Coal power = 20k miles of pollution?
 

Since I'm moving I just changed my power to wind power from coal... but one one of the energy websites I read said that coal power emits as much pollution for every 1,000 kw's (about 1 month of electricity) as driving 20,000 miles in one's car.

Does that sound accurate to anyone? or did I misread and maybe they meant 1 year of of coal power = driving 20k miles?

Thanks!

Surely it would depend on what car you drive? whether its economical car or a US gas guzzler would make a big difference...

true... but if it is 1 month average kilowatt usage, that's a lot of extra pollution every year for even the economy car drivers I know. If this is true, it almost seems to me that we need more focus on the energy industry instead of the petrolium industry (which is easier to harp on because we can actually see the output vs electric companies - I have no idea where the nearest one is to me)

What do you term as pollution. C02?

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11361255#post11361255 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef [/i]
[B]true... but if it is 1 month average kilowatt usage, that's a lot of extra pollution every year for even the economy car drivers I know. If this is true, it almost seems to me that we need more focus on the energy industry instead of the petrolium industry (which is easier to harp on because we can actually see the output vs electric companies - I have no idea where the nearest one is to me) [/B][/QUOTE]

We definitely need to focus on the energy industry, but transport is still a big polluter. Reductions in pollution need to be across the board.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11363313#post11363313 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]What do you term as pollution. C02? [/B][/QUOTE]

Both fuel sources will have different types of pollution. But CO2 is a common one.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11363313#post11363313 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]What do you term as pollution. C02? [/B][/QUOTE]

greenhouse gases like co2 and methane.

carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide,soot and other irritants.

[url]http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html[/url]

All animals generate C02. So species extinction actually reduces global warming.

[quote]http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/...2/10/55974.html[/quote]
The same authors have put out numerous papers in the past 5 years or so stating similar things. Due to those papers people have been forced to go back and re-examine the data and models. After they did that they found out that most of the error could be accounted for by the methodology used to collect the data, not with the models (though the models are far from perfect themselves).

The authors originally claimed to have observed a global cooling trend, which turned out to be noise rather than a long term trend and was a whole lot smaller when they corrected their methodological errors. When you read the paper itself, it's basically a rehash of their old work only they've moderated their claims a lot. They no longer claim to see a global cooling trend, but a slower rate of warming than the models, and only in the tropics. The uncertainty of the models and observational measurements actually overlap though, so it's not clear how much if any the models and observations actually differ. The paper is far from the smoking gun the news article or press release play it up as. It doesn't demonstrate with any great certainty that the models and observations are significantly different or if they do, whether the error lies in the modeling or in the data collection. It certainly doesn't vindicate anthropogenic CO2 or show that the current trend is irreversible.

Here's a paper that actually addresses how the discrepancies relate to the uncertainty of the models and measurements. [url]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml[/url]

"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Read the actual paper. The data presented doesn't support the claims made in the news article, nor do similar papers on the subject such as the one I linked to. The amount of difference between the observations and the models depends a lot on which data you pick. Even with the data the authors picked, the range of uncertainty between the data and models overlap, so there is no way to say there is a real discrepancy (which is what the article I linked to addresses). Other data puts the data and model even closer together.

How close they are also depends a lot on the time scale you look at. The models don't include noise, while real world measurements do. As a result you get periods like those the authors originally wrote about where it looks like there is a cooling trend when in fact it's just noise and the overall trend is still warming like the models predict.

Even in the series "Planet Earth" they say it's a natural process... but even with global warming, another ice age will still come many many years from now.

To me, this doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax and that we should continue to be as wasteful as we can and any means to prevent/reduce waste is unnecessary and costly waste in itself.

or that cfc's and other ozone reducing chemicals should continue to be used without control.

same with carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, soot and other irritants produced by coal/fossil fuels being "insignificant" - acid rain does have an impact on humans and wildlife

Finally, since all animals generate C02, the thought process of extinction of species actually reduces global warming (if in fact is exists) is benificial is selfish, biased and irresponsible. If Corals die, then algae/plankton and then fish etc. 70% of the earths surface being a wasteland would suck and impact climate changes dramatically. (algae produce 90%+ of atmosphere O2 etc.)

Humans aren't doing the world a favor by replacing species with themselves.

$0.02

there is more and more evidence showing that our current rising temperatures are no where near being outside earths average ranges since the beginning of life...

Plus if the government was to believe this could be slightest bit dangerous.. they could do multiple things to slow down and possibly stop the rising temperatures everyone is "Ohhh so worried about"...

What about a satellite 400,000-500,000 miles out away from earth , that blocks the sun out just enough to shorten our days by 1 or 2 hours...?

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11377940#post11377940 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef [/i]
[B]Even in the series "Planet Earth" they say it's a natural process... but even with global warming, another ice age will still come many many years from now.

The greenhouse effect is a perfectly natural thing yes. If it wasnt for the "natural" amount greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,the earth would be a very cold place,and in an ice age!. Thing is over the last 150 years of burning fossil fuels we have added billiions and billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to the natural amount,thus making the planet warmer. Also we have destroyed almost all the forests of the planet,which are carbon sinks. The bio sphere is now starting to reject all the harm we have done to it over the last 150 years. Soils are no longer acting as carbon sinks,and oceans the same. Also as the ice in the artic melts it will expose millions of tonnes of methane gas,and release this into the atmosphere,which will speed the whole process even more.







$0.02 [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly. Anyone who argues that the greenhouse effect or warming trends aren't natural is either being dishonest or doesn't have a clue what they're talking about to put it bluntly. That's not the question though. The question is how much (not if) anthropogenic forcings change the natural trend and how is it going to affect us.

[quote]there is more and more evidence showing that our current rising temperatures are no where near being outside earths average ranges since the beginning of life...[/quote]
There's really no question that the recent climate has been unusually stable and that it has been much warmer and much colder in the past. That doesn't mean anything about our current impact on the trend though. It also doesn't tell us much about how the climate will impact us since in the history of human civilization there haven't been any changes the magnitude of those predicted.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11387537#post11387537 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191 [/i]
[B. Anyone who argues that the greenhouse effect or warming trends aren't natural is either being dishonest or doesn't have a clue what they're talking about to put it bluntly. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well said.

When will some people wake up?

Goverments around the world are not helping to change people attitudes, with there snails pace on action if any really. And certain other goverments frankly trying to mess up any plans to sort it all out. It's a disgrace!

The meetings in Bali this week were a great opportunity to get some action going. But as usual the whole 2 weeks was spent on trying to persuade the US to join in.

The only action proposed is to reduce energy consumption by 50-70% over the next 40 years. How do we do that with a growing population? Oh, I know, windmills.

so what do you suggest, we do nothing?

we have to start using renewables and doing things different no matter how many people live on this planet.

Don't reduce the herd, just get more hay.

If you want to save this planet, why are there no limits on population? Let's suppose we find a way to reduce our individual impact on the environment by 50% over the next 40 years. The population will double by then and we will have made ZERO progress on the problem. If things get as bad as are being forcast, maybe that will reduce the herd to manageable levels.
If you are afraid to address the core problem, then fighting symptoms might help you feel better, but you will still die.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11401686#post11401686 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]The only action proposed is to reduce energy consumption by 50-70% over the next 40 years. How do we do that with a growing population? Oh, I know, windmills. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well no, we need to reduce carbon emissions, not energy consumption. If energy is produced in a carbon neutral fashion, it does not matter how much is consumed.

Wind turbines are part of the solution. There is no one solution.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11403295#post11403295 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman [/i]
[B]Don't reduce the herd, just get more hay.

If you want to save this planet, why are there no limits on population? Let's suppose we find a way to reduce our individual impact on the environment by 50% over the next 40 years. The population will double by then and we will have made ZERO progress on the problem. If things get as bad as are being forcast, maybe that will reduce the herd to manageable levels.
If you are afraid to address the core problem, then fighting symptoms might help you feel better, but you will still die. [/B][/QUOTE]

Its funny how you can say "reduce the herd" and make it sound less offensive. You are talking about the deaths of many millions of people are you not?

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11404695#post11404695 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras [/i]
[B]Its funny how you can say "reduce the herd" and make it sound less offensive. You are talking about the deaths of many millions of people are you not? [/B][/QUOTE]
No, the birth of billions is what I am talking about. Why do we have to have the absolute maximium amount of humanity that the world can support? Why can't 5 billion alive at once be enough?????
I am against killing, but I do not support unlimited population. If you support unlimited population, then you support unlimited use of natural resources. You can't have it both ways.

^^ I agree completely =) but I'm not sure how population controls can be "enforced" in most of the world. Culture conflicts, policing, politics etc. are just a few barriers.

Medicine and helping the starving/less fortunate isn't helping the problem either (though they probably hurt the planet less than the fortunate - per capita)

Until people "feel" the problem in their home (or someone like the Pope says "stop making babies or you will go to HELL" - if that will even work), their actions won't change. =(

edit: forgot to mention... culture changes usually occure by generation. I would assume a political one is about the same... so maybe there will be "bigger" changes several years/decades from now. The unforunate thing is lives are too short so later generations never really see/experience the world how previous generations have - so they may think 1 coral per 100sq ft. is "natural" because they never saw it when it was 100's per 100sq ft.

[QUOTE][i]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11404667#post11404667 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras [/i]
[B]Well no, we need to reduce carbon emissions, not energy consumption. If energy is produced in a carbon neutral fashion, it does not matter how much is consumed.

Wind turbines are part of the solution. There is no one solution. [/B][/QUOTE]

Spot on.