of the economy, which will automatically reduce CO2 production, probably much more than any dicey CO2 offset or sequestration scheme (scam?). Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	anthrax durs on 03/23/2007 at 10:25 PM
  Posts: 5 Avg Rating:	BTW what ever happen to the anthrax terrorist? seem like he never existed! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	great rational zig158 on 03/24/2007 at 3:53 AM
  Posts: 64 Avg Rating:	Wow great rational, if we spend billions on project X than it must make sense to spend billions on project Y. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: great rational davidewingduncan on 03/24/2007 at 8:45 AM

    Posts: 8

    No, the point is that if the government is going to be throwing around billions of dollars to prevent future calamities, my vote would go to spend some of this money on trying to come up with clever solutions to curtailing CO-2 emissions. Even if 70% of the money is wasted, the other 30% might do some good -- who knows? The government is wasteful and inefficient, but occasionally money spent for technology and scientific research produces breakthroughs. Also, the amount we're talking about here is less than what is unaccounted for in taxpayer money Halliburton and other private contracters spent in Iraq. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: great rational dmm on 03/30/2007 at 4:05 PM

      Posts: 149 Avg Rating:

      FWIW, I understood your analogy.  It isn't perfect, though.  It is hard to think of a way to let the market come up with bioterrorism solutions, because few people regularly deal with bioterrorism, whereas everybody uses energy.  So I would prefer a more free-market scheme.  Also, global warming is a long-term problem, whereas bioterrorism could occur tomorrow.  But your point about the relative amount of money for research, considering the relative amount of potential damage (long-term), is well taken. One last point: rather than comparing the 5 billion dollars to a comparable amount that has (purportedly) been poorly accounted for by contractors in the Iraq war, why not compare it to the (known) staggering amounts that are wasted every year by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.?  Or even compare it to the (known) amount we spend on dog food and cosmetics?  It's not possible you were taking a liberal potshot in a tech blog, is it? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• CO2 a leading or trailing indicator? nekote on 03/24/2007 at 11:06 AM

  Posts: 122 Avg Rating:

  Is the current epoch of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere a leading or trailing indicator of global temperature? The popular and virtual religious dogma is that it is a leading indicator of global temperature. What if it is actually a trailing indicator? "Fixing" a trailing indicator is a waste / loss of time and money. Trailing indicators aren't the *cause* - they are the result of something else. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: CO2 a leading or trailing indicator? Roberib on 03/26/2007 at 2:35 AM
    Posts: 1	CO2 is a major contributing factor to global temperature  because it reflects infrared radiation that would otherwise escape the earth. There are positive feedback effects whereby increasing temperature causes the release of more CO2.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: CO2 a leading or trailing indicator? gtlocke13 on 03/28/2007 at 11:10 AM
      Posts: 4	I guarantee you there are also negative feedback effects that cause that CO2 to be reabsorbed at increasing rates.  If there weren't, Earth would not have made it 4 billion years without the atmosphere freezing out or boiling off into space.  Our ecosystem is self regulating.  We can cause short term perturbations, but we can never really have a long term effect. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Branson's $25M prize to sequester 1GT/yr nekote on 03/24/2007 at 11:14 AM
  Posts: 122 Avg Rating:	Taxpayers spend $500M to pick a CO2 sequestration winner? Richard Branson of Vigin Air (etc) is currently offering a $25M prize for a method to sequester 1 GigaTon of CO2 per year. (Estimates for man-made CO2 vary widely. Figures like 6 GT/yr to 25GT/yr are bandied about). Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Branson's $25M prize to sequester 1GT/yr RickJ on 03/26/2007 at 3:43 AM
    Posts: 7 Avg Rating:	There is very little doubt about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The ~6GT/y figure is carbon, 25 GT is CO2 - the multiplier should be 44/12 = 3.6667. The BP website lists world coal, oil and gas consumption, a little arithmetic confirms the values. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Tragedy of the commons - bring in the US military gabrielg01 on 03/24/2007 at 3:08 PM

  Posts: 317 Avg Rating:

  Atmospheric pollution is a classical case of the tragedy of the commons. We can reduce carbon dioxide here, and then that gas will be replaced by more emitted somewhere else - say China. So, it will not work unless a global framework is in place. That is why we need to join the Kyoto protocol, and force others to join too. Yes, you heard it right - we should FORCE others to abide by the rules. This is a global threat, just like nuclear weapon proliferation is. If we can mess with Iran and Iraq for weapon issues, we should also mess with others for environmental issues. We don't have spare planets to go to, in case we screw this one up. Of course, forcing others to go green will also force America to go green. Otherwise we'd have no moral high ground. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Tragedy of the commons - bring in the US military gtlocke13 on 03/28/2007 at 11:17 AM
    Posts: 4	I am stunned.  If anything is going to end the world, it's people that think like you.  This is an excellent example of how environmental issues will give people who want to control everything the excuse to do anything. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: Tragedy of the commons - bring in the US military gabrielg01 on 03/29/2007 at 10:19 PM

      Posts: 317 Avg Rating:

      I know you are stunned. And that was part of my intention - to stun people into thinking how critical our environmental destruction has become. Today about half of the people on the planet still live under oppressive regimes. They cannot criticize the environmental policies of their regimes, because dissent is not tolerated. They go to jail, and their already crappy lives get destroyed for voicing concerns. I know that the idiot Bush completely destroyed our reputation, and now coming up with "environmental interventionism" sounds completely crazy. But in the long term we will have no choice left. We breath the same air, we share the same oceans, yet there are dozens and dozens of countries that don't care. There will come a point when we'll have to say "Enough is enough, clean up your act or else...". The present situation is characterized by chaos, and somebody will have to bring order, somebody will have to assume the role of the sheriff. It will be very tough. We will be damned if we do, damned if we don't. That basically leaves no other choice than to do it. Any suggestions? Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: Tragedy of the commons - bring in the US military dmm on 03/30/2007 at 4:15 PM

        Posts: 149 Avg Rating:

        Why don't you ask the Antichrist, once your one-world government is in place?  Seriously, dude, you are scary.  You actually think the West should attack China and India if they don't go along with Kyoto?  Do you have any idea of the environmental damage that WWIII would cause?  I have a better idea: round up all the wackos like yourself and kill them.  That should immediately reduce our carbon footprint by about 5%, with no collateral environmental damage. Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • Re: Tragedy of the commons - bring in the US military gabrielg01 on 03/30/2007 at 7:22 PM

          Posts: 317 Avg Rating:

          I know that wars are the biggest environmental pollutants. I was also told that the world resources would run out, if all Indians and Chinese wanted to live at Western standards. So, I have no answers to these problems. That is why we debate things in forums. Focus on facts, not on attacking a person, OK? Your "solution" of rounding up and killing people who look scary to you is definitely not constructive. Rate this comment: (Reply)

          • 	Re: Tragedy of the commons - bring in the US military dmm on 04/02/2007 at 4:40 PM
            Posts: 149 Avg Rating:	You made a wacko proposal in what is supposed to be an intelligent debate.  You even admitted that your entry was intended to shock.  So you should not be surprised at harsh replies.  Since you don't understand sarcasm, I will state plainly that my reply was not serious but simply intended to shock you into not posting ridiculous suggestions. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Coal Emissions Energy Advocate on 03/24/2007 at 4:34 PM
  Posts: 3	Convert existing coal-burning power plants to pebble bed nukes.  Pebble beds can be cheap sheet metal cans in missile-like underground silos in the coal yard replacing existing boilers.  Everything else stays as is.  Got to be inexpensive in quantities of a thousand - and the world may need 50,000 to do the job. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	How to reduce Carbon Dioxide sman on 03/25/2007 at 11:18 AM
  Posts: 11	Only preventing the deforestation can take care of the balancing the level of CO2. Otherwise at least promoting the greenaries projects to develop the plants and trees can be thought off. www.browsetoknow.blogspot.com Rate this comment: (Reply)

• [no subject] cutty56 on 03/26/2007 at 1:28 AM

  Posts: 1

  Considering the billions the US has available, anything in the millions seems a pittance. Another idea I was thinking about was if anyone has done any study into the tree species that absorbs the most CO2. I assume it would be some sort of broad leaf evergreen. If we could find this out, and get everyone in the land to plant a couple in their backyard, we may have a safe, cheap way of reducing CO2 Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Relative costs of energy don.hutchinson on 03/26/2007 at 10:10 AM

  Posts: 12 Avg Rating:

  One problem that spans our entire approach to energy is relevance. We should relate our energy usage to:- Defense Department spending -how much is based on protecting our oil imports? State department and foreign policy - hamstrung because of our dependence and beset by petty tyrants such as Chavez and Amedidijade. I agree that government is the least effective way of selecting priorities, yet grants can be made - broadly with proxes for proven results. I myself favor an oil import tax - set to kick in when oil falls below $40 a barrel. Painless today with oil at current prices. But effective in setting a floor for alternative energies But the real s against global warming, defense spending and foreign policy Measured in those terms half a billion is timid and pathetic Rate this comment: (Reply)

• CO2 to Carbon Nanotubes ashalleck on 03/26/2007 at 12:10 PM

  Posts: 3 Avg Rating:

  I have been trying to get the MIT panel interested in a way to use and/or eliminate excess CO2 that makes sense and is easily doable. I explore nanotechnology and there is a solution in the nanoworld Why not simply convert exhaust CO2 gas back to Carbon Nanotubes,those most amazing new creations of mankind,  a recarbonization process, that has a small negative energy equation (these are powerplants and the energy is there for the taking) and incredible utility. The CNT's can be used society wide ... in reinforcement, construction, other materials, roads, bridges, etc... large supplies would be available at low cost locally and could be subsidized by the gov't. The CNT's would make all these structures stronger , lighter, and longer lasting at low incremental cost.  Under worst case, the CNT's can be safely stored underground with no harm or risk to the environment.  Why can't I get traction on this at TECH?  It's a no brainer. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: CO2 to Carbon Nanotubes Candy53 on 03/28/2007 at 8:37 PM

    Posts: 1

    First, one would have to convert the CO2 to methane (and water) with hydrogen.  Then the methane would have to be converted to some starting material for nanotubes, say methanol.  Methane is not a good starting material for nanotubes.  These two processes would require AT LEAST three times and probably four times the energy that that was available from the hydrocarbon the carbon dioxide came from in the first place.  Now where is the additional energy supposed to come from.  You tell me Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Thinking bigger about CO2 sbkadar on 03/26/2007 at 2:05 PM

  Posts: 5 Avg Rating:

  What about removing the CO2 from the atmosphere with large wind turbine driven CO2 scrubbers? Read an article by Klaus S. Lackner (Columbia U), Patrick Grimes and Hans-J Ziock (LANL) on the economics of large scale CO2 extraction from air. Then what do you do with the CO2? How about catalytic conversion back into hydrocarbons using Hydrogen extracted by solar powered Hydrolysis. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• CO2 and Global Warming naturlm on 03/26/2007 at 3:07 PM

  Posts: 10 Avg Rating:

  I believe this problem will make Iraq, N. Korea, Iran problems look very small sometime in next 10 - 30 yrs.  But Joe Sixpack public, in developed and developing countries around the world, is not now effected in any major way.  Governments, economists and politicians are waiting for capitalism, free enterprise and technology to solve the problem.  Technology may or may not be able to solve the problem in time to maintain survival of the human race on the planet.  I agree a moon type program is needed.  Going to moon in 60's 70's was a large waste of dollars and resources.  But I doubt this country will get the priorites right this time either.  Its mostly a problem of greed and politics as normal.  We could have / should have addressed  the depleting worlds oil supply  problem back in 70's.  These are long term hard to solve problems.  Does anyone see a high ethical morals presidential politician up to addressing the challenge and the resources it will take ?  To-date, I do not.  Gore has the idea, but is still wasting energy in his personal castle house, cars, jet traveling etc.  Thats not the kind of personal moral energy saving leadership we need in my opinion.  And......don't get me started about the laughable joke meeting of pres this AM morning with the Detroit auto execs at White House.  E85 ethanol cars will mean doubling or more of our food prices very soon.  Ethanol is not the answer.  My vote is plug in electric cars with CO2 scrubbers required on all coal fired electric generating plants.  And while were at it, natural gas is far too valuable a resource to be used for generating electrical power to keep California's air clean.  We need lots more expensive CO2 scrubber power plants everywhere along with more wind turbines and nuclear power plants.  If Hollywood was serious about something besides making money, it should start making more science based disaster / drama movies based on issues of oil depletion, global warming, CO2 absorption, battery powered automobiles, etc.  The problem is scientific education of Joe 6 Pack Public and the US Congress.  I asked US Energy dept a while back if they ever held seminars to educate congress on energy isses.  Believe it or not, they wrote back that was not their job, and they only answered individual questions on energy directed to them by individual congressmen ?  This tells us the sad state of leadership in our government agencies, offices and in US congresss ?  Big money likes the status quo....?  Arnold and California public are slowly starting to figure it out the depth of the problem, but its not just a California problem.  Its a world problem.  So lets get the UN and state deparments working on it.   Creating and having low cost non oil based non carbon emitting energy sources would greatly help solve poverty generated problems world wide, including many of the problems in middle east, and populations around the world which serve as generators for terrorism against US and  developed countries.  Summing, I agree whole heartedly, a half million dollars  towards solving the problem is a joke at this stage of the game. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: CO2 and Global Warming gtlocke13 on 03/28/2007 at 11:05 AM
    Posts: 4	My vote is plug in electric cars with CO2 scrubbers required on all coal fired electric generating plants. That's a great idea if you want to pay a couple of thousand dollars a month in electricity.  Maybe you could afford that.  I can't.  I especially can't since it won't do one damn bit of good in changing our impact on the planet's climate. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	old king coal phoenix on 03/26/2007 at 5:15 PM
  Posts: 142 Avg Rating:	I'm sorry but your all barking up the wrong tree. I have the answer, and it's so rediculously simple that you'll never guess what it is. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: old king coal Energy Advocate on 03/26/2007 at 8:18 PM
    Posts: 3	Duhh.... I give up Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: old king coal Energy Advocate on 03/28/2007 at 9:10 AM
      Posts: 3	Yup... It's been three days.  Now I know you were bluffing Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: old king coal dmm on 04/02/2007 at 4:43 PM
    Posts: 149 Avg Rating:	Is it: kill off all the stupid people who post dumb comments to science blogs? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Why not go to the moon? donl on 03/26/2007 at 7:39 PM

  Posts: 1

  I find it amazing that this admistration wants to commit this country and future administrations to approximately $100B to repeat the Apollo missions of the 60's so we can prepare to send people to Mars for approximately $300B to repeat the Rover missions.  Nobody blinks - yet, we argue over $.5B to try to start to save the world.  We try to decide if it's a good investment.  Where are our priorities? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Why not go to the moon? dmm on 04/02/2007 at 4:45 PM
    Posts: 149 Avg Rating:	Wow.  Nail on the head.  And I'm not even convinced about global warming! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Coal and fission lowilliams on 03/27/2007 at 12:04 AM

  Posts: 17 Avg Rating:

  Both coal and uranium fisson energy are bad for the future.  Sequesterization of carbon dioxide and burying high level waste are just ways to deny our responsibility to the future.  This only passes these threats on for future generation to manage. We need to support Sir David King, the UK Chief scientist.  See "fast forware to fusion" New scientist April 10, 2004.  Renewables, backed up by fusion will protect the earth for a long time.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Environmentalism: A Socialist's Dream gtlocke13 on 03/28/2007 at 10:59 AM

  Posts: 4

  There is a frightening element in the environmentalist movement out there, as evidenced by Mr. Duncan's article.  Half a billion dollars spent chasing a solution to a problem defined by a whole lot of mights, maybes, possiblys, and coulds is just not enough.  We need to get serious about this.  Climate change is the socialist's Golden Goose; it just keeps on giving.  The only thing constant in this world is change, and as the temperature has oscillated up and down, so have the disaster predictions, complete with calls to have government step in and save us all, at whatever cost.  We are affecting the planet's temperature.  We don't know how much; we don't understand most of the mechanisms by which we cause changes.  Environmentalists make the asinine assumption that the current temperature is optimum, and a deviation of just a few degrees spells disaster.  Based on flimsy science and a single root cause, we're supposed to cap our growth while we develop and implement "green" technologies.  The quotation marks are there because the law of unintended consequences will make itself felt with any new technology.  Just a few examples where "green" technology has ended up hurting the environment: hydropower has had major consequences for river systems, and windmills are now often referred to as "bird cuisinarts."  A few predictions for the future: both solar panels and compact fluorescent light bulbs contain some pretty nasty chemicals, making them difficult to dispose of.  Of course there's a solution to this.  A new government agency will be created to supply you with one light bulb per year and properly dispose of the one from last year.  This will cost approximately $10,000 per person per year to accomplish, but hey, we need to fix the environment at any price, right? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Environmentalism: A Socialist's Dream lowilliams on 03/28/2007 at 2:33 PM

    Posts: 17 Avg Rating:

    All right, global warming is a socialists dilusion.  You want to continue burning up all the carbon reserves of the earth, what will future generations use to make plastic, fibers, lubricants, drugs etc. that use the chemicals found in fossil carbon resources.  I am a retired chemist. I will make polyethylene from straw, but you will not like the price.  How about the land destroyed by the recovery of the resources.  How about the fresh water well that are ruined by salt intrusion when the oil is removed.  Disregarding the issue of global warming we should stop the recovery and combustion of fossil fuel chemicals for the good of the economy.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Another person hits nail on head dmm on 04/02/2007 at 5:02 PM

      Posts: 149 Avg Rating:

      Yes!  Yet another person talking common sense.  If only it would spread. Reasons to fund R&D on alternative energy sources/systems and on reducing energy consumption: 1) The possibility that global warming is predominantly anthropogenic and might have dire consequences over the coming decades/centuries. 2) Make West less dependent on unstable countries, mostly run by petty tyrants. 3) Preserve chemical feed stock for future.