E-Mail to Congress:
Randy,
I recently sent the following message to Rep. Giffords, D of Arizona:
Dear Ms. Giffords,
I have seen considerable criticism of your question to Gen. Patreus concerning what he is doing to control carbon dioxide emissions on the battlefield.
Having some experience in war and considerable experience as a scientist, I thought I might try to explain a few technicalities, which might modify your opinion on war and global warming.
You suggested use f more hand-to-hand combat involving knives and bayonets, rather than bullets and bombs, in an effort to suppress emission of carbon dioxide. The realization of war is to kill the enemy without being killed yourself.
Hand-to-hand combat is a one on one encounter with about a 50% chance that you yourself will be killed. It is much more practical for the individual and the war in general if the odds of survival can be increased, which they can be through use of bombs and bullets. This is generally true for industrialized nations, such as the United States, which has technically superior weapons.
However, it is granted that in the use of bullets and bombs, there is a release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations, which might take a half hour, will also show that the amount of such carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant as related to the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amounts produced daily merely by the breathing of human beings.
I believe that when you brought up the subject to Gen. Petraus, you were thinking of global warming and the myth that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere significantly affects such global warming.
We do have global warming, but the carbon dioxide affect is not significant. Earth is protected by an atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases form a greenhouse effect to retain heat at the surface. Without it, we would all freeze to death. Therefore, to say that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas is a gross exaggeration, especially when its heat transmission is not significantly different from other gases and its concentration in the atmosphere is only about 0.04%.
Some data may show that the Earth is warmer now than it might have been 1 or 100 years ago, but there's also significant data to show that the Earth has been warmer during other time periods. These differences are caused by variations in solar radiation output and not by any actions on the part of mankind.
I hope this gets battlefield and global warming understanding in perspective for you.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
EPA Acts Favorably on Acid Rain
E-Mail to Congress:
Credit where credit is due!
C&EN reports on July 12 that the EPA is cracking down on power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx. These are gaseous emissions, which when mixed with rain form acids; so-called "acid rain". The scientific basis of acid rain is well documented and consistent with theory and physical observations. The gases are "anhydrides", which chemically react with water to form acids. The SO2 forms sulfurous acid, which is relatively weak, but as SO2 exists in the atmosphere, it is slowly further oxidized to SO3, which then forms powerful sulfuric acid when reacted with water.
The interesting aspect about this is that the EPA has embarked on a real program, rather than a "pie-in-the-sky" program of chasing the Devil CO2, which we have shown many times does not deserve consideration.
I guess that this only could've happened because Obama and his henchmen of socialistic advisors and czars, who have been promoting CO2 emission control as a method to redistribute worldwide income, were not watching. Perhaps they don't understand the realism of acid rain compared to speculative global warming.
Credit where credit is due!
C&EN reports on July 12 that the EPA is cracking down on power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx. These are gaseous emissions, which when mixed with rain form acids; so-called "acid rain". The scientific basis of acid rain is well documented and consistent with theory and physical observations. The gases are "anhydrides", which chemically react with water to form acids. The SO2 forms sulfurous acid, which is relatively weak, but as SO2 exists in the atmosphere, it is slowly further oxidized to SO3, which then forms powerful sulfuric acid when reacted with water.
The interesting aspect about this is that the EPA has embarked on a real program, rather than a "pie-in-the-sky" program of chasing the Devil CO2, which we have shown many times does not deserve consideration.
I guess that this only could've happened because Obama and his henchmen of socialistic advisors and czars, who have been promoting CO2 emission control as a method to redistribute worldwide income, were not watching. Perhaps they don't understand the realism of acid rain compared to speculative global warming.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Another Waste in Carbon Dioxide Storage
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Hands Out $21.3 Million to 15 Facilities in 12 States to Develop Storage Technology. U.S. Department of Energy officials announced $21.3 million in funding for facilities to create safe and economical technologies nationwide for storing carbon dioxide in geologic formations. (latimes.com)".
The Obama Administration will just not give up on this carbon dioxide thing. They wanted to establish worldwide limitations on carbon dioxide emissions to the economic disadvantage of the US. They couldn't get the votes in Congress and are now trying to piecemeal it into the same thing. We call this the "reverse salami" approach. This means you add very thin slices until you finally get the whole salami.
We have many times shown that there is no scientific basis for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, nor capture and storage of same. The heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than through other atmospheric gases, and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere puts the final nail in the coffin.
Even a nickel spent on carbon dioxide control or storage is a waste, and here we have $21.3 million being blown down the drain.
Can't you do something about this stupidity?
EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Hands Out $21.3 Million to 15 Facilities in 12 States to Develop Storage Technology. U.S. Department of Energy officials announced $21.3 million in funding for facilities to create safe and economical technologies nationwide for storing carbon dioxide in geologic formations. (latimes.com)".
The Obama Administration will just not give up on this carbon dioxide thing. They wanted to establish worldwide limitations on carbon dioxide emissions to the economic disadvantage of the US. They couldn't get the votes in Congress and are now trying to piecemeal it into the same thing. We call this the "reverse salami" approach. This means you add very thin slices until you finally get the whole salami.
We have many times shown that there is no scientific basis for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, nor capture and storage of same. The heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than through other atmospheric gases, and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere puts the final nail in the coffin.
Even a nickel spent on carbon dioxide control or storage is a waste, and here we have $21.3 million being blown down the drain.
Can't you do something about this stupidity?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
American Chemical Society Incorrectly Promotes Global Warming Fear from CO2
E-Mail to Congress:
Stephen K. Ritter has a four-page article entitled, "Carbon Dioxide's Unsettled Future" in the July 26 Issue C&EN.
The first part of the article is a claim on the global-warming consequences of carbon-based energy. There is no explanation of why we should believe that hypothesis. In the mind of Stephen Ritter, it appears to be an accepted fact.
He goes on to quote the position of Frank Zhu, an employee of UOP/Honeywell. Zhu picks up the ball as the "unquestionable fact" carbon dioxide is a culprit in global warming. His discourse covers three attitudes; those who want to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient use of energy, those who want to eliminate CO2 emissions by capturing CO2, and those who will dilute CO2 emissions by using more solar and wind energy. Notice that all of this involves an assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced. Notice also that Frank Zhu is in the business of applying UOP/Honeywell technology to CO2 capture.
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is Joseph Powell of Shell Global Solutions. One would think that Shell would be opposed to reducing oil production for a reduction in CO2 emission. However, there is some confusion in the collective Shell mind. It may be that Shell is being swayed by general public opinion, but they also may consider this an opportunity to "overly complex" the technology to Shell's economic advantage. The confusion arises from the difference between their apparently stated position versus what they're actually doing. For example, they have an arrangement with Iogen to produce ethanol. May I remind you that when you burn ethanol, you produce CO2? Shell also has a joint venture with Cellana to produce triglycerides for Diesel use. May I remind you that when you burn Diesel fuel, you produce CO2? Shell is working with Codexis to develop enzymes that convert biomass into fuels. May I remind you that when these fuels are burned, you produce CO2?
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is George Richards of the US Department of Energy. Notice that even before we begin his comments, he is likely to be biased because he works for Pres. Obama, who has many times clearly indicated his strong position for equalizing world incomes, and that would include hamstringing the United States by fostering economic growth to less developed countries. He would do this by a carbon dioxide tax on US energy users in the United States and sending a substantial portion of that income to less developed countries under the guise of decreasing their CO2 emissions for a worldwide benefit of reduced global warming. Again, there is no mention anywhere of a scientifically developed connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Richards says that less developed countries are going to use fossil fuel resources with elimination of CO2, and implies that we must supply them with the technology for CO2 capture. The Department of Energy is developing and testing capture, storage, and use technologies in collaboration with academic and industrial partners, including power producers and petrochemical companies. All of this is being done at taxpayer expense for a project on which there is a substantial disbelief in its necessity.
All of the above comes from the first page of Ritter's article. The other three pages involve explanations of all of the work being done on CO2 capture. This makes interesting reading for scientists and engineers, and especially those having a "financial special interest". However, the question is "why?". Comic books are also interesting reading, but at least they do no significant damage to the economy.
Stephen K. Ritter has a four-page article entitled, "Carbon Dioxide's Unsettled Future" in the July 26 Issue C&EN.
The first part of the article is a claim on the global-warming consequences of carbon-based energy. There is no explanation of why we should believe that hypothesis. In the mind of Stephen Ritter, it appears to be an accepted fact.
He goes on to quote the position of Frank Zhu, an employee of UOP/Honeywell. Zhu picks up the ball as the "unquestionable fact" carbon dioxide is a culprit in global warming. His discourse covers three attitudes; those who want to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient use of energy, those who want to eliminate CO2 emissions by capturing CO2, and those who will dilute CO2 emissions by using more solar and wind energy. Notice that all of this involves an assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced. Notice also that Frank Zhu is in the business of applying UOP/Honeywell technology to CO2 capture.
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is Joseph Powell of Shell Global Solutions. One would think that Shell would be opposed to reducing oil production for a reduction in CO2 emission. However, there is some confusion in the collective Shell mind. It may be that Shell is being swayed by general public opinion, but they also may consider this an opportunity to "overly complex" the technology to Shell's economic advantage. The confusion arises from the difference between their apparently stated position versus what they're actually doing. For example, they have an arrangement with Iogen to produce ethanol. May I remind you that when you burn ethanol, you produce CO2? Shell also has a joint venture with Cellana to produce triglycerides for Diesel use. May I remind you that when you burn Diesel fuel, you produce CO2? Shell is working with Codexis to develop enzymes that convert biomass into fuels. May I remind you that when these fuels are burned, you produce CO2?
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is George Richards of the US Department of Energy. Notice that even before we begin his comments, he is likely to be biased because he works for Pres. Obama, who has many times clearly indicated his strong position for equalizing world incomes, and that would include hamstringing the United States by fostering economic growth to less developed countries. He would do this by a carbon dioxide tax on US energy users in the United States and sending a substantial portion of that income to less developed countries under the guise of decreasing their CO2 emissions for a worldwide benefit of reduced global warming. Again, there is no mention anywhere of a scientifically developed connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Richards says that less developed countries are going to use fossil fuel resources with elimination of CO2, and implies that we must supply them with the technology for CO2 capture. The Department of Energy is developing and testing capture, storage, and use technologies in collaboration with academic and industrial partners, including power producers and petrochemical companies. All of this is being done at taxpayer expense for a project on which there is a substantial disbelief in its necessity.
All of the above comes from the first page of Ritter's article. The other three pages involve explanations of all of the work being done on CO2 capture. This makes interesting reading for scientists and engineers, and especially those having a "financial special interest". However, the question is "why?". Comic books are also interesting reading, but at least they do no significant damage to the economy.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Why Is the Energy Department Giving up CO2 Capture in Power Plants?
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Changes Plan on Capturing Coal Emissions. The Energy Department abruptly shifted course on a flagship federal effort to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, saying it would not finance construction of a new plant in Mattoon, Ill. (nytimes.com)".
This is good news, because of its practicality. However I am interested in the motivation. Does the energy Department now think that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous greenhouse gas to be controlled? Is the national debt becoming too high such that it can't be justified financially?
Maybe you can ferret out the reason why the Energy Department has taken this new stance. If there is a reversal of opinion on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, there is still some hope for the country.
EIN News says, "U.S. Changes Plan on Capturing Coal Emissions. The Energy Department abruptly shifted course on a flagship federal effort to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, saying it would not finance construction of a new plant in Mattoon, Ill. (nytimes.com)".
This is good news, because of its practicality. However I am interested in the motivation. Does the energy Department now think that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous greenhouse gas to be controlled? Is the national debt becoming too high such that it can't be justified financially?
Maybe you can ferret out the reason why the Energy Department has taken this new stance. If there is a reversal of opinion on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, there is still some hope for the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
