Re: Carbon Dioxide Emissions May Harm Ocean Life

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:59:28 -0400

Angelo Campanella wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> Yes. And the observation is that we are putting X gigatons of carbon
>> in the air from fossil fuels each year where about X/2 remains in
>> the air the next year. We know that this increase is coming from the
>> fossil fuels due to isotopic composition. The 'old' carbon from
>> stored hydrocarbons are combiend with 'new' oxygen. This is
>> distinctive and cannot be confused with 'new carbon/new oxygen' from
>> burning plant matter.
>
> Today, more than ever, the Unites States produces a greater percentage
> of its electricity from coal.

Approximately 27% of all energy use.

> Every time you flip on a light switch,
> run an appliance, run you A/C or turn on a computer, think of that.

I do. However, the real problem is the disgraceful 'rustbucket America'
condition of these 50 year old plants with 30% thermal efficiency ensuring
that more CO2 is put in the atmosphere for every watt produced than are
necessary. The modern plants are up to 44% thermal efficiency and there are
plants that can get 42% burning *lignite* which is also known as 'flammable
dirt'.
http://www.entek.chalmers.se/~klon/msc/VGB-Power-Plant-Conference_Andersson_et_al_February_01_03.pdf

> You are among the guilty,

Not as long as I demand better.. Coal gassification with CO2 sequestration
is a short term research project with great potential.
http://www.ees.lanl.gov/pdfs/6_zeroemission_52.pdf

The person who could buy a prius but decides on a Ford Excursion just for
the image is guilty ( of being an *** ) but those who make fairly
responsible choices are not guilty if they use power. The problem cannot be
blamed on the public, but on those who make business decisions that create
or aggravate the problem.

This 'accusation' is part and parcel of the rightwing spin campaign to
associate reduced CO2 with 'back to the caves' by implying that
environmentalists should 'stick to principle'. However, there is no
principle in environmentalism that says you cannot pollute. Only that you
must balance it against the costs properly. As a disinformation technique,
it is pathetic but somewhat effective on the terminally stupid.

> if you condemn the emission of CO2. Look in
> the mirror. You can blame the environmentalists and the politicians
> for the fact that only about 20% of the electricity we use in the US
> comes from nuclear power.

Actually, you can blame the financial sector which chose the last great
expansion of nuclear to come at a time of uncertain design and double digit
interest rates. Or maybe the huge expansion of demand for capital to build
nuclear created the high interest rates as more and more investment was
sucked up in grand projects? Let us not be simplistic here.

<sniop>
> Check your monthly electric bill. I venture than more than half of you
> use twice the electricity as I do in my house.

My living quarters are desperately spartan. My transportation is by public
transit. Not much in the way of waste in my life. However, do go on about
yourself. It is becoming clear that this is all about you.

> My electric consumption
> monthly averages about 500 KWH. Many of my peers use twice that much.
> How much do you use?

You'll have to ask my landlady. I moved here to be within walking distance
to work ( just before my employer decided to move into the outskirts as they
had a buyer for the building and needed money for a business acquisition. I
am just a plaything of the job market...

I expect that the biggest item is hot water for showers ( low flow nozzle).
The fluroescent bulb lights don't take much in comparison. I'd build a solar
heater but I have to have permission to modify the apartment.. and being on
the North facing side I really have doubts about the feasibility.... ;-)

>
> Angelo Campanella

Quantcast