DOE: Climate Change Will Cause More Energy Breakdowns

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    When considering costs of proposed measures to combat AGW - a worthy effort - it would be wise to factor in the costs of doing nothing. According to a just released report from the US Dept of Energy, costs now measure in the billions but can be expected to reach trillions in coming decades. Link to the report at article:

    "WASHINGTON — The nation’s entire energy system is vulnerable to increasingly severe and costly weather events driven by climate change, according to a report from the Department of Energy to be published on Thursday.

    The blackouts and other energy disruptions of Hurricane Sandy were just a foretaste, the report says. Every corner of the country’s energy infrastructure — oil wells, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants — will be stressed in coming years by more intense storms, rising seas, higher temperatures and more frequent droughts.

    The effects are already being felt, the report says. Power plants are shutting down or reducing output because of a shortage of cooling water. Barges carrying coal and oil are being delayed by low water levels in major waterways. Floods and storm surges are inundating ports, refineries, pipelines and rail yards. Powerful windstorms and raging wildfires are felling transformers and transmission lines...

    The study notes that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the contiguous United States, and last July was the hottest month in the United States since record keeping began in 1895.

    The high temperatures were accompanied by record-setting drought, which parched much of the Southwest and greatly reduced water available for cooling fossil fuel plants and producing hydroelectric power. A study found that roughly 60 percent of operating coal plants are in areas with potential water shortages driven by climate change.

    Rising heat in the West will drive a steep increase in demand for air conditioning, which has already forced blackouts and brownouts in some places. The Energy Department’s Argonne National Laboratory found that air conditioning demand in the West will require 34 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity by 2050, equivalent to the construction of 100 power plants. The cost to consumers will exceed $40 billion, the lab said.

    Mr. Pershing, who joined the Department of Energy this year after serving for several years as the State Department’s deputy special envoy for climate change, said much of the climate disruption was already baked into the system from 150 years of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere....”​

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/u...cause-more-energy-breakdowns-us-warns.html?hp
  2. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,156
    Likes Received:
    706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +2,069
    We weren't suppose to see snow any more either.
  3. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,185
    Likes Received:
    1,210
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,840
    They discuss climate change, not climate change due to man but in your mind I guess the two are one in the same.

    the report says that with increased development in coastal areas and other areas prone to severe weather there will be much more risk to energy infrastructure. that is common sense. how in the heck you morph that into blaming AGW is beyond reason.

    and if you believe that the report was not authored/tailored to provide political cover to admin policies I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,124
    Likes Received:
    933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,948
    There is so much disturbing thought in this that I dont know where to begin.

    First off though, this Pershing dude is not a climate scientist any more than I am, and we have the same degree.

    He is a govt lackey, nothing more.

    Rebutting this article (cant wait to read the actual paper) would take more time than I have to give at the moment. Got a tee time in an hour.
  5. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The scientific consensus is that recent increases in earth's temperatures - air and water - is driven primarily by human activity since the industrial revolution.
  6. citygator
    Offline

    citygator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings Received:
    +110
    Glad I live up north. I'm thinking, like Lex Luther, I should buy worthless land in Canada and wait for the Earth to warm.
  7. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    We will soon see this in the thread for failed predictions
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,843
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,881
    This thread is one of multiple threads that say the same thing. The commies in the UN will not stop until they get free money from the stupid American government... co-sponsored by the big tax American liberals in the UN.

    And now they're so damn desperate that they're trying to tie weather patterns with climate change and blame the U.S.A. for all of it. As if we were the only country on Earth. This is utterly amazing to me... that some Americans are dumb enough to believe such idiocies.

    The Euro's, and their very commie friends from China and Russia, can't stop American exceptionalism... our innovative genius, our business genius, out technological genius, but instead they hope to kill our exceptionalism by starving out our economy with bogus claims that our energy usage is the only energy usage ON EARTH that needs to be curtailed. After all, we are the only nation that produces CO2 (which is not a toxin nor a poison) NOT the only country...

    China is the number one producer of CO2 and they get a complete pass - why is that? Because the Chinese and the rest of the world know that this AGW is a ruse, a hoax, that only America is stupid enough to fall for. We are not responsible for the hurricanes nor the monsoons so please get a brain and put your critical thinking-cap on it.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Shouldn't we wait until we see the data before making this conclusion?
  10. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    MJW's predictions are not part of the scientific method.
  11. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,185
    Likes Received:
    1,210
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,840
    have the models been correct to date? how much have they been off? why should we beleive the new adn improved model is better than the previous new and improved model. the gloabl cliamte cannot be modeled without lots and lots of assumptions. so far, their assumptions have not failed to be correct. that you cannot refute. the temperature, the glacial reductions, nor the sea level have done what they predicted. other than that, they got it all figured out.
  12. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Twas not a conclusion. Twas a mere prediction. You DO know the difference?
  13. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    See? Even Row at least knows the difference. That has got to count for something.
  14. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Remember this prediction?
  15. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Twas a mere prediction based on what exactly?
  16. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    my fellow liberals----where was the need to start another thread that is simply a duplicate of other GW threads.


    in regard to DOE---is the immediate problem more that the climate is changing, or that we(the U.S.) is getting more and more devastated due to the following-
    1. Massive population growth in areas that have track record of getting devastated by weather,etc
    2. infrastructure that is crumbling
    3. infrastructure that has not kept pace with population growth in areas with track record of getting devastated by weather, etc

    The issue of GW(be it caused by man, natural changes to earth over time, or combination of both) is a concern that is likely to increase over time. But can be put on the back burner somewhat to address other weather related matters

    The notion that man can not change the weather in the short term has already been proven false with numerous examples
    ---Brasil---the reduction of a mountain top near Rio decades ago has most certainly altered the weather of that city
    ---here in PB County---For some reason when I first moved to PB County about 30 years ago. during the summer months a person could pretty much set their watch during the summer time that it would rain in the afternoon most every day at 2pm. Got so predictable that I would pack my stuff up at the beach. Load it in my car. Have my car cooled with AC so that precisely at 2pm when it would start to rain and people started scampering away I somehow managed to hook up with nice looking girls my age who were looking for a ride out of their. This was the case for years. Over the years with the increased clearing of trees, etc for farming and residential areas of western PB and Broward counties,the summer weather pattern has changed in the local area to be far more random and less predictable. Feel sorry for the HS and college age guys who have one less trick available to pick up girls.

    The notion that it is possible to change local weather but not weather of larger areas or of the earth entirely is rather naive. Never underestimate mankind's abilities or lack of foresight.
  17. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    The thread is based on a current - a few days ago - report from the DOE. If you're not interested in the news, try Swamp or Nuttin' But Net (I recommend both).

    As to your comments on AGW, you have already been reminded that CO2 stays in the atmosphere A REALLY LONG TIME (scientific term), and so your idea of putting it on the "back burner" ignores physical realities. Fine for you to have that opinion once, but you have been corrected before on this, but without your even trying to respond or counter. Disagreement is fine if based on something substantive, but ignoring facts is another thing.
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Based on the record of similar predictions. Did you know there is a thread about this very thing?

    :laugh:
  19. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Just wondering if you were basing it on any specific information regarding the prediction. Personally, I don't think that "Well, this other unrelated prediction was once wrong, so this one will be too" is a particularly sophisticated predictive model, but it seems to be a common one, so what do I know.
  20. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +498
    I don't always agree with Old but he makes some sense in that if you continue to have a large % of your populace living in coastal lying areas there will be more people effected by acts of nature.

    Weather patterns including rainfall and droughts run in cycles. To think otherwise is silly.

Share This Page