News Reversing Global Warming: Individual vs Corporate Responsibility?

[Huckleberry]

And environmentalists who would preserve nature at the expense of humanity while they drive around in their SUVs and have a television on in every room of their house. Conservation makes much more sense to me than Environmentalism.

I'm not an environmentalist in the sense of belonging to any organization, and we may recall looking back in history that environmentalists argued against dams as well--ridiculous. However, this business of making statements such as environmentalists drive SUVs is just as silly as saying they prefer the use of coal (neither of which can be documented), and I'd say most Americans own at least one TV, which BTW are not big energy users on the spectrum of things.

Yes, it is a silly statement. I meant it figuratively, not literally. What I was implying is that many people who consider themselves environmentalists are also as much of a contributor to pollution as anyone else. If these people lived according to their own beliefs then I would have much more respect for what they have to say. I think in large part that they do not.

It simply is not possible for 6billion+ people to exist on this planet with no environmental impact. This is why I prefer the role of a conservationist. It is our responsibility to create a sustainable environment by taking a rational view of the technology at hand and using it in a manner that supports our energy requirements with the least environmental impact.

Here are a few examples of conservation that I think would be a responsible solution to some environmental problems. Stop overfishing. Create 'no fish zones' in areas that fish use to breed. Allow fishing outside these areas. This will create a steady supply of new fish. Japan has been forced to use this tactic and overfishing has become a serious problem on the east coast of the U.S. especially in the Cape Cod area.

Cut a tree, plant a tree. Instead of cutting lumber and not replacing it create tree farms that will support the nations lumber needs. The quality of lumber in the U.S. has decreased. What today would be considered A grade lumber would have been C grade lumber decades ago.

Not many people know about the energy crisis besides what they hear on television.

So how does the public become more educated/informed? Data presented earlier indicates that people trust environmentalist organizations more than the government.

Perhaps it is because Bush has a personal interest in the oil companies. The oil companies are influential in politics.

Could this be why?

I think it could be why. That thought has crossed my mind many times. In the case of the Cape Cod fisherman, he overfishes because he is trying to earn enough money to support himself in a market that is becoming increasingly difficult. So he fishes more. The corporations that over-lumber the forests are also seeking quality wood to make a profit. Both are irresponsible views, but the company with it's greater economic capability and influence should be more responsible.

In another thread I posted some statistics on the global energy consumption. The U.S. with 5% of the global population consumes 25% of the world's energy. Over the last 100 years the people of the Earth have used almost 700 billion barrells of oil. There are estimated to be 1 trillion barrells remaining and the demand has been exponential. By 2020 over 80% of the remaining oil reserves will be in the Middle East. I can't say with any certainty what the motives are for the U.S. to not invest more in alternative energy sources, but the president seems to put himself ,and his family and friends, in a good postion for significant financial gain by not building nuclear power plants while securing trade with Middle East nations.

 

[hitssquad]

EPA to change its fuel economy tests

Do hybrids really get good gas mileage?
http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news004/

--
The EPA's numbers are almost always wrong, inflating mileage by 15 percent to 30 percent, critics say.

[...]

"It's just wrong that inflated labels mislead consumers into thinking they are getting better mileage on the road, and a better deal at the gas pump, than they really are," a summary of the bill prepared by Cantwell's office said.
--

caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=30&article_id=9555

--
At a conference of government and auto-industry officials in Washington, EPA officials said the agency is considering adding three tests that would better reflect how consumers actually drive, the story said.

The new mileage tests under consideration would include one for aggressive driving, with speeds of as much as 80 miles an hour; another one run at 95 degrees Fahrenheit under heat lamps with the air conditioner at full blast; and a third at 20 degrees. The tests reduce fuel economy between 12% and 29% in internal EPA studies.
--

 

[Pengwuino]

How exactly do they get those MPG ratings for like the Prius? There was a news report about the shortages in my city and they had a commercial sayign the MPG was somethign like 60mpg after the news report ran. Oddly enough, during the news report, they were asking prius owners about it and they go "Oh its more like 40 or 45 mph really...". Bad tv marketing timing lol. Oh oh and even worse, the newsreport also pointed out the fact that there's very few in town and many are not in well-desired colors and then teh commercial that ran after the newsreport in addition to the "60mph" statement, that the prius "is here, finally, available at a dealer near you".

I mean they practically get the commercial, do a whole news report on how everything they say is inaccurate, then they run the actual commercial after that!

 

[Chi Meson]

So... (check my math):

To cover the US demand of 750,000MW would require about 2,700 square miles of solar panels at a cost of $3.75 trillion.

Thanks, Russ, for those figures. I was just talking about this subject with my classes. THis is the most overlooked aspect of solar electricity. I like to point out the devastation to the ground llife that must lie below those panels.

Do your numbers take into account "cloudy days"?

I do, BTW, consider myself very "green." This is why I am pro nuclear.

Does anyone care to comment on the "French Model" of nuclear power?

 

[Chi Meson]

Additionally, "resource-recovery" plants shoud be more in use (that's a nice way of saying "trash-burning"). What a terrible waste of petrolium resource: all those plasitc bags lying in landfills. Meanwhile we are buring filthy coal anyway.

THe three "R"s of environmentalism begin with "reduce" and "reuse." "Recycle" is a distant third.

Buy an aluminum bike! (and use it)

edit: make that a "used" aluminum bike!

 

[russ_watters]

Do your numbers take into account "cloudy days"?

No. Only what I explicitly stated. I did a more in depth analysis once, but this one was just an off-the-cuff calculation. You can easily throw in some numbers for other sources of inefficiency, though (clouds, transformer/inverter loss, dirt on the panels, angle of sun issues, etc.). And needless to say, such inefficiencies are substantial.

 

[brewnog]

And it does not cost anything to mothball a plant. Throw up a chainlink fence and a "Keep Out" sign and you have yourself a nature preserve.

I disagree with this.

I've been recently involved with a decommissioning consultancy whose main income comes from doing work for the NDA and BNFL, primarily at Sellafield. While most of their work is project management (and front end design) of decommissioning solutions, a good deal of their work involves mothballing. As you know, there are instances where mothballing is a preferable option to total cleanup, but it does not come cheap.

Extensive surveys need to be done on the sites; in 30 years of operation many things in the plants have been changed, and no records kept. Some of the engineers I was involved with have come across cases where caretakers' stores have been surveyed, only to find that they have been unofficially used as storage for contaminated artefacts. Other instances include the discovery of auxiliary systems which don't appear on any original (or subsequent) blueprints, and some cases where such systems have been completely removed with no records kept at all.

In order to mothball such a plant, you need to know exactly what is in there, where it is, and what risk is poses. You need to know that it can be safely contained. In many cases, extensive structural work needs to be done merely to restore the buildings themselves to a state where they can safely withstand another 30 years of neglect.

 

[Chi Meson]

Clarification of previous post: I (meaning me) am convinced that mankind's future is a nuclear future. Our greatest mistake (in re Nuclear power) is that the US handed over the design and building of the nuke plants to the private sector way too soon. We got the worst of all worlds: a profit-oriented nuke industry, another bureaucracy tipping toward political whims, and a public scared witless over the atomic bomb.

In France, they have made all the nuke plants smaller and identical to one another. All technicians are from a highly trained core of engineers. In the US, all nuke plants are different. Our local plant hires as many cheap "associate degree" community college graduates as it can legally get away with.

So, I am pro-nuclear, but not pro status-quo.

Have you gotten your bike yet?

 

[Pengwuino]

What nuclear plant hires AA grads? Maybe its for clerical work lol

Do you think the public would be any different if the US government was cmopletely in charge of building and running the reactors? Experiences over here in California are meh... give the government control, wind up with blackouts and high-prices... let PG&E run things, cheap, reliable power.

 

[Astronuc]

One cost not included with projections for nuclear power is the cost of decommissioning. As I understand things, it is argued that the complete cost for decommissioning can far exceed the cost of building the plant. In one lecture that I attended in college, it was argued that we don't even know the real cost of decommissioning the largest reactors. The estimates cited were staggering. Also, the real cost of responsible waste management will be huge. If its not, watch out! I have also read that we should look at the fuel recycling program used in France. At least some proponents claim that the French do this quite well.

Ivan, I am not sure where you got the information on decommissioning, but utilities are required to have a decommissioning fund for each unit. There is a lot of cash there, and that is what made it attractive for companies with multiple nuclear plants like Exelon, Entergy, Dominion, Constellation and others to take over nuclear units from utilities which owned one or two units.

The actual cost of decommissioning is somewhat arbritary (well cost of anything is somewhat arbitrary, but . . .). Utilities believe that they can decommission for less than the cash on hand, while critics argue it will cost more. A lot depends on the decontamination and disposeal of large components, e.g. pressure vessel and steam generators, and the primary circuit. One point of contention is the acceptable level of residual radioactivity - the industry usually accepts some level that is generally unacceptable to critics of the industry.

As the older units like Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Trojan, etc are decommissioned, the industry gains experience, and then can (hopefully) predict or project a more realistic costs for the decommissioning phase of nuclear plants.

Currently, the industry trend is to extend the life of plants from the licensed 40 years to 60 years. The economics is largely dictated by the viability of the primary system components. In addition, with more experience and improvements in core/plant monitoring, better design/predictive analysis and improvements in component (e.g. turbine) efficiency, plants have been up-rated or re-rate for greater electrical generation capacity.

Recycling U and Pu has its own issues, proliferation concerns being one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Kyoto Protocol ratified inside the US ?

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/

On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol took effect in the 141 countries that ratified it. That day Mayor Nickels challenged mayors across the country to join Seattle in taking local action to reduce global warming pollution.

On March 30, 2005, 10 mayors representing more than 3 million Americans, joined together to invite cities from across the country to take additional actions to significantly reduce global warming pollution.

On June 13, 2005, the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement was passed unanimously by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

As of October 21, 2005 187 mayors representing nearly 40 million Americans, have accepted the challenge.

Well, do you like what Mayor Nickels has started ? Will it work ? Here's what these mayors intend to achieve :

Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take following three actions:

* Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;

* Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and

* Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emission trading system

http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/PDF/Resolution_FinalLanguage_06-13-05.pdf

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/quotes.htm#mayors include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Miami, Atlanta, Honolulu, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans, Boston, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Albuquerque, Newark, Las Vegas, New York City, Portland, Philadelphia, Providence, Charleston, Austin, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Washington DC, among several other smaller cities.

 

[SOS2008]

I see this old thread reappear, and now it shows me as starting it--odd.

 

[pattylou]

Gokul - Just curious - did you get this info off the link I posted here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97246&page=2


I ask because I always wonder if people even bother to follow links.

Otherwise, on a related topic, a boy I went to school with through grade 8, is now mayor of our home town. I have emailed him a couple times asking him to consider signing on. So far, no luck - but yes, I think this is a great thing for the mayors to do.

 

[Pengwuino]

I just realized that I thought russ had started this thread...

don't mind me, just passing through

 

[Astronuc]

The agreement on Kyoto protocols goes beyond Mayor Nickels to the US Conference of Mayors - http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/home.asp

Many cities have major problems with air quality - despite the Federal Clean Air Act. There are two practical sides here - one is reducing energy costs by increasing fuel efficiency or using more efficient vehicles, and the other is air quality and its health effects. Respiratory illness is a major problem in some areas and the necessary and costly medical treatment could be avoided by cleaner air through more effecient vehicles.

Another startling concern for the future - water! From a USCM press release -

Albuquerque, NM – On the heels of two devastating hurricanes, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, led by Conference President and Long Beach, California Mayor Beverly O’Neill, along with Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, Chair of the Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council, released the findings of a National Urban Water Resources Survey today during a press conference in Albuquerque.

The survey of 414 cities, which was conducted prior to the recent hurricanes, sounds the alarm on “everyday” infrastructure problems as well as catastrophic events.

The survey outlines the Mayors’ “Top 10” list of water concerns, which include :
1) Aging Water Infrastructure
2) Water Infrastructure Security
3) Water Supply Availability
4) Unfunded Federal Mandates
5) Water Quality of Rivers
6) Flooding
7) Emergency Planning, Storms and Hurricanes
8) Drought Management
9) Regional Conflict over Water Use
10) Water Rights

These results show that “everyday” issues like maintaining, replacing and building water infrastructure remain critical challenges for cities. Although cities have been extremely active in committing their own funds to major capital investments in water and wastewater infrastructure, there is still a tremendous need for additional infrastructure investment.

Most alarming is a city’s challenge to provide adequate water supply, particularly with aging water infrastructure and questions about how to finance future water infrastructure investment. The survey shows that nearly 40% of the cities surveyed will not have adequate water supply in 20 years.

 

[russ_watters]

I just realized that I thought russ had started this thread...

Yeah - looks like a page or two got cut off.

 

[Evo]

Loseyourname created a stciky for frequently discussed topics and had suggested merging several similar threads into a single thread, this thread was merged with another.

All of the pages should be here, they might be rearranged a bit.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul - Just curious - did you get this info off the link I posted here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97246&page=2

No, I googled after I'd heard an interview with Mayor Nickels on the radio.

 

[Smurf]

You!: Fix the Enviroment!

I did it last time. Make Billy do it.

 

[Archon]

I did it last time. Make Billy do it.

Dude, Billy's been corrupted by interest groups. He barely has a mind of his own anymore...it's almost like he does things without thinking them through...like he doesn't care about his people...I'd almost think he doesn't want to fix the environment just because he has a lot of money riding on certain industries...

 

[Skyhunter]

Dude, Billy's been corrupted by interest groups. He barely has a mind of his own anymore...it's almost like he does things without thinking them through...like he doesn't care about his people...I'd almost think he doesn't want to fix the environment just because he has a lot of money riding on certain industries...

I think you are confusing Billy with George.