tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post2144251244105871..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Visualizing Last Year's Emissions of Carbon DioxideDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-25189900278719918052012-06-05T08:55:34.410-07:002012-06-05T08:55:34.410-07:00I concede nat gas and nuclear is a much better pow...I concede nat gas and nuclear is a much better power source than coal, unless the non-co2 pollutants in the study can be removed cheaply.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73385430866301285542012-06-05T08:52:52.498-07:002012-06-05T08:52:52.498-07:00Whats the GED/VA for nuclear? Must be too low to ...Whats the GED/VA for nuclear? Must be too low to be of any interest?charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-45258826610343705922012-06-05T08:51:48.077-07:002012-06-05T08:51:48.077-07:00So looking at table 2
GED/VA GED
Sewage treatment...So looking at table 2<br /><br />GED/VA GED<br />Sewage treatment facilities<br /> 4.69 2.1<br />Coal-fired electric power generation 2.20 53.4<br /><br />So if one adjusts the numbers to take out the subjective life value assumption ($50k vs $265k).<br /><br />Sewage 4.69/5 = 1<br />Coal PP 2.20/5 = .44<br />Nat Gas PP ???/5 = ?.?? (Probably pretty good)<br /><br />What on earth emits from sewage plants that is so bad.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-36197578836000330882012-06-05T08:39:58.339-07:002012-06-05T08:39:58.339-07:00"Anyway, please comment again after you'v..."Anyway, please comment again after you've read it."<br /><br />Ok, after the first quick read a few comments/questions.<br /><br />1) I will consider only non-co2 pollution.<br /><br />2) I thing this is just the kind of analysis that needs to be done to drive environmental regulation.<br /><br />3) "For example, with a VSL of $6 million<br />(USEPA 1999) and a discount rate of 3 percent, for an average 35-year-old male<br />worker, R is approximately $265,000 ($/life-year)."<br /><br />This is the value used for a life-year on the damages side. On the benefits side simple economics values are used. I think this methodology strongly biases the study. A person certainly doesn't contribute a net economic value to the economy of $265k per year. A more reasonable value production minus comsumption. Certainly far less than $50,000/yr.<br /><br />Seems to me a better way to look at it would be to ask what money would be saved by reduced pollution. If I cut sulfur by 50% what would it cost compared to what would be the expected change in healthcare costs (e.g. medicaid, medicare etc). This avoids discussion of life value altogether.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-69959637123612549282012-06-04T12:25:16.915-07:002012-06-04T12:25:16.915-07:00Charles: So you rejected the paper's conclusio...Charles: So you rejected the paper's conclusions without really reading it. Nice.<br /><br />Anyway, please comment again after you've read it.<br /><br />Remember: Muller et al find that coal-produced power creates more damage than value based only on air pollution -- that is, *before* considering CO2, water pollution, etc.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-38729064055359532582012-06-04T11:09:52.517-07:002012-06-04T11:09:52.517-07:00Charles: On which page of the Muller paper do they...Charles: On which page of the Muller paper do they assume a value for climate sensitivity? (Or, as you write, several of them: "high climate sensitivity scenarios"?)<br /><br />Keep in mind that to me anything over 1 is high. Give me a few days to read the paper and try and understand it.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14363129638275242422012-06-04T10:48:09.073-07:002012-06-04T10:48:09.073-07:00Charles: On which page of the Muller paper do they...Charles: On which page of the Muller paper do they assume a value for climate sensitivity? (Or, as you write, several of them: "high climate sensitivity scenarios"?)David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-13330997569009508192012-06-04T10:30:11.070-07:002012-06-04T10:30:11.070-07:00Dano,
"Charles, you can't flap your hand...Dano,<br /><br />"Charles, you can't flap your hands and make your ludicrous CO2 assertions go away. You can try, but it ain't workin'. "<br /><br />Well it seems I've convinced Europe, China, USA, ...... to put the wind/solar boondoggle on the back burner. Pretty proud of myself, thank you very much.<br /><br />I've also convinced China to prioritize nuclear over wind/solar and invest in LFTR. Man I'm good!<br /><br />How is it going there in Boulder? Are you guys on 100% wind/solar yet? How about your house? Are you still on the grid? Do you still own a gasoline fueled car?<br /><br />Here across the Rockies in Orem Utah I'm still watching solar prices (my neighbors won't allow a wind turbine). I'm also hoping to see an electric "city car" to be my next auto purchase. I like this one. <br /><br />http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/press-T27-performance.php<br /><br />I'm hoping someone puts it into production and makes it available in the US.<br /><br />Cheers!charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-28946311503991009752012-06-04T10:19:28.236-07:002012-06-04T10:19:28.236-07:00"Have you even read the paper?"
I admit..."Have you even read the paper?"<br /><br />I admit I started to until I saw they were including co2 high climate sensitivity scenarios and I decided whats the use.<br /><br />I'll look at it again since you say they break out non co2 pollution.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-3935171001521483002012-06-04T10:17:06.438-07:002012-06-04T10:17:06.438-07:00"Charles: Are you aware of the history of the..."Charles: Are you aware of the history of the Lindzen & Choi papers?"<br /><br />I think so. A first paper was published, weaknesses pointed out, weaknesses address in a subsequent paper with the same conclusion. Some still disagree.<br /><br />Yes, the climate sensitivity remains at the core of scientific skeptic vs warmer debate.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73120122087870201052012-06-03T21:00:08.634-07:002012-06-03T21:00:08.634-07:00Charles: Are you aware of the history of the Lindz...Charles: Are you aware of the history of the Lindzen & Choi papers?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-43849057559574527272012-06-03T20:58:23.843-07:002012-06-03T20:58:23.843-07:00Charles, again: the Muller et al AER paper finds c...Charles, again: the Muller et al AER paper finds coal-based power generation creates more damage than value based based on traditional air pollution, even before CO2 is considered. Their data is for the year 2002. They didn't consider water pollution.<br /><br />Again: what in their analysis do you find fault with? <br /><br />Have you even read the paper?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-59216519086979309232012-06-03T20:52:24.486-07:002012-06-03T20:52:24.486-07:00David,
"As a result, the climate sensitivity...David,<br /><br />"As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of<br />CO2 is estimated to be 0.7K (with the confidence interval 0.5K -<br />1.3K at 99% levels)."<br /><br />http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdfcharlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-49816000244487042212012-06-03T15:39:30.490-07:002012-06-03T15:39:30.490-07:00Charles, you can't flap your hands and make yo...Charles, you can't flap your hands and make your ludicrous CO2 assertions go away. You can try, but it ain't workin'. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-31745106139235755682012-06-03T15:33:28.493-07:002012-06-03T15:33:28.493-07:00"But the affluent -- which includes you, me, ..."But the affluent -- which includes you, me, and most Americans -- can afford to pay for the damages from the production of the energy they use."<br /><br />The damages that most people can agree on are paid for. The difficulty is that for the damages that you imagine (co2 in particular) there is a lot of disagreement.<br /><br />Coal plants are much cleaner now than they used to be. Same goes for cars. Water is much cleaner in the US than it used to be. Much progress has been made.<br /><br />In some cases, the EPA seems to be going beyond what is justified on a cost benefit analysis. Take mercury for example. Do you think there should be tighter regulations on power plant mercury emissions?charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-5323718421230752742012-06-03T08:42:27.035-07:002012-06-03T08:42:27.035-07:00Charles: Yes, the poor need cheap energy.
But th...Charles: Yes, the poor need cheap energy. <br /><br />But the affluent -- which includes you, me, and most Americans -- can afford to pay for the damages from the production of the energy they use.<br /><br />So why shouldn't they?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-67997306294037752322012-06-03T08:39:37.841-07:002012-06-03T08:39:37.841-07:00Charles: The Muller et al AER paper is mostly abou...Charles: The Muller et al AER paper is mostly about ordinary pollution, not CO2. <br /><br />Their conclusion is that "coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value."<br /><br />What part of their analysis do you disagree with?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-51556326282139173272012-06-03T08:37:18.360-07:002012-06-03T08:37:18.360-07:00Charles: Who says S=1 deg C?
The data suggests S ...Charles: Who says S=1 deg C?<br /><br />The data suggests S is at least 3.8 F, not me. What part of that estimate do you fault with?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-48498853881711790602012-06-02T22:11:56.782-07:002012-06-02T22:11:56.782-07:001 is certainly nearer to 0 than 3.8 (and you sugge...1 is certainly nearer to 0 than 3.8 (and you suggest 3.8 is the lower bound?).<br /><br />so yes, 1 is near 0 compared to 4-5.<br /><br />I don't ignore negative externalities. I understand well the "tragedy of the commons". coal has negative externalities but I don't think co2 is a significant one.<br /><br />However, one has to balance competing goods and prioritize how resources are to be spent. Chasing co2 is certainly not something I think we should be spending a lot of resources on (e.g. Lomberg's point). Burning coal to provide electricity for the poor is probably better than the poor burning dung in their huts.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-8775576188419979882012-06-02T17:49:32.214-07:002012-06-02T17:49:32.214-07:00Charles: Why do you continue to ignore negative ex...Charles: Why do you continue to ignore negative externalities (such as your quote of Lomborg)? <br /><br />Do you think they don't exist?<br /><br />Do you think your neighbor should be able to dump his trash on your front yard for free?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-50457740564322254722012-06-02T15:04:32.853-07:002012-06-02T15:04:32.853-07:00Yes, it is completely, totally, blindingly obvious...Yes, it is completely, totally, blindingly obvious that climate sensitivity is not "near zero." <br /><br />I've never seen any science showing it is less than (say) 1 C. <br /><br />Have you? If so, then present it.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-1262695238100701482012-06-02T12:58:39.987-07:002012-06-02T12:58:39.987-07:00Dano,
I invite you again to read the entire Lombo...Dano,<br /><br />I invite you again to read the entire Lomborg (warmer) article.<br /><br />What are your priorities?<br /><br />sample:<br /><br />"But perhaps more important, what really matters to most people is not global warming and other problems on the Rio+20 agenda. There is a deep and disturbing disconnect between the mighty who walk the plush carpets in the U.N. arena and what the majority of the world’s inhabitants need.<br /><br />The truth is that while we mull green initiatives, approximately 900 million people remain malnourished, 1 billion lack clean drinking water, 2.6 billion lack adequate sanitation, and 1.6 billion are living without electricity. Every year roughly 15 million deaths—a quarter of the world’s total—are caused by diseases that are easily and cheaply curable."<br /><br />"What are the three most important environmental issues in developing nations? Most people in rich countries get the answer wrong, even with repeated tries. Global warming is not among them—not even if we look at all the deaths caused by flooding, droughts, heat waves, and storms. Since the early part of the 20th century, death rates from these causes have dropped 97 percent or more. Today, about 0.06 percent of all deaths in the developing world are the result of such extreme weather.<br /><br />Instead, one of the biggest environmental killers in the developing world is a problem unfamiliar to most people in rich countries: indoor air pollution. We take for granted our access to heat, light, and convenience at the flick of a switch. But 3 billion people in developing nations have no choice but to use fuels like cardboard or dung to cook their food and try to warm their homes. The annual death toll from breathing the smoke of these fires is at least 1.4 million—probably closer to 2 million—and most victims are women and children. When you fuel your cooking fires with crop residues and wood, your indoor air quality can be 10 times worse than the air outside, even in the most polluted Third World cities. Not that you’re safe when you leave the house: outdoor air pollution is estimated to kill another 1 million people a year in the developing nations. Almost 7 percent of all deaths in the developing world come from air pollution. The figure is more than 100 times the toll from floods, droughts, heat waves, and storms.<br /><br />The second problem is the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation. About 7 percent of all deaths in the developing world are associated with a lack of clean drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene. That’s almost 3 million deaths each year.<br /><br />The third big environmental problem—and yes, it is an environmental one—is poverty. To the more than 1 billion people subsisting on less than $1.25 a day, worrying about environmental issues is a distant luxury. If your family is freezing, you will cut down the last tree for fuel; if they are starving, you will strip the land bare to feed them. And if you have no certainty about the future, you will provide for it in the only way possible: by having more children to care for you in your old age, regardless of how much they will add to humanity’s demands on the planet.<br /><br />Poverty means entire disadvantaged communities have less to eat, get less education, and are more exposed to infectious disease. Allowing them to get richer enables them to satisfy their families’ immediate needs like food, clean water, and education. And then they can afford to start caring about the environment. Recent history suggests that when living standards go up, people and societies reduce their pollution, stop cutting down forests, and stop dying from dirty air and bad water."<br /><br />http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/27/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-rio-green-summit-poverty-pollutes.htmlcharlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-40505723430533976952012-06-02T12:46:46.408-07:002012-06-02T12:46:46.408-07:00"It's completely obviously climate sensit..."It's completely obviously climate sensitivity is not "near zero." Stop wasting our time."<br /><br />Climate sensitivity is the core of the dispute between scientists (skeptics and warmers). If you think the answer is obvious you should get out more.<br /><br />A few more for Dano.<br /><br />Bjorn Lomborg on the Rio Green Summit: Poverty Pollutes<br /><br />"We hear plenty of hype about climate-change “solutions” like solar panels and biofuels, but these green technologies are not yet the answer. As long as wind turbines and solar panels remain more expensive than fossil fuels while working only intermittently, they will never contribute much to our energy supply. Germany, the world’s largest per capita consumer of solar energy, produces just 0.3 percent of its energy this way. And to achieve this No. 1 status, the country has paid $130 billion for $12 billion worth of energy. The net reduction in CO2 emissions will slow the pace of global warming just 23 hours by the end of the century."<br /><br />http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/27/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-rio-green-summit-poverty-pollutes.html<br /><br />More global warming bad news, well, that is depending on how you view the issue of global warming<br /><br />"If it’s not the global warming schemers deserting the cause, and global warming profiteers going belly up, and real life contradicting the premise, it’s another bulletin of bad news. Where will it all end for the global warming worshippers?<br />Here’s the latest, which just happens to devastate another assumption of the warming theorists (emphasis ours):<br />“A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that clouds located in the stratosphere over the poles act to cool the stratosphere by adiabatic cooling, which is the cooling of air parcels as they rise and expand, rather than by ‘trapping heat’ below the clouds resulting in ‘radiative cooling’ of the stratosphere above. This finding contradicts a tenet of AGW theory, which predicts that infrared radiation from greenhouse gases will ‘trap heat’ to create a ‘hot spot’ in the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. This study finds that cooling of the stratosphere is instead due to rising air parcels rather than a decrease in radiation due to heat ‘trapped by greenhouse gases’.”"<br /><br />"Of course, more and more folks are coming around, recognizing this obsession is counterproductive and a more productive path would be to help poor people become better off, not deny them cheap electricity."<br />http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2012/06/01/more-global-warming-bad-news-well-that-is-depending-on-how-you-view-the-issue-of-global-warming/70173/charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-50480859274070732692012-06-02T11:18:42.613-07:002012-06-02T11:18:42.613-07:00It's completely obviously climate sensitivity ...It's completely obviously climate sensitivity is not "near zero." Stop wasting our time.<br /><br />And the Muller et al paper's main focus is air pollution, not climate change.<br /><br />They only calculate climate costs for the electric power sector, and they don't assume any climate sensitivity -- they assume a social cost for carbon of $27/tC (2000 dollars), which is not much different than Australian's A$23/tC.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-48969818671677743372012-06-02T10:42:33.366-07:002012-06-02T10:42:33.366-07:00The study you reference relies heavily on co2 with...The study you reference relies heavily on co2 with high climate sensitivity.<br /><br />Climate sensitivity may be near zero your claim otherwise not withstanding.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.com