I hate to do this, and I know that generally any sort of discussion on his reviews and essays goes on the other side (or Ornery really), but I wanted to reach the widest audience, and worried that people might read his review and think, well, that he was right.
Let's run down the essay:
quote:That means that by 2012, it will be illegal to offer for sale in the United States any incandescent light bulbs -- except perhaps a new generation of "high-efficiency" incandescents. Can't wait to see those.
First off, that's not precisely true. The measure will START in January of 2012. Starting in January 100 watt lightbulbs must use 30% less energy than current bulbs get. By January 2014, it'll end with 40 watt lightbulbs. By 2020, 40-100 watt bulbs will have to be 70% more efficient. It might only be a matter of two years, but still, they're called facts. I'll cover HEIs, or high efficiency incandescents later.
quote:Naturally, the fanatical puritans of the Religion of Environmentalism are complaining that this new law doesn't go far enough in requiring the immediate adoption of efficient lighting methods
Okay, more opinion than reality check but, where has he heard that? The average American hasn't even heard about this measure, and none of the environmentalist community that I hang out in has negative things to say. They're all extremely impressed. This new national measure even blows away what California had on the books, and that's where the majority of my ecofreek radical friends live.
quote:Here's the fact: This is a traditional example of caring more about some ridiculous and unnecessary tenet of the environmental religion than about the actual health and safety of living human beings.
If you really believe that electricity-generating power plants are going to destroy the world because of their greenhouse-gas emissions, when replace them all with nuclear power plants and have done with it.
So let me get this straight. The complaint is that a CFL poses a huge health risk to people and shouldn't be used, because the better, safer option is NUCLEAR power? Nuclear power isn't completely safe, if there's an accident it certainly isn't healthy, and by the time we got the next generation of nuclear plants actually up and running, we could've gotten the same amount of power from renewables, which actually are totally clean and safe. By the way, each CFL has 5 miligrams of mercury in it. It would take 100 CFLs to equal the same amount of mercury in your average household thermometers. Where's his call to ban thermometers for their huge health risks to Americans? That 5 miligrams by the way is as of the middle of 2007, a number which is expected to drop even more in the next six months as more advances are made in the technology.
His problem is I guess with one of the infamous three R's. Reduce, reuse and recycle. His solution seems to be for Americans to maintain their wasteful lifestyles with no considerations for reducing their energy use. Like those who want to drill our way to oil independence (which will never happen), he wants to use vastly more energy. Lighting efficiency is just one of many prongs of a more integrated effort to reduce our total use of energy. And it's not just about using less power and therefore emitting less gas, it's also about saving consumers billions and billions of dollars. It's about lower cooling bills in the summer and lower energy bills year round. Just pumping out more energy doesn't solve the problem, it staves it off, messily.
quote:The problem is that the replacement bulbs are not good.
We all heard a few years ago about exploding halogen bulbs that can start fires. So we removed all halogens from our house.
Now they want us all to buy Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). But these bulbs all contain mercury. Safety regulations forbid us to throw them away with our regular garbage because they're toxic.
They aren't good based on his fallacious descriptions of them, which I'll cover. God forbid by the way that we recycle more. The DOE is stepping up efforts to work with bulb makers to make recycling efforts easier. In November it was announced that a packaging maker was approved by the USPS for a package that could hold a CFL in it safely for postal transport. The DOE is working with CFL makers to make it so those packages will be included with every bulb sold, but plenty of businesses like Ikea will take any bulb you have and recycle it for you. HP and other companies include packaging so you can recycle printer ribbons and cartridges when they are empty, we can't do that for bulbs? Ever throw a computer away? There's toxic materials in there too, to say nothing of the precious metals you're tossing.
quote:If you drop one of these bulbs and break it, you're supposed to evacuate your house immediately and stay out for fifteen minutes, until the mercury vapors dissipate!
Untrue. The DOE's energy star website says to open a window if you can and leave the room for about 15 minutes, not evacuate your house. That's melodramatic and an attempt to smear something you don't seem to understand. There are clear instructions for how to clean them up afterwards. Personally I can't ever even remember breaking a bulb, but if I did, and it was a CFL, I wouldn't worry. It's not going to change your life, and it isn't going to kill you.
quote:Also, like all fluorescents, CFLs flicker. (All light bulbs using AC power flicker at a very rapid rate, but CFLs make it far more noticeable.) It has been shown that fluorescents, including CFLs, can significantly increase migraine headaches in people who are prone to having them, and can negatively affect epileptics.
New CFLs do not flicker in the way you describe. Those are older CFLs that use magnetic ballasts for cycling, whereas new CFLs use electronic ballasts and cycle much faster, and by some reports even faster than incandescents.
The Migraine Action Association itself has said that they have no knowledge of a scientific connection between CFLs and migraine sufferers. There've been a couple hundred news stories in the past couple weeks as this measure gets more publicity, but the MAA says that all evidence thus far is purely anecdotal. Likewise, older CFLs used to emit a high pitched whine, but no longer emit any noise.
quote:Before I knew about these dangers, I tried CFLs. The first round failed miserably because the first CFLs were too big. Their stems fit in the sockets of lamps, all right, but the bulb itself wouldn't fit inside the light fixture! Not ceiling fixtures, not lamps with standard-size harps to hold up the shade.
Worse yet, CFLs don't play well with dimmer switches or three-step switches. Forget that bedside lamp that can switch between gentle light and bright reading light!
Newer CFLs come in all shapes, sizes, intensities and colors. They come in many different forms, and fit most all sockets and fixtures. Better yet, they play well with dimmer and three-step switches, as newer CFLs are dimmable. But hey! Even if they aren't the new legislation doesn't include dimmer and three step switches, they are exempt, as are bulbs of less than 30 watts, special appliance bulbs, 150watt+ bulbs, and a lot of other specialty bulbs.
quote:What's especially galling is that since global warming is almost certainly not caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human activities (global temperature fluctuations have no relation to CO2 emissions, as a demonstrable, historical fact), the supposed benefit of this mandated light bulb change is trivial or nonexistent, while the increase in hazards is not insignificant.
Someone is going to die or suffer serious, permanent health damage because of this change -- nobody's going to die because of human-induced global warming.
I'll touch on this lightly, because I don't want this to devolve into a global warming debate, but, you're missing the point Mr. Card. The idea is in part to reduce our total energy use for the sake of efficiency, to use less energy, not just for the sake of emissions or to have anything to do with global warming. In the 70's and 80's during the oil crunch, we first created Energy star products, first instituted CAFE standards, and a lot of other efficiency regulations. That's part of the reason why skyrocketing oil and energy prices today aren't having quite the same bite that they had back then. Imagine how bad it'd be today if we hadn't done what we did back then. The other issue is money. Reducing our total energy use saves consumers money. It's that simple.
As for deaths, no one is going to die because they broke a bulb. The major, biggest concern is pregnant women and extremely young children, as mercury emissions would have undue effects on their neurological development. However, coal emissions give off more mercury for the power they provide for incandescents than CFLs do per bulb. You're already breathing it in if you live anywhere near a coal fired plant. I guess that brings you back to nuclear power, but nuclear power for the whole country would take decades, this is a solution in the next six years or seven years that means a major reduction of energy use, and a reduction of mercury emissions.
I said I'd bring up those HEI bulbs again, and here's the skinny. GE (those bulbs that Mr. Card prefers) has invented a high efficiency incandescent light bulb. They plan on bringing it to the mass market by 2010, and it'll meet or beat the efficiency standards of a CFL. So, even if you don't like CFLs, and you think that all the problems with a CFL are too big to overcome and that they will ruin the world, well, there's an alternative that'll be on the market before the restrictions come into play in 2012. They were designed to focus on 40 to 100 watt bulbs for the EU's increased standards. 40 to 100 is exactly the area they need to cover here, and I guess they'll have a bigger home market than they were planning on. Besides, GE, sorry to say, has already cut workers at their incandescent factories to focus on CFLs and HEIs, so either way your incandescents of the past are going, well, to stay in the past.
The other thing to discuss is LEDs. LEDs are already viable for office buildings, meeting centers, and other commercal applications. They aren't quite up to snuff yet for home use, though they make improvements on a daily basis. A lot of people in the energy efficiency community are talking about them as if they will be ready to sell by 2012 or 2015, but there are other bulbs that are being discussed too that are in the offing, including a recent British invention that is being boasted as a light source that will outlast any fixture you put it in, and a new cold cathode light that's basically an advanced CFL. Will LEDs be ready by 2012? It's debateable. I don't think so personally, but I do think you'll be able to buy some sort of acceptable LED by 2015 or so, but it'll be expensive, though the savings will make it totally worth it over the life of the bulb, both in monthly energy bill savings and in longevity.
In summary? Mr. Card is being extremely alarmist. Are there potential concerns? Yes, a few, but there are also alternatives to CFLs, and even if there weren't, CFLs aren't an eco-terrorist attack on your house, so take a deep breath, and please stop writing disinformation to your readers.
Sincerely,
An Environmental Wacko Fanatical Puritan of the Religion of Environmentalism
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I hate to admit it, but I agree with you.
Although I am totally against banning incandescent bulbs. What are we supposed to do with all our easy bake ovens and lava lamps?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, Card's is a better essay than this chucklehead's. Damning with faint praise, but still. Longman makes a strong argument that mandating CFLs will generate more CO2, except he forgot to account for summer. Details, details.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a side note, I find it curious how many things that OSC disagrees with that he has compared to religion.
Doing a quick Google search confined to Orney, I've got slams against the religion of "money spent on science", the religion of "political correctness", the religion of "global warming", the religion that "Bush's presidency has been a disaster", the religion of the "extreme left establishment" (i.e. academia and the liberal tendencies), the religion that the US is losing the Iraq war (the religion of "smart people"), and a whole lot of slams including this one on the religion of "environmentalism."
If I had not read OSC's columns on Christianity, I would start to think that OSC has a real problem with religion. Since I have, I can only surmise that he cannot conceive (or does not like to) of people disagreeing with him unless they have been indoctrinated into a religion (i.e. indoctrinated rather than convinced by alternative reasoning or evidence). As if religion is so central to his life and way of reasoning that he believes that other people must reason in the same way.
Or in other words, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I agree with you, but for the record: I am for nuclear power. I think that there is a stigma against it, but it is a useful resource.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: However, coal emissions give off more mercury for the power they provide for incandescents than CFLs do per bulb. You're already breathing it in if you live anywhere near a coal fired plant. I guess that brings you back to nuclear power, but nuclear power for the whole country would take decades, this is a solution in the next six years or seven years that means a major reduction of energy use, and a reduction of mercury emissions.
Yes, and coal-fired plants also emit more radioactivity (via isotopes) per kilowatt than nuclear plants do (barring accidents).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:So let me get this straight. The complaint is that a CFL poses a huge health risk to people and shouldn't be used, because the better, safer option is NUCLEAR power? Nuclear power isn't completely safe, if there's an accident it certainly isn't healthy, and by the time we got the next generation of nuclear plants actually up and running, we could've gotten the same amount of power from renewables, which actually are totally clean and safe.
.
Emphasis mine.
You're correct. Nuclear power isn't completely safe. But the data suggests that nuclear power is much safer than our current arrangement.
Do you remember how many people died from Three Mile Island? Exactly zero.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't have a problem with a small number of nuclear power plants, especially in the interim until renewables take over the bulk of our energy producting needs. But he's talking about nuclear power like it's a quick fix, and it isn't. But even if that were the case, it misses the point entirely. This is about efficiency and reducing our overall usage of energy, not about why we should explode our production of it. If I have to I'll push the argument to national defense and a variety of other sectors, because I can, and I'm right, but I won't because that's not the thrust of what I'm going for here.
I don't see the point in a massive new push for nuclear power when wind and solar, to say nothing of geothermal and wave/tidal power are cresting. Major breakthrough announcements are coming on a seemingly daily basis now, we added a few gigawatts of wind power last year, that's like adding a couple of nuclear power plants, and solar is headed for a multigigawatt breakthrough in the southwest. If we can push HVDC T&D lines across the country, we'll all be getting cheap solar power from Nevada and California in 30 years, not risky nuclear, and certainly not deadly coal.
But like I said, I've no problem with some nuclear (maybe 25-35% of our national total) in the short term until we totally phase out coal and phase in renewables, it's just not our long term solution. This just isn't about that, it's about reducing, not increasing, the amount of energy we need to begin with. He seems to totally be missing the point on what the treehugging wackos are even after to begin with if that's his point. And he's certainly missing the point of why Congress enacted the legislation, why Bush signed it, and why even the major power suppliers (or bulb makers) aren't complaining.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
What is the point Lyrhawn?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Good post, Lyrhawn. I was definitely curious about Card's complaints, because I hadn't heard about the legislation until his article.
quote:The idea is in part to reduce our total energy use for the sake of efficiency, to use less energy, not just for the sake of emissions or to have anything to do with global warming
I think he would agree that this is a good idea, and has supported increased energy efficiency in the past. Whether he believes it's true or not--I don't know.
quote: I can only surmise that he cannot conceive (or does not like to) of people disagreeing with him unless they have been indoctrinated into a religion (i.e. indoctrinated rather than convinced by alternative reasoning or evidence). As if religion is so central to his life and way of reasoning that he believes that other people must reason in the same way.
I think he does have a problem with strict/blind religious thinking. On the contrary, he seems to have a very scientific mind, beginning as a skeptic instead of a true-believer. I think the article isn't against people who want to increase energy efficiency, it's against non-thinking true-believers that want to push their agenda without consideration. I'm not saying that's what the legistlators were, but that's where his article seems aimed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Whereas I suspect most renewables will be, in the long term, a fairly small amount of our energy supply, and small fission plants that cannot have a meltdown plus large fusion plants will be how we provide our increasingly growing power needs, going into the future.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:If you drop one of these bulbs and break it, you're supposed to evacuate your house immediately and stay out for fifteen minutes, until the mercury vapors dissipate!
In the four or five or more years my family has been using these bulbs, we have no broken a single one. They are spiral and thus pretty hard to break. How often does one go around randomly breaking bulbs? Not often.
In the same time period, we have broken two mercury themometres because long skinny glass things are much more prone to breaking. (Let me just say that I definitely have inhaled mercury in my time, not knowing that it behaves via inhalation.)
Anyway, the point is, unless you're planning on stomping on bulbs (which I guess considering this article is a real consideration) the risk is far more negligible than, say, your furnace that may emit carbon monoxide, or an old faulty microwave, a house lit by candles, or the mould in the ceiling of your garage.
Also: The thing that I object to with nuclear power is the waste. Sure, they have less waste than coal plants, but the waste goes on and on and on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Whereas I suspect most renewables will be, in the long term, a fairly small amount of our energy supply, and small fission plants that cannot have a meltdown plus large fusion plants will be how we provide our increasingly growing power needs, going into the future.
Agreed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:by the time we got the next generation of nuclear plants actually up and running, we could've gotten the same amount of power from renewables, which actually are totally clean and safe.
Where are you getting this information from?
quote:I don't have a problem with a small number of nuclear power plants, especially in the interim until renewables take over the bulk of our energy producting needs.
What are these renewables that you think will solve our energy problems? I don't know of any renewable source that can come close to taking over the bulk of our energy production needs.
Personally, I agree with OSC about the nuclear plants. America needs to get over its hang-up with nuclear power and largely switch over to fission plants.
quote:In the four or five or more years my family has been using these bulbs, we have no broken a single one. They are spiral and thus pretty hard to break. How often does one go around randomly breaking bulbs? Not often.
We have broken quite a few in our home.
quote:By the way, each CFL has 5 miligrams of mercury in it. It would take 100 CFLs to equal the same amount of mercury in your average household thermometers. Where's his call to ban thermometers for their huge health risks to Americans?
They have already been largely banned. The average household thermometer has no mercury. They use alcohol instead. I haven't seen a household mercury thermometer in over a decade. I've never had a mercury thermometer in my home, even when I was a child.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:We have broken quite a few in our home.
But m_p_h, you're already using them. Clearly you view the risk to be negligible. I'm only saying that the dangers of breaking bulbs (and I'm surprised you've broken so many between taking them out of the box and screwing them into the lamp, but I don't doubt you) are in reality very small. People aren't stomping on them, crushing them with their fists, throwing them against the wall. It's out of the box > screwed in.
You're more likely to have to evacuate the kitchen and open the windows for burning something in the oven than from breaking a lightbulb.
[ January 27, 2008, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:large fusion plants
Really? I'd be less skeptical if anyone had actually produced a self-sustaining fusion reaction.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*chuckles*
I think our esteemed host and author must get a kick out of stirring the pot and seeing what froth results . . .
****************
I've broken plenty of the old lightbulbs but never one of the new twisty kind . . . although I like that they last longer . . . I grew up with the old fashioned thermometers, which I trust more than the new ones -- they don't have a warning beep or light to let you know if the battery is failing . . . oh well, back to wrist on forehead days. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Whereas I suspect most renewables will be, in the long term, a fairly small amount of our energy supply, and small fission plants that cannot have a meltdown plus large fusion plants will be how we provide our increasingly growing power needs, going into the future.
Debateable. Fusion is still a dream technology at the moment.
We have enough renewable potential for all of our power needs, even with our growing demand, which I imagine will be tempered by increases in efficiency.
I won't go into a lengthy reply, but I think renewables COULD make up the bulk of our energy production needs cost effectively. It might take 20-30 years to really secure a good foothold, a lot depends on the amount spent on research and what we really put into making it a reality. Microgeneration is really starting to kick off in a lot of places, which will take a lot of people off the grid. That plus green building and retrofitting, and electric cars powered at night, will drastically reduce the amount of power that we need, allowing renewables to pick up a lot of the slack.
It all depends on what we choose to do, but the opportunity is there. It will take a multi-pronged, coordinated effort, but it's possible. And in the meantime, we can work on what to do with nuclear waste.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Renewables have much greater barriers to expansion, location, and efficiency than nuclear power does. Additionally, many of them, especially those that are less bound to particular locations, are unreliable to varying degrees, making them significantly less reasonable for the constant bulk of power required.
Fusion power is mostly viewed as an engineering, rather than theoretical, challenge by those working on it. The limitations in achieving it have mostly been in how much investors have been willing to put into it rather than an inability of fusion power to be feasible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Glenn: nobody has really expected to produce a self-sustaining fusion reaction, yet. We've long known the plants had to be bigger, but smaller ones have been built in order to test our assumptions so that the really large one(s) don't get messed up.
This isn't to say that creating self-sustaining fusion reactions is going to be easy, but that not having achieved one yet is not significant evidence against it being feasible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: ... against non-thinking true-believers that want to push their agenda without consideration. I'm not saying that's what the legistlators were, but that's where his article seems aimed.
See, if this were the first time that he has used the word "religion" as an insult or a label, I would tend to agree with you*
* (although I would still find it a bit off-putting in the "I'm not calling these guys n***ers. I calling those guys in the ghettos n***ers" sense)
What I find curious is the *frequency* with which he uses the label as I demonstrated before. At what point does it start to stretch plausibility that so many people can disagree with you on so many different topics purely due to "religious-thinking" rather than rational reasons of their own?
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... I've never had a mercury thermometer in my home, even when I was a child.
I have a couple Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But m_p_h, you're already using them. Clearly you view the risk to be negligible
I also don't wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle.
quote:You're more likely to have to evacuate the kitchen and open the windows for burning something in the oven than from breaking a lightbulb.
We burn stuff all the time, but the only time I've ever had to evacuate the kitchen for my safety was when I mixed ammonia and bleach together.
quote:We have enough renewable potential for all of our power needs, even with our growing demand, which I imagine will be tempered by increases in efficiency.
I repeat, where are you getting this information from? What renewable sources do you think could provide all of our power needs?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I repeat, where are you getting this information from? What renewable sources do you think could provide all of our power needs?
Mph: This question seems strange in light of the Lyrhawn's green energy new center thread. Lyrhawn has provided hundreds of links documenting progress in renewable energy. That's progress, not just potential.
quote:This isn't to say that creating self-sustaining fusion reactions is going to be easy, but that not having achieved one yet is not significant evidence against it being feasible.
Not having created a self-sustaining fusion reaction in reactors that were never supposed to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction, but merely be research reactors, is not a count against the feasibility of a self-sustaining fusion reaction.
Also, by long term I meant sometime in the next one hundred years or so. Prior to that, I expect fission power will gradually increase in importance, particularly small, small city- to neighborhood-scale meltdown-proof reactors.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Yeah, that article bugged me when I read it. I think you almost hit it point for point. I do think we could use more nuclear power, though.
Generally speaking, I think we need to hit this energy problem both ways: reducing consumption AND finding better production alternatives.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It's not a count against it, perhaps, but it's not a count for it either. I've worked on too many processes where the theorists keep saying it will work, or it will be economical when we scale it up, only to find that in actual practice, it isn't, and it doesn't.
The burden of proof lies with those claiming it will work, and until it does, it's still just theory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
mph -
Solar alone, or geothermal alone, could supply enough power for the entire United States, if we built the stations and arrays to harness it. What's more likely I think is combination of many different forms of renewables, combined with a more advanced transmission and distribution array, and an increase in efficiency (reducing our total need) along with an increase in microgeneration. It's already started. Major corporations are installing green roofs and solar and wind arrays to power their factories or office buildings individually, taking them partially or entirely off the grid.
Like Glenn said, swing by the Green Energy News Thread sometime and read up.
Unless fugu gets more specific, it's hard to refute him, but, with those generalities, I'd have to politely disagree with him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Solar alone, or geothermal alone, could supply enough power for the entire United States, if we built the stations and arrays to harness it.
Do you have any sources for that claim? From what I've read, solar and geothermal combined could only supply a fraction of our energy needs.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I encourage you to look at some of the myths listed on that page, especially number 2.
Re: ability to use, there are reasons renewables are treated as purely extra in many power companies' plans. Most renewables are unreliable. The few that aren't (notably geothermal and hydroelectric) are highly location-specific. Also, while many renewable power sources are theoretically capable of providing the nation's energy, even at vastly improved efficiencies, they would still be less cost effective than nuclear power.
Also, renewables will tend to hit a substantial cost barrier after being substantially employed. Even if at some time they provide a significant percentage of energy, expansion will prove difficult, and more readily expanded sources (like fission) will come to the fore.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We'll see. Myth two is because solar is a starter industry. They're just starting to ramp up the building of the factories that make the parts that make solar a reality in the big time.
I assume by reliability you're talking about consistancy in power generation. That's being worked out as we speak. Test facilities are being built in Kansas and Texas to try out new compressed air approaches, by using the energy from renewables to compress air and then release it as needed to drive turbines. They think the efficiency rate can be high enough to make it work and make two inconsistent renewables into constant suppliers of energy. It's in the works.
A lot of solar is ready to go now, though advances are being made on literally a daily basis which drops the cost and increases efficiency. Wind too is headed for efficiency upgrades as GE and other turbine makers integrate mag-lev technology into the designs.
How much does nuclear cost per kilowatt? Coal is the cheapest form of energy as far as I know in the US right now, and I've seen a lot of talk about solar beating coal in the next 10 years, mostly with nanofilm solar sheets.
We'll see though. Solar is just getting started.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: It's not a count against it, perhaps, but it's not a count for it either. I've worked on too many processes where the theorists keep saying it will work, or it will be economical when we scale it up, only to find that in actual practice, it isn't, and it doesn't.
I'm not aware of any serious physical scientific barriers hampering the progress of fusion research. There is definitely a lack of knowledge but that will be overcome eventually. The reason it's been taking a lot longer than initially predicted is because of funding (and the years spent dicking around with ITER instead of just funding it ourselves).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I encourage you to look at some of the myths listed on that page, especially number 2.
I did. It doesn't dispute the point made, which was about potential capability.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I agree with most of what you have said, but in the interest of strictest accuracy I must take a small issue with
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Nuclear power isn't completely safe, if there's an accident it certainly isn't healthy, and by the time we got the next generation of nuclear plants actually up and running, we could've gotten the same amount of power from renewables, which actually are totally clean and safe.
largely because "renewables" is a very broad term. Biodiesel, for example, tends to be rated as significantly lower in emissions of CO2 and toxins, but that's not the same as saying it's emission free.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Doing a quick Google search confined to Orney, I've got slams against the religion of "money spent on science", the religion of "political correctness", the religion of "global warming", the religion that "Bush's presidency has been a disaster", the religion of the "extreme left establishment" (i.e. academia and the liberal tendencies), the religion that the US is losing the Iraq war (the religion of "smart people"), and a whole lot of slams including this one on the religion of "environmentalism."
It's a crude rhetorical smear because of the implications of the definition of 'religion' -- it's being used as a pejorative nasty. It's always a hilarious mistake when a person who is faithful towards any actual religion uses it, because by using the word that way they're implying that religions are blatantly false things which are preached by those who are full of crap and wish to overwhelm sensible thought. They need to think about what happens when they switch gears over to the true definition of religion without any hint of irony.
It's the overused tool of a dullard pundit which makes it weird that it's been featured in OSC's articles regularly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I found this essay surprisingly to the right until I realized it's a Rhino Times essay and not a World Watch article.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In the US, nuclear energy's cost per kilowatt hour, using vastly outdated technology, is slightly under the cost for coal: http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
This is, of course, before putting pollution into the accounting, which makes nuclear even more preferable to coal.
As for storing energy (in the form of compressed air) to later output it in order to generate energy during a lull in the wind, there is and will always be a huge amount of efficiency loss in doing that. Energy storage is extremely costly. Perhaps at some point that cost will be acceptable, but until I see figures, I remain skeptical. Contrasting, I can see modern fission technology examples in numerous places that generate more electricity more cheaply and more reliably using less space.
There has been talk of solar or wind beating coal in the next ten years for the last twenty or thirty years.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
There is no need to change anything if you purchase carbon credits, right? [/end snarky remarks]
We have started to switch because CFL's last longer. I don't know why but incandescent bulbs constantly go out around our house. I maybe go through 12-15 bulbs a month. We have been slowly replacing the bulbs in our house. It's just too expensive to replace all of them at once.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There has been talk of solar or wind beating coal in the next ten years for the last twenty or thirty years
Yeah, and in the last twenty or thirty years, the largest solar arrays built were in the 10MW range. Plants have been licensed in California for megawattage 50 times that, to say nothing of the fact that solar is being invested in right now in the billions, and research dollars are blowing away anything in the past.
But I think fugu, we'll have to agree to disagree for the next, oh, decade or so. I think you're wrong, and I also think that, short of writing a novel on the subject, I won't be able to convince you.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
brojack, that's what we do too-- as lights burn out we replace them with CFLs. I just scored CFLs for $0.25/each-- Ralph's had four-packs of GE CFLs, all kinds of wattages and a couple of sizes, on sale for $1/4-pack!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This just another example of why OSC should stop writing columns on science issues. As with climate change, he's taken a strong position opposing the experts in field in which he has no expertise.
Because of his stature as a writer, he has access to forums to voice his opinions that others don't have. There are people who listen to him because they read his books. Using these forums to voice opinions in areas where he has no expertise, is unethical.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What's especially galling is that since global warming is almost certainly not caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human activities (global temperature fluctuations have no relation to CO2 emissions, as a demonstrable, historical fact), the supposed benefit of this mandated light bulb change is trivial or nonexistent, while the increase in hazards is not insignificant.
Mr Card, Might I ask how you have concluded that global warming is "almost certainly not caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity"? This statement is in direct contradiction to the consensus of the scientific community. As a trained scientist who has done atmospheric research and who has been following the scientific progress in this area for over 20 years, I find your statements in this area statements in this area demonstrate woeful ignorance on the subject.
May I ask what expertise you have that anyone should trust your opinion over that of the IPCC? Because you are a noted author, there are people listen to you. If you lead these people astray with this kind of misinformation, you are miss using your voice. Before you spout off any more tripe on this subject, I suggest that you at least read the scientific literature on the subject and discuss the questions you have with people who have the proper scientific background to understand the issues.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Whats sad to me, Rabbit, is that OSC seems to think that he's actually a credible voice on matters scientific.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: brojack, that's what we do too-- as lights burn out we replace them with CFLs. I just scored CFLs for $0.25/each-- Ralph's had four-packs of GE CFLs, all kinds of wattages and a couple of sizes, on sale for $1/4-pack!
Wow! That's a great price. I can get a four pack here for $10. That's been my problem with energy efficient anything is it is almost cost prohibitive. I would love to put solar panels on my house but it's just too expensive. We did decide to bite the bullet and buy a pack of CFL's every time we go grocery shopping. $20/month we can do. I think I only have two or three more packs to get.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Using these forums to voice opinions in areas where he has no expertise, is unethical.
I disagree that it's unethical. I think it's perfectly ethical to voice uninformed opinions, and even to rely on your experience in another field to focus attention on those uninformed opinions. It would be unethical if he said, "based on my lifetime of scientific study, I think these new-fangled bulbs are worthless."
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This just another example of why OSC should stop writing columns on science issues. As with climate change, he's taken a strong position opposing the experts in field in which he has no expertise.
Because of his stature as a writer, he has access to forums to voice his opinions that others don't have. There are people who listen to him because they read his books. Using these forums to voice opinions in areas where he has no expertise, is unethical.
I'm not sold on the global warming issue either, and if I am mistaken, Al Gore is not a scientist in the field of global warming either? He seems to have taken a strong position.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We'll talk again in a decade. If solar is more efficient than coal (we'll leave size of 'plant' considerations aside), feel free to crow. Heck, I'll be happy. I just don't think it will happen (and efficiency includes the cost to put the 'plants' in place).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm not sold on the global warming issue either, and if I am mistaken, Al Gore is not a scientist in the field of global warming either? He seems to have taken a strong position.
Although Al Gore is not a scientist, the strong position he has taken is the position backed by the leading scientists in the area. It is one thing to act as voice for the position held by the experts even though you yourself are not an expert. Using your voice to oppose the experts when you lack even adequate knowledge to clearly understand the expert position is quite another.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tom -
I agree that it's not necessarily unethical, but I do think it's dishonest (which may or may not be unethical in itself). In the incandescent column he wrote blatent falsehoods that could easily have been checked, and used hyperbole and alarmism to try and drive his point home. It's the same scare tactics that Republicans have become so famous for recently, and I think it's wrong, regardless of ethics.
brojack -
Hard to compare the two. Al Gore has spent 30 years on the subject, reading the material, and talking with world leaders and scientists on a daily basis. I'm aware of no such experience from OSC.
fugu -
I've got the date set on my calendar Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Using these forums to voice opinions in areas where he has no expertise, is unethical.
I disagree that it's unethical. I think it's perfectly ethical to voice uninformed opinions, and even to rely on your experience in another field to focus attention on those uninformed opinions. It would be unethical if he said, "based on my lifetime of scientific study, I think these new-fangled bulbs are worthless."
He does the same thing with homosexuality. It's harmful because he's preaching to the choir. They already don't have accurate information on gay people enough as it is, or at least something from a broader perspective. That only leads to more prejudiced.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: brojack, that's what we do too-- as lights burn out we replace them with CFLs. I just scored CFLs for $0.25/each-- Ralph's had four-packs of GE CFLs, all kinds of wattages and a couple of sizes, on sale for $1/4-pack!
Wow! That's a great price. I can get a four pack here for $10. That's been my problem with energy efficient anything is it is almost cost prohibitive. I would love to put solar panels on my house but it's just too expensive. We did decide to bite the bullet and buy a pack of CFL's every time we go grocery shopping. $20/month we can do. I think I only have two or three more packs to get.
Isn't it? I think they may have MEANT to price it $10 but priced it $1, and their mistake (if it was one) sure worked out for us. Either that, or they really overstocked on them. In any case, we can get individual CFLs (brands vary, but always decent brands) at our dollar store for $1 each. More expensive than the 3 and 4 packs they have for $1 at the dollar store, but not so expensive I won't buy them!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm not sold on the global warming issue either, and if I am mistaken, Al Gore is not a scientist in the field of global warming either? He seems to have taken a strong position.
Although Al Gore is not a scientist, the strong position he has taken is the position backed by the leading scientists in the area. It is one thing to act as voice for the position held by the experts even though you yourself are not an expert. Using your voice to oppose the experts when you lack even adequate knowledge to clearly understand the expert position is quite another.
But Rabbit, Mr. Card on many occasions has questioned the very nature of how scientists gather and publish data. I've heard Mr. Card and others question specifically the motives that are invoked in the grant system. Scientists who know that if they fudge their data just alittle will get better grants then if they report strictly the truth. Corporations that hire scientists to "Find the data they are looking for."
Tobacco companies got scientists to stand before grand juries and claim the evidence that cigarette smoking caused ill health were inconclusive or even nonsense. It took a long time before these lies were completely exposed and generally accepted.
I believe that global warming is happening, but there ARE big environmental groups that pay for studies that support their studies and are ungenerous even hostile towards scientists that criticize global warming. Right now the ground is ripe for those who want to plant the seeds of fear right next to those who want to plant the seeds of knowledge. People that say people are going to die in the most convincing fashion will get money, those who urge us to be even just alittle cautious about over reacting to global warming are frowned on.
If you believe the system that has provided us with the concept of global warming is suspect, then you will of course be suspicious of certain ideas that system produces.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who is independent then, and then I wonder, where does he get the opposing information? I'm not supporting one side or the other. But generally whenever I see a report refuting the kind of thing you're talking about, by scientists who are actually in the right field to be making those criticisms, then following the money tree tends to lead to oil and coal companies at the roots. If it is your view that climate scientists who agree with global warming are generally on the take, so to speak, then who do you trust as a third party?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is independent then, and then I wonder, where does he get the opposing information? I'm not supporting one side or the other. But generally whenever I see a report refuting the kind of thing you're talking about, by scientists who are actually in the right field to be making those criticisms, then following the money tree tends to lead to oil and coal companies at the roots. If it is your view that climate scientists who agree with global warming are generally on the take, so to speak, then who do you trust as a third party?
Oh I found out some time ago that big corporations often fund global warming research, many of those CEOs sit on the boards of environmental groups. I don't think every scientists that criticizes global warming is in the pocket of big oil, or that every pro global warming scientist is just touting the party line. But I do feel like the sociological climate (no pun intended) right now favors the reports that accelerate our concern concerning global warming, and laugh off those who disagree.
I don't have a system that works in my head where scientists all publish their work without any regard for what import it will have on their salaries.
But when people bandy about the idea that scientists have learned to transcend their humanity and are unswayed by the almighty buck, I get pretty concerned.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I agree that it's not necessarily unethical, but I do think it's dishonest (which may or may not be unethical in itself).
I don't even think it's dishonest. I think he believes most of the ridiculous things that come out of his mouth.
Wait, I changed my mind. If he were saying things like this in a barbershop, I wouldn't mind uninformed opinion. Hell, I expect uninformed opinions in that situation.
But, as Rabbit mentioned, this is a platform that reaches quite a few people. Not doing his due diligence is intellectually dishonest, and doing it and lying about what he found is just plain old dishonest. Since most of his claims are easily debunked it pretty much has to be one those two.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't really care if the data is true or not. We should all think more about conservation and finding alternative means for energy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nuclear power plants ain't magical
quote:Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate. An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines. "Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour"..."It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power -- especially during the summer."
Under computer-modeled GlobalWarming scenarios, that SouthEast drought is expected to become (closer to) the new norm replacing the historical average of yearly precipitation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Good point aspectre, I'd totally forgotten that, and I remember there being a discussion about it in the Green Energy thread.
That'll only get worse as underground aquifers are exhausted and drought strickens several areas of the nation. We'll have to choose between water for irrigation, power generation, and drinking (to say nothing of recretion), in a lot of areas of the country in the future.
Maybe if we start building them on the coasts, in sets of two. One to make power, and the other to run the desalinization plant to make coolant for the other one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But Rabbit, Mr. Card on many occasions has questioned the very nature of how scientists gather and publish data. I've heard Mr. Card and others question specifically the motives that are invoked in the grant system. Scientists who know that if they fudge their data just alittle will get better grants then if they report strictly the truth."
When Mr. Card makes this kind of statement, he is guilty of baring false witness against his neighbor. I read his editorial on the Hockey stick controversy. If there is any area of science in which I truly qualify as a leading international expert,it is the statistical methods that lie at the base of the hockey stick controversy. Card's understood the real issues involved so poorly that his reduction of the situation became an absurd fantasy that bore no relationship to what actually happened.
quote:I believe that global warming is happening, but there ARE big environmental groups that pay for studies that support their studies and are ungenerous even hostile towards scientists that criticize global warming.
This statement is fallacious. I know hundreds of people involved in atmospheric science research. I do not know of a single one funded by an environmental activist group. I've spent most a fraction of my adult life writing research grants and looking for potential funding sources. I know who offers grants for climate change studies. I know of no private environmental groups that offer substantial research grants in the atmospheric sciences. I do know several scientists who are supported by oil, gas and coal conglomerates. In fact, all the scientists I know of who remain skeptical of the reality of man made climate change receive funding from either oil and gas companies or coal conglomerates.
This is my area of expertise. The accusations you and Card make regarding science, fudging research results and so forth are simply untrue.
quote:Corporations that hire scientists to "Find the data they are looking for.
This is the only part of what you said which is valid. In this case, the corporations that hire scientists to find the data they are looking for are oil and coal corporations who want people to doubt the validity of climate change science.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: For one thing, don't lump me and Mr. Card together as if we were both shouting the same message. Don't get me wrong, I love his books, and I think he is a wonderful person, having met him, but I am not in lock and step with him on this issue.
quote:When Mr. Card makes this kind of statement, he is guilty of baring false witness against his neighbor. I read his editorial on the Hockey stick controversy. If there is any area of science in which I truly qualify as a leading international expert,it is the statistical methods that lie at the base of the hockey stick controversy. In Card's lack of understanding of the real issues involved made his reduction of the situation absurd.
I can't say much on this issue, but I am not disinclined to believe you.
quote:This statement is fallacious. I know hundreds of people involved in atmospheric science research. I do not know of a single one funded by an environmental activist group.
Interesting. Typically where have you seen their funding come from?
quote: I've spent most a good fraction of my adult life writing research grants and looking for potential funding sources. I know of no private environmental groups that offer substantial research grants in the atmospheric sciences. I do know several scientists who are supported by oil, gas and coal conglomerates. In fact, all the scientists I know of who remain skeptical of the reality of man made climate change receive funding from either oil and gas companies or coal conglomerates.
OK so big oil and big coal fund environmental studies but not a single environmentally minded group has a dollar to spend on scientific research? Forgive me if it's a bit difficult to believe that, but again I am not saying you are wrong.
Look, I've met you too Rabbit, and you struck me as a very intelligent and friendly human being. I think you are justified in feeling confident in your position on this issue. I agree with you that global climate change is happening, human beings are probably a factor, and it is in our best interests to find alternate sources of energy that do not pollute as much as our current methods.
Maybe global warming is such a prevalent notion because it's overwhelmingly true, much like say the theory of evolution. The only thing I am cautious about is when an idea is popular, has alot of truth in it, and then people start overstating the truth in the effort to spread the message faster. The best example I could come up with are Mormon missionaries during the early era of the church. Many of them went about saying, "The end is nigh, the truth is restored, it's the latter days!" All of that is true, but too much emphasis was put on the end of the world, and you had many members believing that the Civil War was the start of a global war that would usher in immediately the second coming.
I am willing to differ to much of your expertise, but don't snidely tell me I am spreading lies just because I have questions. I understand that you have made MANY threads where you have explained your positions on this issue in detail. I've read some of them, and they are a large reason for why I went from a doubting Thomas to a reluctant believer. But nothing turns me off to an idea like saying only idiots question and stand in the way of my beliefs.
edit: I'm not saying you have explicitly said that last bit, but it's the vibe I am getting from you right now, I want to think I felt amiss.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:OK so big oil and big coal fund environmental studies but not a single environmentally minded group has a dollar to spend on scientific research? Forgive me if it's a bit difficult to believe that, but again I am not saying you are wrong.
She didn't say that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Interesting. Typically where have you seen their funding come from?
I have received funding for my atmospheric science studies from the US National Science Foundation, the US National Park System, and the Utah and Montana Departments of Environmental Quality. I have also unsuccessfully applied for grants from the EPA, NOAA and DOE.
In the peer reviewed scientific literature it is customary for researchers to list the sources of funding for the research in the Acknowledgements which follow the papers conclusions. If you want to know who is funding Climate Change research, just look at the recent papers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I am willing to differ to much of your expertise, but don't snidely tell me I am spreading lies just because I have questions. I understand that you have made MANY threads where you have explained your positions on this issue in detail. I've read some of them, and they are a large reason for why I went from a doubting Thomas to a reluctant believer. But nothing turns me off to an idea like saying only idiots question and stand in the way of my beliefs.
I'm sorry, I did not mean to accuse you of being an idiot or lying. The things Card has written about global warming hit a raw nerve with me for several reasons. In the past, I have largely refrained from addressing his comments because they made me so angry that I knew I could not engage in a civil discussion about them. I know that you are not Card and did not mean for my anger at him to spill over onto you.
In science, fudging your data to reach a desired conclusion is considered an extremely serious breach of professional ethics. I'm not sure if someone outside science can understand the seriousness of such an accusation. Making that kind of accusation without hard evidence to back it up is reckless and irresponsible. Claiming that this is common place in a major field of science, is highly offensive.
The best analogy I can come up with (and I know its not perfect) is to the law of chastity in the Mormon church. To much of the world, its no big deal if couples sleep together before they get married, but in the LDS church we consider it to be a serious sin. If someone claimed in print that you were lying when you claimed you and your wife never slept together before your marriage -- how offended would you be? If someone claimed that it was wide spread for couples who marry in the LDS temple to have slept together before they get married, that everybody knew about it and just looked the other way -- wouldn't you be angry.
That is exactly how I feel about the accusations Card has made about scientists. Please forgive me if my anger spills over on to those who are merely guilty of quote him on the subject.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:OK so big oil and big coal fund environmental studies but not a single environmentally minded group has a dollar to spend on scientific research? Forgive me if it's a bit difficult to believe that, but again I am not saying you are wrong.
She didn't say that.
You're right. I didn't say that not a single environmentally minded group has a dollar to spend on scientific research. I did say that I don't know or know of any scientists who receive any funding from environmental groups. I do know and know of many who get many from large corporations that profit from fossil fuels. To the best of my knowledge, environmental groups are not a significant source of funding for scientific research. They may spend a few dollars, but not enough to have an impact.
I don't see that as such a big mystery. Scientific research is expensive. Environmental groups just don't have the kind of money it takes to fund scientific research. Oil companies do.
In 2006, Exxon corporation had total revenues of $377.6 billion and profits of $39.6 billion. For comparison, the total budget for the Sierra club was $100 million (0.25% of Exxons profits), NRDCs budget was ~$69 million (0.17% of Exxons profits).
Environmental groups don't spend much money on scientific research because they don't have much money. Most if not all of what they spend on science is spent compiling reviews of current science and not doing original research.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:OK so big oil and big coal fund environmental studies but not a single environmentally minded group has a dollar to spend on scientific research?
I'd imagine that oil companies and such would have tons more money than environmental organizations. If people in this scientific field lack intellectual integrity, why would they slanting their results away from the much greater source of money?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Because its cool to fight the power?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Rabbit: I hear you sister. Thanks for your explanation on scientific funding.
I agree that it's a serious charge to accuse a scientist of fudging data, but do you agree that it still happens? I mean even in the LDS church, in spite of our emphasis on chastity, we have seen bishops and even stake presidents released and sometimes excommunicated for committing adultery with members of their congregation.
It's just the concept that somehow scientists as a general rule can be trusted to tell the truth. I'd like to believe that axiom, but I cannot identify what precisely makes a scientist more truthful then say you or me.
Using the LDS church again, the majority of the general authorities and church scholars have more then once been of a certain opinion, without going so far as to say their beliefs were doctrine. But today those ideas are different, for example evolution. There is a much large bloc of Mormons who accept evolution then there would have been even 50 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB,
quote:OK so big oil and big coal fund environmental studies but not a single environmentally minded group has a dollar to spend on scientific research?
I'd imagine that oil companies and such would have tons more money than environmental organizations. If people in this scientific field lack intellectual integrity, why would they slanting their results away from the much greater source of money?
You are of course assuming all oil/coal companies don't see the writing on the wall and know that one day we will depart form our dependancy on oil.
It's in their best interests to fund new research into cheaper more efficient energy. It is also good for them to fund environmental studies as it's good for their PR. Look at BP, their whole schtick is now, "BP: Beyond Petroleum."
edit: I was not assuming that scientists working with environmentalist money are all alarmist and scientists working for big oil are all conservative. I was saying that it is not entirely true that big oil only funds studies that suggest we stick to oil.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You are of course assuming all oil/coal companies don't see the writing on the wall and know that one day we will depart form our dependancy on oil.
I don't understand the thinking you used to assign me this assumption. Could you explain how this is relevant?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I agree that it's a serious charge to accuse a scientist of fudging data, but do you agree that it still happens? . . . .
It's just the concept that somehow scientists as a general rule can be trusted to tell the truth. I'd like to believe that axiom, but I cannot identify what precisely makes a scientist more truthful then say you or me.
Of course there are still scientists who fudge their data. The point is that science doesn't simply depend on the integrity of individual scientists. The scientific process is founded on skepticism. When one scientist publishes a study, other scientists are supposed view the results skeptically. They are supposed to try to find flaws in the work, to test the ideas and see if they can be reproduced or validated outside of the original work.
Bad ideas are put forward all the time in science. They usually aren't the result of fudging the data, more commonly they are due to insufficient data. But usually these bad ideas are rejected rather quickly as they are tested by other scientists. That's what happened to polywater and cold fusion. Sometimes a good idea, like plate tectonics, is put forward and is initially rejected by many scientists. But if subsequent studies continue to support the idea, it eventually becomes accepted.
This is indeed what has happened in the field of global climate change. Hundreds of scientists have been working on the problem for decades. Initially the idea was very controversial and there were many skeptics. Ideas have been put forth and have been questioned and tested by many different groups in every part of the world. Over the years, the evidence supporting the original greenhouse warming idea has mounted and the number of skeptics has dropped almost to zero.
The conclusions drawn by groups like the IPCC aren't dependent on any one piece of research. Every conclusion they've made is the result of many many different studies. If it were proven that any one of those studies was falsified, it would make no difference in the overall conclusions because every conclusion is supported by many studies.
You shouldn't trust any individual scientist, but you should trust the scientific process. You should trust that if an idea is valid, over time more and more evidence will mount supporting the idea. You should trust that if an idea is invalid, over time more and more questions about it validity will surface and eventually it will be rejected.
Essentially Card's point isn't just an accusation that some scientists are dishonest. Its an accusation that the entire international scientific establishment is corrupt. That hundreds of scientists around the world are for some reason colluding falsify research in order to dupe the public.
That is a very serious accusation. One that is very offensive and that should not be made lightly and without strong evidence to back the claim.
To those of us who work are scientific researchers, the idea that scientists could pull of such a broad reaching conspiracy is laughable. Its just so contrary to scientific culture.
It reminds me of the time my dental hygienist told me she'd heard that in the LDS temple marriage ceremonies, the couple consummated their marriage in front of all the wedding guests (true story). You don't have to go to a temple ceremony to know how improbable that story is. Its just so contrary to Mormon culture that no one who has associated much with Mormons could ever believe it was true without believing that Mormons are both the biggest hypocrites and best actors on the planet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: That all makes sense, incidentally I too have heard the rumor that Mormons consummate their marriages in front of the officiators and their families in the sealing rooms. It would certainly explain Mormon reluctance to discuss the particulars of the temple.
In your experience, judging by precedent, how long could you see a correct idea being disbelieved by the scientific community, and vice versa how long could you see a false idea managing to get real dialog before it's generally thrown out?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:You are of course assuming all oil/coal companies don't see the writing on the wall and know that one day we will depart form our dependancy on oil.
I don't understand the thinking you used to assign me this assumption. Could you explain how this is relevant?
You asked why scientists would fudge data that makes big oil look bad when doing so would decrease the funding these scientists get.
I think I misunderstood the point you were making hence my edit at the bottom of my post.
If neither of these statement make sense, could you please state what you are getting at?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think Squicky's point is that the outward actions of oil companies are not inconsistent with seeing the writing on the wall. Perhaps they are researching ways to make money after the collapse. Or perhaps they have concluded they cannot make money after the collapse and must live for today. Either way, they still stand to make the most money today by encouraging consumption of oil to remain as it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I think Squicky's point is that the outward actions of oil companies are not inconsistent with seeing the writing on the wall. Perhaps they are researching ways to make money after the collapse. Or perhaps they have concluded they cannot make money after the collapse and must live for today. Either way, they still stand to make the most money today by encouraging consumption of oil to remain as it is.
My point WAS that I do think oil companies can read the writing on the wall and it's in their best interests overall to fund environmental research.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My point WAS that I do think oil companies can read the writing on the wall and it's in their best interests overall to fund environmental research.
Couldn't one just as reasonably argue that it's in their best interests to postpone a big change from fossil fuel consumption for as long as possible, keeping themselves firmly at the top of the energy heap?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hard to say. If you look at a lot of where their dollars are going, it IS into renewable research. I haven't really taken a good look at it, but I know that BP especially is spending a lot of money on solar and wind.
After awhile it comes down to whether the money is better spent on renewables or on the huge costs of finding oil in more and more remote locations.
Others are looking to turn Colorado into a giant oil field by making shale oil into a realistic fuel source, and from what I've heard, some of the newer processes might actually work so long as oil stays above $70 a barrel. But even so, the profit margin at that rate is much smaller than what they are used to now. Though the price of oil could easily skyrocket to $200 a barrel in the next few years, at which point what I just said is gibberish.
The smart oil companies are going to go the way of the smart automakers. Imagine the fight right now between petroleum and renewables as the fight between the Big 3 in America and Totoya and Honda. The Big 3 refused to buy into the new reality and lost thousands of jobs, and recently have bled red ink for a couple years. I think a few at least of the oil companies are seeing which way the wind is blowing and they are plunging their record profits into the next generation while they can. Some aren't, and in fact research dollars are way below where they were in the 70's and 80's, adjusted for inflation.
I can't remember off the top of my head which is which as far as who is investing and who isn't, but they don't all act as one. The argument I've seen from a few lobbyists in the oil industry is actually that companies like Exxon and BP aren't merely oil companies, they are ENERGY companies, and as things change, it will be in their best interests to change with them, and they have no special attraction to oil. I think that's full of a lot of crap, but, there is a kernel of truth to it. Energy providers like PG&E a couple years ago were known as major polluters, and now PG&E is becoming an industry leader in renewables, with everything from wind to solar to tidal and wave power.
I do however agree with the basics of what Rakeesh is saying, I think it's in their best interests to suck as much money as they possibly can from high oil prices before switching over to whatever the next generation of energy is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:After awhile it comes down to whether the money is better spent on renewables or on the huge costs of finding oil in more and more remote locations.
Strictly from a profitability standpoint, you're posing an incomplete question here. Finding oil isn't cheap, but nor is buying it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I meant on the profit margin between finding, producing and then selling, and the profit margin potential in renewables. If finding and extracting becomes so expensive that the rising price of oil can't keep up, and renewables become more profitable, they'll switch over in greater numbers.
Until then, you can bet many of them are hedging their bets.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)