Note the superheated steam billowing from the twin towers - heat that will dissipate as hot water vapor in the atmosphere
Modeling of the climate is even more complicated because of the effects of water vapor as clouds, which may cause heating or cooling in various situations.[13] There is also the problem of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, which may be released from thawing permafrost. An exhaustive account is beyond the goals of this paper.
And we have IPCC's further problems to examine. A stark fact to immediately consider: A good example of "continuity of government is that both the Bush and Obama regimes made it clear that they have no intention of complying with the Kyoto agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2012.[14] [15] Nor have they done anything substantive on fuel conservation through enforcing easily achievable high gas mileage for cars.
The IPCC revises its climate model often and this should not be at all startling given the way that science works in general and the complexity and chaos of the climate in particular. Not surprisingly, no predictive value has been shown for the models.
Nevertheless, they and their allies get huffy if alternative theories to the CO2/greenhouse theory, such as primary thermal production, as outlined above, solar cycles, etc. are discussed.[16] [17] Their approach gives off an odor of "appeal to authority the logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam by logicians. More reason to examine them closely.
Besides its vast establishment authority, the IPCC has strange and not-so-strange bedfellows. Nuclear scientists are front and center attacking alternative theories. As noted above, nuclear power is being widely discussed in this season and we unfortunately appear to be at the beginning of a planned nuclear resurgence. Global warming has been worked nicely into the public relations campaign for nuclear power.
For that to work at all, no quarter can be given to alternate theories such as those discussed above. If primary heat production is the cause of global warming, nukes are out, not just hydrocarbons.
They have further problems. Their scientific edifice is based on two "half-truths or untruths. We have discussed the first already: the rationale for greenhouse gas/CO2 hegemony is tenuous.
Here's where they and their helpers tell a real whopper, in rationale No. 2: Nuclear power has zero carbon/CO2 emissions.[18] [19] It's magnificent, breathtaking. "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it, said former German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.
Nothing has a zero CO2 footprint, even solar and solar-derived energy systems, although these have very small ones, and smaller than those of nuclear power plants. Here is the nuclear publicists' kernel of truth: In the near and medium term nuclear power has a smaller CO2 footprint than hydrocarbons do with a wide range of estimates, from 8-50% of the latter. The obligatory CO2 production occurs at a large number of points along the nuclear reactor cycle(s), too many to comfortably read in text. See Table for specifics on CO2 and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons - man made greenhouse gases) in the nuclear cycle.
There is another subtlety that must be considered in evaluating the CO2 footprint- the efficiencies of nuclear power and hydrocarbon power.
What is "efficiency ?
When we produce, purchase, or consume energy we care about electricity, not energy in general. What we actually get is heat. The % of total heat energy that we can turn into electricity is the efficiency. (This does not apply to the internal combustion portion of our energy usage.)
For nuclear power plants it is about 33%. That means that for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, there are two kilowatt hours immediately wasted as heat. Hydrocarbon-based power plants are more efficient - 41-60%.[20] [21]
These facts bear upon our interpretation of the CO2 footprint. It needs to be estimated not in thermal (same as total) kilowatt hours but in kilowatt hours of electricity, that part of the energy produced that is actually used.
Since nukes are less efficient, the advantage of a smaller CO2 footprint is proportionally reduced.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
