A scientist's take on global warming

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Comment

By JEFFREY P. SCHAFFER

John Stephens' piece on global warming ("From AmCan to Greenland, take action on warming," Oct. 24) outdoes Al Gore's "Inconvenient (Half) Truth" in hysteria.

Gore actually got quite a bit right, but his 20-foot sea level rise due to rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet is far from reality, and Stephens' 23-foot rise in two or three years is worse. At an April 2007 American Association of Geographers conference I attended, its session on global warming produced estimates of only four to six inches by 2100, and that included Greenland ice melting three times faster than in the previous decade. Still, most would put the rise at one foot; the extremists, at three feet.

My background in science started in 1961 at M.I.T., and then later, at Berkeley. In addition to a full range of biological and geoscience courses (double major), I had a rigorous course on meteorology (physics of weather). Starting in 1972, when scientists were convinced global cooling was about to destroy civilization, I began to make weather observations in the Sierra Nevada (along with biological and geoscience observations). Beginning in 1986 I became seriously interested in global warming, and learned that the sea level would rise about 20 feet very rapidly due to melting ice shelves and sea ice. However, as any science-literate elementary school kid can tell you, when floating ice melts, it contracts; there is no increase in volume, so no sea-level rise. After about 10 years with this impending doom scenario, scientists dropped it. I suppose some elementary school kid told them about the "floating ice cubes" class experiment.

Back in the late 1980s, I made two global warming predictions. The first is that summers in the Bay Area would become cooler, windier and foggier, and this has already happened. The second is that by 2100, the sea level may drop a foot. How so? Easy. Greenland and other high-latitude lands are likely to warm about 10 degrees Celsius, and hence the air will be able to hold twice as much water vapor as it did before warming. This leads to twice as many clouds and twice as much precipitation. Thanks to satellite measurement, we can already observe parts of Greenland and Antarctica that have snow accumulating faster than ice is melting. As this trend accelerates, total snow accumulation should outpace total ice melting, and then the sea level will drop.

What I did not foresee back then is that although many of us felt that the Arctic Ocean would become ice-free in summer by about 2050, we did not think of the consequences with regard to sea level. Last century, as in past centuries, the polar region had a continental climate, which sent extremely cold, dry air south. But as sea ice continues to shrink, the polar region will shift increasingly to a maritime climate, which will greatly increase the number of storms in Eurasia, North America and Greenland. Snow could accumulate in Greenland (as well as in the mountains of Alaska and Canada) at a much higher rate than I had predicted.

Mr. Stephens recommends one book. I'll recommend three. (Like me, none of these books' authors doubts global warming.) The first is "Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future," by Orrin Pilkey. An old field scientist like me, Pilkey believes in detailed field work, not modeling, since models will always produce the results you want. The second is "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming," by Bjorn Lomborg. If you are concerned about polar bears, he says, stop shooting them. (The hunting program is a way to control the bear's overpopulation problem.) The third is "State of Fear," a novel by Michael Crichton. Part fiction and part science, he shows how environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club create imaginary crises. Having been on the board of one organization and observing others, I can vouch for this. A perceived crisis really boosts your membership! For example, here is a global-warming quote by Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider: "We need to get some broad-based support to capture the public's imagination. That of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

(Schaffer is an instructor at Napa Valley College.)

144 comment(s)

JimClark wrote on Nov 14, 2007 2:57 AM:

" There is also the consideration of the massive increase in population. The human body can be compsed of so 70% water. An average of 98.6 degrees of body temperature. I a past offering I also mentioned that when a location such as the Berryessa valley is filled with 1.9 million acre feet of water, it may also have some effect on what I have come to call global wobbling. Some of us old fogies have seen too many fads come and go. We are not always given a balanced other side to some issues and that renders them nebulous. "

bburk wrote on Nov 14, 2007 5:12 AM:

" Professor Schaffer, Historical temperature records show a similar warming trend (similar to the current warming) in the 1930s in the Arctic and Greenland. Was there an increased accumulation of snow at that time? "

common sense wrote on Nov 14, 2007 6:51 AM:

" Of course, Mr. Schaffer, you're making a target out of yourself by coming out of the closet...I'm sure the enviro-crazies will be coming for you. Thank you for your (honest!) assessment. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 14, 2007 7:33 AM:

" Very good letter Mr. Schaffer. Now get ready for all the alarmist's attempt to crucify you. Is global warming happening? Of course. But I agree with your evaluation of the realities of it, and also why it has been so hyped. The back of Mr. Crichton's book also has an excellent bibliography for those who reeally want to dive into this debate. "

Paul wrote on Nov 14, 2007 10:58 AM:

" It's refreshing to read a reasonable presentation of some global warming information. I agree with Sandra that warming has occured. But there is no concensus that it is primarily human caused. The tactics of the anthropogenic warming proponents is disturbing. The Stephen Schneider quote is very instructive. Al Gore was on the Today Show last week and Merideth Viera asked him about the scientists who contributed to the U.N. climate report but disagreed with the conclusions presented. Mr. Gore called them "Outliers", and said they are no longer part of the study. What a tactic. Call them names and throw out their scientific information that does not conform to your agenda. Think about who has used these tactics in history. "

klr wrote on Nov 14, 2007 11:02 AM:

" I thought that it was a teachers duty to scare their students into saving the environment. You should be ashamed or yourself. I just finalized plans for my ark business for the next generation of useful environmentalists. Thankfully, you're just one in a hundred teachers with common sense. "

Econut wrote on Nov 14, 2007 11:06 AM:

" I commend Dr. Schaffer for expressing his views, even though they don't reflect my perspective. Melting sea ice indeed does not increase sea levels, but nearly all land-based glaciers are melting and guess where their water ends up? In the sea, of course, and accurate satellite measurements indicate sea levels are rising about 3 mm per year (I'll seriously doubt they'll approach anywhere near 20' above the current level). And why do you suppose the Arctic ice cap is melting so much faster than the Antarctic? Could it be that there are far more CO2 emissions in the northern hemisphere? Nobody knows with certainty what the future holds. "

kevin wrote on Nov 14, 2007 11:07 AM:

" I may have to (gladly) modify my critical views concerning local "know nothing" educators. Very well written letter, Jeff... "

JimClark wrote on Nov 14, 2007 12:47 PM:

" Tell me why Lake Michigan is about three inches lower than normal? "

GoMommyGo wrote on Nov 14, 2007 2:26 PM:

" Hot hype or hip hope? Who knows? But how can you lose by saving energy? "

chris wrote on Nov 14, 2007 3:01 PM:

" Before the deniers go patting themselves on the back now that they have a scientist who agrees with them, maybe you should re-read what he wrote. The only thing he takes issue with is the claim about a 20ft rise in sea levels (even I think that's an over the top claim). Otherwise, he said that Gore got quite a bit right. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 14, 2007 5:23 PM:

" Chris, that's all you got out of this man's letter? He said quite a bit more than "Gore got quite a bit right." I refer you to his last paragraph. It explains, in part, why the hysteria and hype are perpetuated. This is exactly what I object to in those who promote all the gloom and doom. Spreading misinformation to the masses to self perpetuate funding is not science. When you have this driving not only the environmental organizations, but also the academic research how accurate can any of it be? This is not the first letter Mr. Schaffer has written. I wrote a letter on this subject a couple of years ago, and had a letter written in reaction. It was the typical stuff we see from those who think man has doomed our planet. One of the points in my letter was how funding in the academic world works, and how it did not promote unbiased results. Mr. Schaffer then wrote a 3rd. letter. I recall that Mr. Scaffer backed me up on that, using examples of his own education. I agree that the planet is warming, but we need unbiased, and accurate science. If there is something that needs to be done, how in the world can we know what it is if the science is faulty? There has been great harm done to our environment in the name of environmentalists because they had BAD information provided by bad science. I do not care about jumping on the "green" wagon and being politically correct. I care about doing the least harm to the world in which I live. To do that we need valid, unbiased information. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 14, 2007 6:16 PM:

" GoMommyGo, I have two friends and a family member that have been LAID OFF because of expensive environmental regulations affecting their companies that were unnecessary! I'm sure they will feel better knowing that environmental elitists such as yourself are downright skippy about saving the world from global warming. These global warming rules that are now hitting industry are costing people their livelihood, and in some parts of the world, their lives (4 to 6 million people killed every year in Africa from global warming policies!). At some point, people will have to think seriously about what is humane and what is not. "

russ wrote on Nov 14, 2007 6:51 PM:

" Somewhat obtuse, but interesting comments. No mention of man-made global warming, no mention of CO2 from burning fossil fuel, no catastrophe from glaciers melting, agreement that climate is cyclical. Where is Ruff when we need him. russ "

napablogger wrote on Nov 14, 2007 10:08 PM:

" Great letter. One thought, even Ph.D scientists with degrees in Atmospheric Science don't understand these complicated models, so virtually everyone you hear from that discusses Global Warming is just repeating what someone else says. Second thought: NASA and the United Nations are leading the science on this--two of the most provably incompetent organizations in the world. Last--even at that the consensus view of the IPCC on sea rise from the true believers of man made global warming is about 15 inches in the next century--not the 20+ feet enviros around Napa are proclaiming. In the last century the sea rose about 12 inches. When you look back at the major impacts of the 20th Century, do you think about two world wars, women's sufferage, the civil rights movement, Vietnam, the invention of computers, or do you think about the sea level rise? "

russ wrote on Nov 15, 2007 7:34 AM:

" Long term atmospheric mathematical models DO NOT work. There are too many variables which cannot be accurately modeled and probably never will be. Short term atmospheric models are not accurate either, as shown by the range of storm paths forecast. russ "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 15, 2007 9:11 AM:

" Still the glaciers melt... faster than predicted. And the price of gasoline is heading ever higher. It doesn't matter to me if the sea level rises one foot or the real high number out there, 80 feet. What matters to me is the droughts, and flooding and other weather extremes, that the 'Al Gore is a Liar' crowd ignore. Atlanta's Republican governor started praying for rain this week. And the State of Georgia and the city of Atlanta are not known for drought. But there they are rationing water. But the petro-addicts and their pushers still want to keep cars that can get double the mileage of today's cars out of America's showrooms. How can people be so dumb? ~Ruff "

Econut wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Most of the data obtained by scientists are accurate. However, two scientists often look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Furthermore, there are many different data sets and some of them are conflicting. The problem is compounded by individuals, both scientists and non-scientists, who cherry-pick data to fit their personal paradigms. For example, we see graphs (as in "An Inconvenient Truth") that show the Medieval Warming Period as a small blip compared to the current spate of global warming. And then we see graphs (championed by the deniers) that show the Medieval Warming Period as being much, much warmer than recent decades. Who are we to believe? Statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is suggestive and what they conceal is vital. I would be skeptical of both the gloom-and-doom prophets as well as the nothing-will-happen crowd. The truth is likely somewhere in between. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:16 AM:

" What's this I hear (read)? The voice of reason? I am aghast! I especially loved the comment about the ice in a glass of water. My son has twice come home all pumped up from a day of global warming indoctrination, invariably citing sea level rise as a result of polar ice melt. Out comes the glass of water and some ice and we have to run the experiment. Then comes the argument that the polar ice sits on land. Oh contraire, Antarctica does have land below the ice, but we have run submarines under the north-pole proving that this ice indeed lays in water. Now Mr. Schaffer, I ask you, what your take is on the cause of this climate change, are humans to blame, is it tectonic shift, or just part of the normal cycles of the planet? I frequently read and hear the global warming proponents talk of temperatures in recorded history. How long have we been able to accurately record the weather, a couple hundred years? How old is the planet? Better yet, how long has the planet been able to support life? The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, that’s 4,500,000,000 years. Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer in 1724. That means we have been able to accurately measure temperature for 283 years. What this means we do not have records to cover 4,499,999,717 years. I would say we have a great deal to learn before making grand conclusions of earth’s destruction. "

Econut wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:40 PM:

" There are many different proxies for temperature data. Archaelogical records and human documents date back only a few thousand years, yet clearly reveal several trends (e.g., Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age). One commonly used method of estimating past temperatures is based on the ratio of two oxygen isotopes, one of which is locked up in ice more than the other. Oxygen isotope ratios measured in cores sampled from polar ice layers and in sediment layers at the bottom of oceans and lakes reveal fluctuating temperatures. Sediment cores from the bottom of the ocean also reveal fluctuations in the remains of warm-water and cold-water surface-dwelling plankton species. Age of the samples is estimated by counting the ice layers or extrapolating the distance of sediments to the first magnetic reversal (date known). Methane and carbon dioxide concentrations are also preserved in polar ice layers, and are believed to correlate closely with fluctuating temperatures. Astronomers can calculate the amount of light insolation in the past, which is also thought to correlate with fluctuating temperatures. These are just a few of several different methods for estimating temperature in the past. Many methods produce congruent data sets, but not all do. Reconstructing past climates is not an exact science. Neither is modeling future climate change. "

russ wrote on Nov 15, 2007 1:24 PM:

" Ruff, the glaciers freeze, the glaciers thaw, the glaciers freeze and thaw. That's what cycles are. It is impossible for anyone to predict the rate at which glaciers will melt. No one has and no one will with any accuracy any time soon. Gasoline is up 10 fold in the last 40 years and so are Fords and steaks. So? Are we running out of Fords? russ "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:14 PM:

" Econut: You point out very valid methods for sample historic climate data. In fact, from what I have read and heard, these tools show further that climate change is a natural cycle. You also refer to the first magnetic reversal, but I rarely see this factor discussed with regard to the current climatic transition. I have seen some information that indicates we are either in the midst, or will soon see another magnetic shift (if not full reversal). I have also seen data to indicate that climate change is corollary to the planet’s magnetic fields. This is why I beg the question, how much of our climate transition is human caused and how much is just normal ecological cycles? I can think of plenty of very good reasons for developing energy sources that are not linked to fossil fuels (oil or coal). Developing renewable energy sources just makes practical sense, for our country, and the world. Hybrid cars seem to be a real no brainer. Any mechanic that works on very heavy equipment (road graders, scrapers, and the like), or diesel locomotives, can tell you that hybrid technology has been around for a very long time. You can rest assured that if hybrid technology were not effective in locomotives, the railroads would have stuck with steam or found other ways to power trains. Personally, I would love to have a home where I could power it with a combination of wind, solar, and possibly bio diesel. In fact, this is a personal goal of mine. Clean and sustainable energy sources should be promoted on the merits of independence and sustainability, not through doom and gloom scare tactics. You can only use that approach so much before people just stop listening. "

coigue wrote on Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM:

" Mr. Schaffer, Are you unaware that ice on Greenland and Antarctica is on land? How wmbarassing for you and M.I.T. "

coigue wrote on Nov 15, 2007 6:59 PM:

" Skip M. Greenland and Antarctica ice are melting. Perhaps your son can educate you and Mr. Schaffer about the effects of ice on land melting. "

jimtub wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:12 AM:

" Here is one of those key places where folks like Ruff should respect the knowledge of the speaker and give up the MoveOn.Org/Gore propaganda. Schaffer's piece agrees global warming is reality, just not YOUR reality, Ruff. Once again you and those like you refuse to accept any possible scenario which runs contrary to your own. Science does not work that way, Ruff. Climate models are based on data from around 1900 thru the present. Fossil records go just a tad bit further than 107 years. Gore says the debate is over. That statement in and of itself shows how wrong he is. Not sure how that makes sense? Look it up. Scientific theory does not deal in absolutes, yet somehow Al Gore and Co. transcend reality by making such a declaration. Not sure how this works, Ruff? Einstein's THEORY of relativity, Darwin's THEORY of Natural Selection; odd how neither one says "Definitive" or "Absolute" anywhere, yet we're suppoosed to believe Al Gore knows more than the rest of us? A man who has never worked a day in his life outside of politics or big tobacco? Are you kidding me? Find a scientist who disagrees with that, Ruff, and I'll show you an extremist. Wake UP! "

Econut wrote on Nov 16, 2007 7:45 AM:

" Skip, we obviously share a concern for minimizing our impact on the planet and I would like to think that even the anti-environmentalists care too. As for your question about whether the current episode of global warming is caused mostly by natural processes or human activities, that is the multibillion dollar answer nobody knows with certainty. I'm fairly certain humans have at least a minor contribution; we may have a major role, but I suspect it is mostly due to natural processes beyond our control. I'm merely stating an opinion here, which is no more valid than anybody else's. Whether natural or anthropogenic, any changes to air, land or water environments are disruptive to both natural and human systems. Life will adapt, but there will be casualties along the way. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 16, 2007 8:59 AM:

" The British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" states that millions of lives are lost in Africa due to current environmental policies related to global warming. This is apparently related to people being forced to cook (often with dried animal droppings) inside their dwelling with little ventilation. Why is nobody concerned about this loss of human life? "

chris wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Common Sense: I don't know about the British Documentary, but I do know about cooking fuel shortages in Africa. THere are three reasons for the shortage of cooking fuels. The primary cooking fuel is charcoal and firewood. Deforestation cuts down on availablility of those fuels. Deforestation is caused by greed, overpopulation and droughts. Additionally, over grazing and refugee populations in inhostpitable areas (i.e. Darfur) contribute. The Plains Indians used Buffalo chips as a primary source of fuel for cooking. There aren't too many trees on the Prarie. None of the reasons for fuel shortage have anything to do with environmentalists. They are wrong. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:09 PM:

" Coigue (part 2): It is this type of simplified data that is used to create the scare of global warming. What is not taken into account is the amount of hydrogen and oxygen gas that are trapped in these ice packs. Referring back to the ice in a glass example, the reason the water level drops as the ice melts is the release of the oxygen and hydrogen gas that are trapped in the ice when it freezes. If you take a mayonnaise jar and fill it to the rim with water and place that in the freezer, the glass will break as the ice freezes and expands. This is due to the gases trapped as the ice forms. So as ice sheets melt, the total volume of water will not equal the total volume of melted ice. Consider further that the upper levels of this ice is more loosely packed snow, which means a larger volume of gas (air) making up the overall mass. So, to get a true picture of the effects of polar ice melt, the density of the ice at all depths must be taken into consideration. The result is you amount of released water drops steadily as the accuracy of your computations increases. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:09 PM:

" Coigue (part 1): You are absolutely right that Greenland and Antarctica are ice sheets on land. The total surface area of the earth is 197,000,000 square miles. Antarctica has an area of 5,400,000 square miles (2.74% of the earth’s surface). Greenland has an area of 810,810 square miles (0.41% of the earth). Antarctica and Greenland combined represent 3.15% of the earth’s surface. All the ice covering both land masses is an average depth of 2.91 miles (a generous assumption since this is based upon ice depth measurements in the deepest regions of the respective land masses). So, if we take the combined land mass of 6,210,810 square miles and multiply that by the average depth of 2.91, we get an area of 18,092,077.96 square miles (9.18% percent of the earth). I would seriously doubt that the total volume of ice in these regions really adds up to the number I have come up with here. Think about your last snow ski trip up to Tahoe. You don’t go from zero to six feet of snow, the snow gradually deepens as you venture further into the region. The same is the case in Greenland. Google any Greenland city. Most have only a couple feet at most of snow in the towns, some have no snow at all. While Antarctica has considerably more snow and ice, there are also areas of land on that continent that are exposed completely. As Dr. Schaffer also points out, the atmosphere absorbs a certain portion of the earth’s water through evaporation. Precipitation transports some of this water to other regions in the form of new snow and rain. Some is simply held in the atmosphere as clouds. This is a simplified analysis. To really be accurate we would need much more detailed data. (continued)… "

bburk wrote on Nov 16, 2007 5:48 PM:

" coigue, I don't believe that Greenland and the Antarctica are melting as a whole. Greenland has seen some melting along the coast but the interior ice has increase. In the Antarctic, temperatures has , in the majority of the continent, have decreased since measurements began in the 50s. One small section has seen a slight increase in temperatures. If you have watch Gore's movie, he talks about a Rhode Island chunk falling off. True, but the temperatures in that region have decreased since mankind has measured temperatures there. Don't believe me, look at records at the NOAA and NASA web sites. In addition, research past temperatures in Greenland since the 1930's (NASA), you will be surprised. "

common sense wrote on Nov 18, 2007 11:13 AM:

" Actually, Chris, you are not correct. I've spent a lot of time in third world countries, and have seen the effects first-hand. The environmental lobby at the UN is quite powerful, and they have prevented the construction of powerplants that would give the people of Africa the electricity they need to cook their food (see the documentary). Yes, deforestation is a problem in Africa, but we didn't stop deforesting here until electrical power was firmly established. Give the people an alternative...in the meantime, people in Africa will continue to die because of environmental elitism and greed. "

chris wrote on Nov 18, 2007 12:53 PM:

" Common Sense: You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, the UN is NOT the government of these countries. The only thing they may be able to do is prevent aid from reaching a country. I would bet the biggest aid donner is the USA, and given the attitude of this government I doubt that it is that fussy about the environment. And where did you get "but we didn't stop deforesting here until electrical power was firmly established"? You cut down trees either to harvest the lumber or tho clear the land for farms, neither of which has anything to do with electricity. We stopped deforestation here when we basically stopped having large forests. The Eastern half of this country was basically one large forest from the coast to the plains. Not so anymore and that happened way before electrification. It's pretty much the deal in Sub-Saharan Africa. Trees are being cut down to make farms and to sell lumber, it wouldn't matter what you electrified. The reason there isn't more electrification has more to do with geography. More people live in hard to get to places. It costs money to get power lines there. African countries don't have much money and that has nothing to do with environmentalists. "

concerned 1 wrote on Nov 18, 2007 10:39 PM:

" The rate of Greenland melting has doubled in the last 5 years. It doubled in the previous 5 years. It cannot continue on that exponential trajectory without dire consequences to sea levels. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 19, 2007 11:15 AM:

" Chris, you can't seriously think that these lobbyists are doing nothing when they hang out at the UN? The UN has a tremendous amount of power over the governments of smaller nations, and uses its treaties to steer the course of nations. Resolutions, reports, and prior agreements, coupled with hard cash, are very effective in obtaining results (thus the anti-lobbyist movement both domestically and internationally in recent years). And, with all of these countries saying they will support UN decisions, the UN then says global warming is a problem. This directly translates to no new power plants for needy nations. If you follow the money form these 'environmental' efforts, you'll see who is profiting (hint: they're liberal organizations). A village I was in was planning to build an oil power plant, but it was shut down by government officials due to UN pressure...but of course, you're a liberal and I'm not, so I must "not know what I'm talking about" (your words). Also, your knowledge of history is somewhat accurate, but you are leaving stuff out...it was electricity that allowed us to move in to the industrial age and out of the agricultural age. Only when that transition was in progress do you find (conservative) Teddy Roosevelt establishing the national park system and launching efforts to preserve and replenish the environment. This makes sense...you use trees first to fuel the construction of rudimentary tools and machinery, then you can effectively extract bigger quantities of coal. With coal you start polluting much more, but you also develop the technology to switch to (cleaner) oil. Nuclear power and space-based solar will be even better. Let's just hope we don't have environmental elitists leaving out Africa again. "

chris wrote on Nov 19, 2007 2:15 PM:

" Common Sense: You're explanation sounds like a conspiracy theory. I think more likely the reason there aren't more fossil fuel power plants built in Africa is that it's a bad idea for most of them. They need oil or coal to run them and many of those countries don't have those resources or the money needed to buy them. What they do have is water. Hydro-electricity is a better bet. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 19, 2007 3:44 PM:

" CS: Some regions of Africa do have water, but there are many that are desert savana. They get water during the rainy monsoon season, but that quickly drys up. Africa os one of the poorest regions on the earth. They simply do not have many options for much of anything. As we speak of global warming/climate change, are any of you aware that the sahara desert was once a jungle (a million or so years ago)? Perhaps that region was deforested by our cave dwelling ancestors. Lets all go over with our picks and shovels and re-plant that region. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 19, 2007 3:45 PM:

" Woops! Sorry CS, that last comment was supposed to be aimed at Chris. "

chris wrote on Nov 19, 2007 7:58 PM:

" Skip: I am aware of that. North of the Sahel there is not much water. Aside from Egypt, however, there are not many people, either. Some also have oil and and money. Maybe we should let them have nuclear power plants, Oh Wait, we tend to have a problem when Muslim countries start building nuclear installations. Solar energy? I read that a company in Silicon Valley has developed a very cost effective may of producing solar panels. Do you think Chad or Burkina Fasso can afford power plants? Niger is the fabled source of yellow cake uranium, maybe we can hook them up with a Nuclear Reactor. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:32 AM:

" Chris, you can process the nuclear fuel at controlled facilities to ensure it is not being weaponized (this is what Europe offered to do for Iran). And yes, nuclear is the best alternative...solar works on the small scale, but unless you collect it in space (which is somewhat feasible), it can not power industry, period. It would simply take up to much of the Earth's surface area to produce enough power, and there would be environmental consequences to that. Yes, solar panels are great as a small-scale method of reducing power requirements...but it is naive to think that solar alone can power a nation, even with the most recent advances. As far as UN objectives and human technological development, you can call it a "conspiracy theory" if you want. You left-wing guys are the experts on that stuff...the recent story of Kucinich's UFO sighting come to mind (he said he felt something!). "

chris wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:38 AM:

" Common Sense: I may be a lefty, but I'm no environmentalist. However, I object to misinformation. The vast environmentalist conspiracy (rouge environmentalist impeding third world development, global warming a s job security for scientist, etc) is just ludicrous. I'm a practical guy and I know a thing or two about Africa from direct experience. Large scale projects were tried in Africa during the cold war. They failed because most African countries didn't have the infrastructure to support them. I don't think much has changed. Go build a Nuclear power plant in Chad. Who's going to run it? And at what cost? I was a Peace Corps volunteer. They drummed into us the concept of appropriate technology. You don't bring a computer to a school that doesn't have electricity or if it does, doesn't have any one who knows how to run it, fix it or buy software for it. Electrification would be nice, but many villages would be happy with a solar powered pump so the women didn't have to haul water for miles. "

steph wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:45 AM:

" Popular Science this month: Silicon Valley-based Nanosolar has created (with the backing of Google's founders and the US Department of Energy) PowerSheet solar cells that are as thin as aluminum foil and could make the use of solar energy less costly than burning coal! This is good news for everyone! The cost is a tenth of what current panels cost and several hundred feet per minute can be produced. The cells use no silicon and the production process brings energy costs to 30 cents per watt (coal is a buck a watt). The factory has been built; the first 100,000 cells will go to...oh...Europe. Gotta love this: Peter Harrop, chairman of IDTechEx, an electronics consulting firm, says, "Most important is Nanosolar is putting down factories instead of blathering to the press and doing endless experiments. These guys are getting on with it, and that is impressive." Impressive, indeed. Over on page 106, we meet two more great American achiever, Frank Pringle and Hawk Hogan, who have discovered a way to microwave 10 tons of auto waste, including tires, plastic, vinyl (anything with hydrocarbons) to yield 17 million BTUs of energy (natural gas), all while using under a million BTUs of energy input. Pringle has spent 10 years and a million bucks to discover optimum microwave frequencies for this project, teaming with Hogan to commercialize the machine. They're currently building a $5.1 million machine for an auto-recycler. The US military may use a "Hawk" on food/water bottle waste, and oil companies may use the machine to gasify petroleum trapped in shale. You gotta love those Americans. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:57 AM:

" Chris, again, you're the one that called it a 'conspiracy' (implying a few people secretly controlling things to achieve an objective). I simply see lots of people profiting from 'environmentalism', so I'd call it 'Liberals Gone Wild'. From my direct experience in numerous third-world nations around the globe, I've seen corruption and illegal cash flow, both private companies and government, that is unimaginable here. Why no infrastructure in Africa? Because the money routinely gets funneled (illegally) elsewhere. Surely you must have seen this during your tour in Africa...I saw plenty of it in my work. Power plants should be the top priority. Solar pumps are nice, but it doesn't do you much good when you're drinking sewage. Large scale water filtering and pumping can only be done with a power plant, and they're the only affordable solution for these countries anyway. Power plants would also allow industry to develop and grow...solar can't do it. You're argument of 'they can't have it because their infrastructure can't support it' is similar to the Civil War-era argument that 'blacks can't have freedom because they're not ready for it'. I have no respect for 'environmental' profiteers making money at the expense of millions of human lives. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:07 PM:

" Steph, look at the physics. Even if you assume 100% efficiency of solar cells (so optimistic it's impossible), you are still limited by the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. There is simply not enough solar radiation reaching the surface. Solar is only viable on the large scale if done from space, where you can actually put massive arrays. The power can then be beamed back to an Earth-based receiving station. The recent advances in solar cell technology have made space-based solar a possible solution, but ground-based solar will FOREVER be limited to small-scale applications. That's not my opinion, it's physics. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:46 PM:

" No... "Common Sense", I am afraid that it is you who is actually NOT looking at the physics. A single moderate hurricane uses enough energy derived from the sun to power the entire world for years and years. Chlorophyll is currently the main way that the energy from the sun is captured and stored for plant and animal life. However, there are several photoelectric processes that are more efficient than than chlorophyll. The cost of manufacture is what has been holding back solar-electric cells, not efficiency. Also, you may have missed some green methods of sewage treatment as well. You see Mother Nature cleaned up dung long before we invented pumps, all we have to do is help her out. And the blossoming LED lighting technology which uses less power than CFLs, has a more pleasing steady light while the LEDs can last for 35 years or more. __ It's just not yet time to say that 'It can't be done...' yet, my friend. It's been a couple of decades since lasers (ray-guns) became available but before that, the 'Inverse Square Law' said they were impossible. Most Americans turn their noses up at Luddite attitudes because we love our inventors. And they deserve that affection. ~Ruff "

chris wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:15 PM:

" Common Sense: You are absolutely right in your assessment of corruption and it's impact on development. And, that has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalists. Your not so subtle attempt to brand me as a racist is an inaccurate analogy. The argument you refer to implied that blacks were incapable of freedom based on their supposed character and inferiority. My point reflects the reality of the situation over there, which you agree is true, poor infrastructure. Suppose we put a reactor in, say, Botswana. Who builds is, who runs it, who maintains it? The west? What if it's an oil plant? What happens when oil prices go through the roof? Too bad, right, we in the west can afford it and you in Africa can't. It sucks to be poor. I know that Solar and wind energy aren't the complete answer. I know that more has to be done for Africans to have more comfortable lives. However, you are also assuming that they want to be like us, which I don't think is necessarily true. "

russ wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:06 PM:

" Ruff, please give me a faux link to your source which proves that "A single moderate hurricane uses enough energy derived from the sun to power the entire world for years and years". That doesn't quite compute for me. If true, how can that energy can be converted to useful power? The energy from hurricanes, as I am sure you know, comes from the oceans, which cover some 70% of the earth's surface. That's one big solar receptor. russ "

common sense wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:57 PM:

" Ruff, you're speaking gibberish. Now you want to harness hurricanes? THAT sounds realistic. Chlorophyll is great for plants, but it won't power a factory. You need greater energy density. As I said previously, solar can reduce the total electrical load, but it isn't feasible on the large scale without massive space-based collector arrays. Solar flux per unit area. Chris, as far as building nuclear reactors, there are places in Africa that are ready for the challenge. Ethiopia began a massive program to teach ALL of their children to read a while back, and now have the most literate people in Africa. I have no doubt that they could be trained to run nuclear reactors (I know, I've done it). Coal and oil plants are even easier to operate. Again, you limit Africans based on your preconceived biases. I know they want to be like us in some ways, but not in others...however, it should be their choice, not the choice of environmental elitists. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Wow! Miss a day, miss a lot. Getting back to the discussion of solar applications, solar is a viable option in industrial settings as well as smaller scale domestic applications. The Campbell plant in Sacramento had a full scale solar hot water facility on the roof of the processing plant in the early 1980’s (I toured the facility then). Since that time, there are a number of companies that rely heavily on solar (Photo Voltaic and water heating systems). Ford Motor Company has incorporated solar and other green technologies in their Dearborn Michigan facility. So while dedicating vast swaths of real estate to solar power production might not be practical, it is practical and conceivable to integrate solar into new and existing domestic and commercial construction projects. What would be the effect of covering half the south facing roof tops in the U.S. with Photo Voltaic panels? I don’t have any hard numbers, but I would imagine the impact to the energy grid would be significant. "

Skip M. wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:31 PM:

" Hey Ruff: Isn’t it interesting how absolutes of physics seem to be proven less than accurate as time passes? I know that it was once said that humans could not withstand speeds beyond the sound barrier, yet super-sonic flight is now common place. You mention the “Inverse Square Law” in relation to lasers. We (the collective “we”) currently think travel beyond the speed of light is an impossibility, yet I am confident that this limitation will also be broken one day. While I am skeptical of the idea that human activity is solely, or even significantly, responsible for the current trend of climate change, I do think we should make every effort to develop and implement “alternative” energy technologies. It just seems to make sense. I for one am all about independence. Be it independence from oil producing countries and despots, or independence from corporate energy moguls. The idea of never seeing another PG&E bill while continuing to enjoy my stereo and computer sounds real good to me. "

chris wrote on Nov 21, 2007 10:21 AM:

" Common Sense: Preconceived notions, hmmm...nice attempt to put me on the defensive, but I'm not biting. So. Let's hear the evidence that Environmentalists are blocking development. You named Ethiopia as having a literate population. OK, where are they getting the money to build, run and maintain these power plants? Name three other Sub-Saharan countries that have the means to build, maintain and run these large plants (South Africa doesn't count, they've been doing this for 50 years). What happens when fossil fuel sources dry up? It seems to me from reading about Africa that what they want is development that makes them independent from the west. They want our money and expertise, but they want to follow their own path and they don't want to be at our mercy. "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 21, 2007 1:04 PM:

" Chris, it is unfortunate that you are either incapable or unwilling to do your own research. Perhaps this how you have become so beholden to flawed data and theories. You seem to have a lot of questions for someone claiming to know what's best for everyone else. The money is already there, it is just being funneled illegally (as I stated previously). And, once you put in electricity, you can develop industry. Even the cheap manufacturing locations such as Korea and Malaysia are getting ridiculously expensive, so there is plenty of opportunity to capture some of that business...once you have electricity. Given electricity, nations such as Niger could finally access their vast mineral resources (which, by the way, include uranium...useful in building African nuclear power plants). This would in turn encourage other nations (and their funders) in Africa to make similar investments. Notice I have not made any statement here or in previous posts that the objective is to 'make them like us'...a statement you keep implying that I support. In fact, while overseas, I strongly encouraged them to do things their own way as much as possible. Making good decisions for the environment, however, does require the use of western science. It also requires us to make decisions that save human lives, rather than blindly follow a liberal environmental mantra. Whether we like it or not, the population of the world is increasing. When resources get limited, you are faced with three choices: kill people off, stop allowing people to have children, or develop better technology to allow bigger populations to use resources more effectively. I choose the latter. Give them the power plants they want, and quit making excuses for why they can't have them...it would save millions of lives AND the environment simultaneously. "

Chris wrote on Nov 21, 2007 9:06 PM:

" Common sense: So you are unwilling to back up anything you say with - facts. No problem. I am not surprised. I have no problem with African industry. I just don't buy your explanation for the lack of power plants. If fact, I think you're making it up. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 22, 2007 1:21 AM:

" No, "Common Sense", again you miss my point and gaze backward. You said there was not enough energy coming from the sun to power human needs because there is not enough energy. I pointed out correctly that there is indeed enough energy, using hurricanes as an example. What are hurricanes but large storms driven by heat generated from the sun? What other atomospheric effects come from the sun? Wind. Could wind meet a huge amount of America's energy needs. Yes. The problem is the Luddite view that nothing can be done better than it was done in the past. A combination of waste reduction, clean energy sources, better storage and new technology can set America free from slavery to technologies invented in the 1800s. Please do read up on current events, and jettison the 'Can't Do...' attitude. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 22, 2007 1:42 AM:

" "Skip M", I still believe that there are absolutely limits to our knowledge, and that the physical world as we know it has limits but we don't know all of them. I also believe that there are still things to discover and we can have an abundant future. However, we can't do it by over-fishing the oceans, burning down the forests, blackening our skies and sickening our people. It is past time to use the brains God gave us to think about the whole system in better ways than we have in the past. Like I said earlier, this is not solely about how many feet or inches the ocean will rise. It's about maintaining all the free services that earth provides us. The earth was cleaning up our droppings and the droppings of all other animals just fine for centuries. If people in the space shuttle did not watch the CO2 level in their craft, they would die off. Humans have the ability to use their brains to solve problems and it is time we used them instead of whining that 'It can't be done.', and 'It won't work.' when you can see prototypes and early adopters can buy things right now. I admit having a hard time with folks who claim to be 'pro-business' but want to hold our economy back so petroleum pushers can fund terrorists. And with unleaded regular at $3.29 a gallon people are starting to look for better answers than "It won't work." and the dark mutterings of cranks about "Eco-Fascism." ~Ruff "

common sense wrote on Nov 22, 2007 7:39 AM:

" Chris, I've spoon-fed and molly-coddled you. None of these hard facts are difficult to verify. These are also easily verifiable when visiting most of these countries, which you claim to have done (which I doubt). You claimed that nobody in Africa is capable of running a simple powerplant because they are undeducated, so I provided the example of Ethiopia (which you agreed with...and anyway, you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to operate a simple power plant, even nuclear). You claim it is not economically viable, so I provided a feasible and well-documented business method that proved you were wrong. You said we can't use nuclear in these countries because they're dangerous, yet the US and Europe are both willing to process nuclear fuel for Iran...effectively removing the opportunity to weaponize it, and directly countering your claim. You maintain your biased liberal position at the expense of million of lost lives. It is shameful that such environmental elitism prevents these people from getting help they can actually use. "

common sense wrote on Nov 22, 2007 12:46 PM:

" Ruff, the Sun's energy reaches the Earth at a rate of 1368 W/m^2. Taking in to account atmospheric losses, the typically accepted collectable solar flux levels at the Earth's surface, assuming an optimistic 30% solar cell efficiency, are 92 W/m^2 (south Texas), 77 W/m^2 (northern US), and 35 W/m^2 (northern U.S., winter). On cloudy days, the useful flux will be further reduced (same for days with significant haze or dust in the air) by another 35% on average. And, you only get these levels if the Sun is directly overhead...which most of the time, it isn't (in this case, your flux is reduced by incident flux time the cosine of the angle between collector and Sun). Meanwhile, the average household uses 3200 W. Since Area = Power / Flux, you'll need 42 m^2 of area to cover to meet the needs of ONE AVERAGE HOUSE. As I've stated before, solar is a great small-scale solution, but will never be sufficient to power industry. You need large-scale solutions for that...nuclear or space-based solar beaming energy down. This is not my opinion, nor is it an evil conspiracy by Dick Cheney. We call this 'physics', and it can be used to separate fact from environmental elitist hype. But, it you would rather keep trying to harness hurricanes a power source, go right ahead...I have flying saucer you might be interested in buying. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 23, 2007 7:35 AM:

" More babbling about how things "can't be done", eh, "Common Sense"? Ignoring that wind power is generated by solar energy leaves you with a half-a-loaf analysis. By your own calculations you tell us it CAN be done... 42 square meters is about 450 square feet, and many homehowners have much more than 450 square feet of roof not to mention their garages, carports, and patios. __ People CAN put photovoltaics on their roofs that can power their homes, and store energy and even sell some back to the utilities. If only the Bushites and their Luddite sockpuppets would just get out of the way! And that is with today's technologies. Our very own Napa Register put out articles and photos of a solar electric array providing a large part of the power required to PUMP our drinking water. There are companies in the Bay Area including neighboring Fairfield,CA who are installing solar arrays to power their warehouses and buildings. There are on display 'solar carports' to charge the batteries of a plug-in hybrid. Please take note that Germany (renowned engineering crackpots) is putting up solar arrays along highways and on rooftops. And they are putting up windturbines that pay the landowner a percentage of income and pay them to maintain the gear as well. But you would still have us believe that it still "can't be done"... because you alone know better. Sure, "CS" we understand... but why do you claim to have all this 'Common Sense' and stuff!?! There still are some dedicated Luddites here who tell us that we can not trust our own eyes and make our own choices. But "thanks for playing", Luddites!!! Luddites are Luddites no matter if they call their inedible baloney common sense or pork rinds. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 23, 2007 7:50 AM:

" "Chris", why does "Common Sense" back away in a huff behind a thin smokescreen of 'molly-coddling' instead of just citing a link to all those third world African countries other than South Africa running power plants? And why does "CS", miss the obvious question about nuclear proliferation in Africa when the Luddites are babbling elsewhere about the threat to the US of nuclear technology falling into the wrong hands? This crowd doesn't make much sense... other than to sound like teenagers trying to buy beer getting all huffy when the store clerk wants to see some ID. __ There was a UN report a few years back that said the best thing that third world countries could do to develop their economies was not to build power plants, etc, but to teach their women how to read. The women would then teach their children how to read and in a generation, those folks who could now read would transform their economy. But, noooo... these folks want to build dirty third world pollution sources instead. Sad... ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 23, 2007 9:16 AM:

" I hope people remember the old saying that "Perfect is the enemy of 'Good Enough'." I have seen sketches of, and read about, "orbiting solar powerstations' for some 50 years now, ever since I was old enough to read science and engineering magazines. Now, nobody has ever actually buckled down and built an "orbiting solar powerstation" in the past, nor are any "orbiting solar powerstations" being built right now. "Orbiting solar powerstations" are also out of the reach of regular Americans. I call this stuff out as being distractions. These kind of distractions require that 'regular Americans' depend on big corporations with government subsidies to do it for us. Compare that with plug-in hybrids, biofuels, solar arrays, windturbines and LED lights. These technologies require no new basic infrastructure. We have filling stations, and electrical power grids right now. Yes... we might have to build-up some parts of our existing infrastructure and computerize the electrical grid, but "We, the People..." can do this ourselves! But we must get the Luddites out from underfoot. Do you want your grandkids fighting (according to Alan Greenspan) an oil war in the Middle East, or would you rather get the anti-progress laws changed to have the government spend some of that $4 billion dollars-a-week on helping our auto industry retool so you can buy a car that costs about $0.02 a mile to drive around town to pick up the kids and groceries? I don't care what the Luddites call me. Ask yourself what do you think you will see sooner, a plug-in hybrid car like the ones Arnold Schwartzeneggar stood by (pictures at www.calcars.org/photos-leaders.html) at a recent car show, or an "orbiting solar powerstation"? WARNING: Al Gore (boogeyman of rightwing Luddites) has ridden in a plug-in-hybrid car! ~Ruff "

russ wrote on Nov 23, 2007 7:30 PM:

" Ruff, China, India and the US are in the process of building 327,000 megawatts of coal fueled electric power generation by 2012 to meet the demand of their growing economies and replace obsolete plants. The world's largest solar plant, 20 MW, was scheduled to come on-line in Spain, Sept. 2007. The largest US solar plant, 4.6 MW, is in AZ,where the plan is to have 8 MW on the site of 88 acres. The weeds will be pulled by hand to avoid chemicals and interference with the solar collectors. If I lived in the desert near the Equator I might be more optimistic for solar in power generation. Solar is great for pre-heating water. russ "

russ wrote on Nov 23, 2007 7:48 PM:

" Oh Ruff, can you cite a link to your website showing how to use hurricane energy to generate the earth's power needs? russ "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 24, 2007 7:05 AM:

" Go ahead, "russ", play "Dumb and Dumber" re-runs if you want. It doesn't seem to be very hard for the Luddite Lobby to play dumb. You do know that there were folks who were making buggywhips and horse-drawn wagons well after the successful introduction of the mass-produced car, don't you? Ignore the links and examples of practical solar power for people's homes and continue to babble about the need for huge power plants and other expensive 'dinosaur' non-solutions to the ever-rising costs of energy in the USA. When I am driving around town in my electric plug-in hybrid car for $0.02 a mile that I charged from an 'impossible' smart electrical grid and my 'impossible' rooftop solar array, I'll be remembering and laughing at the doddering old fogies who still belong to the "It Can't Be Done" chorus and are still paying high prices for their petroleum addiction. That is what Luddites have done since the dawn of the technology age. The rest of us 'whippersnappers' are moving on to better things. ~Ruff "

common sense wrote on Nov 24, 2007 8:09 AM:

" You can take Ruff to water, but you can't make her drink. There can be no progress when people don't know the difference between science and fantasy. I guess this is the price we pay for letting our public schools slide down so much...with so much emphasis on everyone 'feeling special' and 'everyone being a winner', it is no surprise that temper-tantrum liberals and environmental elitists want everything their way. Too bad they won't use their vocal minority to help solve these problems. As long as it involves Bush-bashing and fantasy tree-worshiping, it 'feels good'. Meanwhile, people continue to die every day in third-world countries because of these failed, outdated liberal policies. Ruff, the math is there, and it doesn't lie...and the rest of us all know it. "

Lee wrote on Nov 24, 2007 9:05 AM:

" Russ, I think you are being a little "silly" with asking for a site to show how to tap the energy of a hericane. As Ruff has already stated, he only brought that up to demonstrate the power of the sun. And Common Sense, you don't want to accept that the sun's energy can be tapped but there are many homes and large industrial plants that have tapped the sun's source and are totally supplied with solar power. Cities across our country are working towards having solar and wind units to produce energy for their towns. The sun not only creates the heat that heats our entire world but also creates the winds and huricanes and tornadoes and a multitude of other metiological phenonemum. If the sun can create all of those things I think you all are being a bit near sighted to think it can't be harnessed for our energy needs. And everyone who keeps talking nucleur. Tell me, have any of you ever considered how you are going to solve the problem of nucleur waste. You know that dangerous, radio active waste that noone wants in their back yard and noone wants an enemy to get their hands on that can eat through all the containers we have so far designed and that would be dangerous to transport accross our country, and we could end up poluting our entire world with radio active waste if we can't get a handle on this. So, do you really think it would be a good idea to build more nucleur plants so that we could produce more nucleur waste that we can't take care of. "

les wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:31 AM:

" Folks, I’m here to say the earth is in great shape! Life couldn’t be better. The Left Wing Nuts and Scientific Community are playing the role of Chicken Little as they cry out “the sky is falling” under the guise of global warming and worse yet an impending environmental disaster. So what if the snows of Kilimanjaro are gone. I don’t mind gaining a few pounds from eating some bay area fish laced with mercury. Who cares that average temperature is up so the major global glaciers of the world and the permafrost are melting faster than previously recorded, or models projected. Or that we have found the Northwest Passage does exist. I like the warmer weather. Deforestation, I get a warm feeling from seeing the clear cut patches in the mountains, reminds me of pastoral meadows. We can control the displaced starving animals through hunting seasons, the bears can forage on the food left in summer homes or the critters can go somewhere else. Depleting fisheries, I say eat them while they last or before someone else catches and sells them to us. Soylent Green sounds like a good option for my great grand kids. More particulate matter in the air; I can still enjoy that fresh country air; just get this tickle in my throat when I take a deep breath. There is lots of oil that fuels our international companies. The CEO’s will look out for my interests and certainly don’t need any government regulation. Conservation and renewable energy, Bah Humbug, they’ll never catch on and why should I change. Ah yes, life as a Conservative Wing Nut is good. "

russ wrote on Nov 24, 2007 12:30 PM:

" Ruff, last night, after reading your latest blathers, I visited your highly touted calcars site again. I was even less impressed than before. The small company has 2 employees and several volunteers. the founder has no technical background, only marketing, PR, events and campaigns. No doubt a plug-in hybrid can be built. It will happen if there is profit in it. If there is profit, then Toyota, GM and other mega corps will do it and squash the bugs. The more plug-in hybrids, the more coal fired super megawatt plants will be built. Remember when we ran out of oil under Jimmy Carter? What happened? Why did wind and solar not blossom at that time? PS - the City of Napa will not let you put a solar 5 kw peak photovoltaic array on your roof. russ "

russ wrote on Nov 24, 2007 12:56 PM:

" les, I almost felt sorry for you until I started reading the Al Gore blather coming out. Oh God, the glaciers are melting and the polar bears are dying. It is preposterous for you to say that you cannot breathe in clean Napa Valley air, are you a smoker? You are Chicken Little himself. Lee, solar is great for heating water for home and industrial use, but solar will never make much of a dent in coal/gas fired megawatt power plants. Nuclear, fission now and fusion technology perhaps, is the only way to affect carbon emissions in a significant way, unless we dam up a bunch of rivers. russ "

common sense wrote on Nov 24, 2007 1:53 PM:

" Notice nobody is questioning the math...the numbers don't lie. Rather, they drone on with left-wing talking points. Ruff's only attempt to refute the numbers proves my point when one considers how much energy is needed by manufacturing facilities (even green ones). A solar collector the size of an entire city block can only power a FRACTION of a TINY production facility IF it is high noon, there is good weather, and we have some miraculous breakthrough in solar cell technology. However, nuclear power is clean, green, and can produce enough electricity to power vast portions of our nation (even France gets over 80% of its electricity from nuclear). Any time of day. In any weather. With technology we already have. And, it would end the left-wing genocide of MILLIONS of people (in Africa alone!) for the sake of their environmentally elitist agenda. It is pathetic and disgusting that these liberals place so little value on human life. Do the math and quit trying to play politics...lives depend on it. "

Lee wrote on Nov 24, 2007 4:15 PM:

" I can't believe the amount of work that is put out by the "Nay Sayers" on this subject. You know, they told the Wright brothers, that we would never be able to fly. They told us we could never go into space, never explore outer space, that we could never have a telephone that would allow us to talk to someone on the other side of the world. The "Nay Sayers" have told us all so many nevers, that can't be done. OK, How about all you Nay sayers out there come up with a solution to the nuclear waste problem and then I might listen to you, but until then I'm going to work towards solar and wind and water power. "

russ wrote on Nov 24, 2007 5:13 PM:

" Lee, sorry, engineers and scientists invented the airplane, the telephone and put us into outer space. We are the ones developing the technology to go to Mars and beyond at this moment. We are the ones developing the technology for solar power and nuclear fusion right now. The "they" you are talking about are the non-scientists like Al Gore, Ruff and you. It's all about feasibility, practicality, the laws of physics and money. russ "

steph wrote on Nov 24, 2007 7:03 PM:

" If you want a good read that will dispel myths about nuclear energy, Google this: "myths about nuclear energy by ed hiserodt" and read up. Don't knock it until you know. We can't afford to keep supporting the Saudis. It's not good for America. Neither is coal. "

russ wrote on Nov 24, 2007 8:10 PM:

" Coal or nuclear, or coal then nuclear. Take your choice. "

russ wrote on Nov 24, 2007 8:26 PM:

" For the future, nuclear or fossil. Take your pick. Everything else is peanuts. russ "

chris wrote on Nov 24, 2007 9:49 PM:

" Common Sense:Here you go again making a groundless and disgusting attack without a shred of evidence. Typical right wing attack tactics:make an outrageous claim (the more outrageous the better), repeat it incessantly, attack anyone as lazy, stupid or crazy if they get called on it. One million African deaths a year? All due to "environmental elitism"? Prove it. Numbers don't lie, provide some. "

chris wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:22 PM:

" OK Common Sense, here are some numbers. A nuclear power plant costs between $1000 and $2000 per kilowatt. That would put the cost of a 1000 megawatt plant at 1 to 2 billion dollars. For countries whose GDPs measure in the tens of billions of dollars, that's a mighty large slice of the pie. You contend that Africa lacks large scale power plants because the evil environmentalists block them (for which you offer no evidence). I contend that many of these countries can't afford the capital outlay for such plants. "

common sense wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:43 PM:

" Lee, if you're that gung-ho about science (like I am), and you are REALLY worried about our energy sources, then nuclear fission and fusion must be utilized. Fusion is currently 20 years away, but could come much sooner with better funding. Worth doing if you think the global warming hype is true. Good 'ol fashioned fission power is moving forward again, thanks to -gasp- President Bush, who went AGAINST oil interests and made it easier to start up nuclear plants. Bet you didn't hear about that in the mainstream liberal media. Two reactors are coming on line as I type (Indiana and Alabama), with another 30 or so over the next two years. With nuclear, you can produce clean electricity, power desalinization plants to make freshwater, and easily produce hydrogen to power our vehicles. And, the new generation IV reactors are much improved over the currently used generation II units. Nuclear power would save lives AND protect the environment. "

common sense wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:48 PM:

" Chris, again you prove your lack of knowledge on this subject. The G8 nations just recently approved $60 billion in NEW aid to Africa...this is in addition to the tens of billions already being spent. By your own numbers (which I have not yet verified, but I will), one could easily build ten nuclear plants to get the ball rolling. And this would be completely funded from foreign aid! "

chris wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:48 PM:

" So Common Sense, do you have any facts to support your contention that environmental elitists are directly responsible for the deaths of 1 million Africans? I don't think that you do. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:20 AM:

" Poor "russ", the world has passed him by. "russ", says that calcars.org is just a little advocacy group and not a car manufacturing company. Well, our dear poor "russ" misses that the ORG in "calcars.org" stands for "ORGanization" and they are indeed advocates for change. What the "Can't Be Done" chorus misses is that the plug-in hybrid Toyota Prius and the plug-in hybrid Ford Escape were built not by "calcars.org" folks but by Toyota and Ford, noted automotive hobbyists. The Chevy Volt is a project of General Motors, yet another noted automotive hobbyist group. Those pictures, in this near-link: calcars.org/photos-leaders.html are pics of the governor standing beside the cars built by auto manufacturing companies, despite "russ" repeatedly (almost professionally) missing the point. My sweet wife was driving our Prius on Interstate 80 just a few weeks ago and saw the white Prius that calcars.org has modified to be a plug-in hybrid herself. So help is on the way for those of us who are both thrifty and tired of paying a huge chunk of our paycheck to fund terrorists from Saudi Arabia. And "russ"... if you look hard enough at the pictures in the near link you can even find President Bush standing by a plug-in hybrid Prius on the south lawn of the White House. Better start thinking up some new verses to the "It Can't Be Done" Chorus theme song. General Motors plans on making some 60 to 100 thousand "impossible" Chevy Volts in 2010. I've got a 16 city / 20 highway SUV I'd like to sell you! ;o) ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:42 AM:

" "russ", I feel like I am talking to a semi-pro at missing the point. I did indeed challenge the implications of your numbers, and I let your numbers prove my point and disprove yours. So here we go again... We have what is called an electrical grid. If homeowners put solar arrays on the roofs of their homes larger than 450 square feet (by your numbers!) they could generate more power than they would use in their homes. Then they could sell that power to the grid utilities for someone else to buy. The batteries in their homes and cars would also store power to be used on shady days or sold on the grid when a brown-out condition is near. Wind and other sources of electrical energy can also generate power for the grid that can be stored in plug-in hybrid car batteries and household storage. This makes the electrical grid more resilient and capable rather than less. The days of cheap fossil based energy are over. Just like we are never going to see 99.9 cent a gallon gas we are not going to see $1.99 a gallon gas again. We are far more likely to see $3.99 a gallon gas than $2.49 a gallon gas again. But, no "common sense", "russ" and other crackpots don't want you to notice that you can start buying $0.02 cent a mile cars because why? Well for starters, there are no operational "orbiting solar powerstations" and other wingnuttery. But just remember... if you want to buy a beautiful, sleek, powerful car you don't have to fund Saudi Terrorists to do it. ~Ruff "

common sense wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:33 AM:

" Chris, as I stated before, please see the British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for more info on the millions of deaths in Africa. It is available free of charge on YouTube. "

chris wrote on Nov 25, 2007 9:18 AM:

" Common Sense: Actually, I did know that. Actually the number from all sources is closer to $100+ billion. That money is allocated for lot's of things, but I'm sure that a few billion could be allocated for some nuclear power plants (maybe). So, the plants built would be funded by foreigners, the skilled labor would be foreigners (the guys pushing the wheelbarrows I'm sure would be African), it would be run be foreigners (I'm sure some locals would be trained to push the appropriate buttons and given the cell numbers of who to call when things got dicey), foreigners would supply the fuel and set the rules for operation. Is that energy independence? "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Nov 25, 2007 11:08 AM:

" Common Sense: The word "clean," is not entirely accurate. I'll agree that nuclear emissions are clean. Its waste is not. In other words, what we save in clean emissions we spend in nuclear waste. It is basic economics: when a product becomes too expensive to consume, we economize our consumption. Environmental ecosystems cannot "afford" our current lifestyle – we’re spending borrowed money. Clipping environmental coupons in the form of nuclear technology will not help either. If we moved wholesale to nuclear energy, we’d only be transferring risk, not eliminating it. Rather than carbon emissions, footprints, and tree planting, we’d be worried about meltdowns, waste storage, and accidents – the result, however, is the same. "

Lee wrote on Nov 25, 2007 11:24 AM:

" I haven't read a solution for nuclear waste from any of you naysayers. You put out enough nuclear waste and you will wipe out all life on this planet. So while you are all fighting doing anything more towards sun, wind, and water power, it's ok by all of you that we further destroy our planet with more nuclear waste. There have been many sites where business has poluted the land and water and people have suffered because of their lack of caring and by our governments lack of enforcing laws. So I guess it's ok by you all that we continue to do this, and you call liberals uncaring about human life and having no family values? Go look in the mirror. "

steph wrote on Nov 25, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Chris and CS, maybe you would both agree that nuclear power might be a boon to developing nations who would be able to develop economies around reliable energy and clean water? This would be a big investment with HUGE payout in terms of lives saved and quality of lives vastly improved. Nuclear power could bring real peace to Africa the way grain handouts never could. "

russ wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:36 PM:

" The point that non-technical people fail to understand is that capturing 100% of the of solar and wind potential energy would still be a drop in the bucket. Wind and solar CANNOT end dependence on fossil fuels! IT'S PHYSICS! In 50 - 100 years most power will come from nuclear - it must! Nuclear fission has the downside of producing a hazardous waste, but far more deaths occur from production of coal, oil and gas than safe handling of fission waste. Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is a far greater risk than nuclear waste. Nuclear fusion (go to Wikipedia) has UNLIMITED potential for energy production and cleaner, less dangerous wastes. The power of the sun in a fusion reactor. Who are the naysayers? russ "

chris wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:54 PM:

" Steph. The problem is that I don't agree that Nuclear power plants are the answer for Africa. Not on environmental grounds, but on economic grounds. I think that the huge capital costs of big power plants, particularly fossil fuel and nuclear, pretty much put them out of reach for many third world countries. Yeah, we can pay for them, but then who really owns them. From what I've been reading, what the third world really wants is independence and equal access to markets. Foreign aid is just pay off money so that we can deny both. "

chris wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:04 PM:

" Russ, no one (at least not I) is saying that it has to be all solar, wind and other alternative sources. I just think a better mix of all sources is needed. Having solar panels on your roof won't run industry, but it will make your bill smaller and result in a little less oil being imported. In California, we produce somewhere around 1000 - 1500 megawatts of electricity from geothermal sources. That's about the amount you would get from one nuclear power plant, without the waste problem. Also, to date, no one has produced a sustained fusion reaction. It could conceivably be 100 years before anyone does. Or maybe tomorrow. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 25, 2007 9:10 PM:

" Poor "russ" just can not believe that wind energy can be the equal of nuclear power, more's the pity. A single wind turbine can be up to 5 megawatts and so 10,000 of those turbines can be 50,000 megawatts. And those turbines will cost less than nukes, coal, and oil power plants. If those turbines are placed strategically a large percentage can be generating at the same time. No matter what the old fogies in the "Can't Be Done" chorus say we can do better than the old polluting technologies of the past. People who want to peddle "orbiting powerstations" and nuclear and fusion powerplants are actually pushing doing nothing until these hugely expensive pie-in-the-sky projects become practical, while solar and wind are practical right now. Huge smokestack age projects and nuclear plants are terrorist magnets while distributed windturbine and solar power arrays are not attractive targets. Beware the peddlers of technologies that will be ready in 20 years and that require huge amounts of tax subsidies to realize. I've read about fusion power plants being "right around the corner" for 30 years. Let's NOT WAIT for other people to provide us with their solutions and provide our own. It's time to take back our country from the folks that buy politicians to help them rip us off. ~Ruff "

common sense wrote on Nov 25, 2007 9:43 PM:

" First of all, nuclear plant could be manned by the locals in third world nations. Yes, nuclear plants are complex machinery, and they certainly would need foreign assistance in building them, but they are very much capable of operating themselves. Look at our own US Navy...our reactor plants on submarines and aircraft carrier are operated by kids right out of high school, with excellent results. As far as nuclear waste, there are many issues there. For one, the regulatory limits are way excessive. For example tritium (hydrogen with two extra neutrons) is tightly regulated, however it is NOT harmful at all...the beta particles given off are too weak energy-wise to penetrate cells, and therefore do no cellular damage. Same for carbon-14. Another problem is the fact that many things considered 'waste' are actually not...but, if used in nuclear work, even with no detected radioactivity, they are typically thrown in to the radioactive garbage can at tremendous cost. Also, there is a lack of standards regarding what is and isn't radioactivity. For example, the Department of Transportation has very different limits than the Department of Energy...this is a constant source of artificial waste. It is estimated by several nuclear organizations that we could reduce waste by 90% (!) by simply standardizing our processes. However, there is political motivation to keep the system messed up...there are some that stay in power by generating fear about radioactivity, and the more waste the better. Lastly, I also agree that nuclear power must be implemented at the right time, and this is dictated by economics. However, the economic indications I see (gas prices, war, lack of third-world energy alternatives) are that we should have converted to nuclear long ago...this was prevented by the preceding generation of environmental elitists. Now we're paying the price. "

chris wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:24 PM:

" CS:"this was prevented by the preceding generation of environmental elitists". Repeating phoney information doesn't make it true. It's always and only been about economics, politics and appropriate technology. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Nov 26, 2007 12:05 AM:

" Common Sense: You make some compelling points, but I'm still not convinced. Human cells aren't my only concern. Not all cells are created equal. Furthermore, "not harmful" is also not accurate. Tritium is certainly not benign. These particles do not penetrate the outer layer of dead skin, but are still harmful when ingested. Interestingly, Tritium is most often discharged in waste coolant and gases that can, and has, contaminated ground water. "Sr-90 is known to increase the risk of bone cancer and leukemia in animals and presumed to do so in people..." [US NRC website]. To be fair, the site also explains that the risk is minimal - but I also detect a lot of post-Katrina C.Y.A. in its explanations. " Exposure to very small amounts of ionizing radiation is thought to minimally increase the risk of developing cancer, and the risk increases as exposure increases..." [US NRC website]. The theme here is prolonged exposure - such as drinking every day from the tap, or cooking with contaminated water, or simply breathing. I'm surprised that all of you too-much-big-government types are so quick to swallow Tritium just because someone says it's safe. And this is just one type of fuel. There’s also an issue surrounding proliferation of nuclear materials and technology to developing nations. Who decides which nation stable enough? Moreover, who decides what is stable? I'm curious what your thoughts are on Iran? Of course, that's a different topic. I believe global warming is valid. I believe human beings contribute to this cycle. Global Warming aside, the earth cannot sustain both our current level of consumption, and our population growth. It's not fair, but it is reality, and it must be faced. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 26, 2007 6:28 AM:

" Poor, poor, dear old "russ"... Nobody but "russ" denies the pictorial evidence that the glaciers are melting away. One accused me of getting emotional about it, but did not deny the evidence. The deniers of normal intelligence say that they differ about the reasons or extent but they are not quite foolish enough to deny the photographic evidence we can see with our own eyes. It would seem that the only major arguments they deploy regularly are 'Al Gore is a liar', 'You are stupid if you believe your own eyes', or 'It's not so bad' while quibbling about the petty details of estimates, or laughing off the solid evidence presented by the other side. Just awhile back a bridge collapsed... after years of being warned by engineers, and the politicians and crackpots ignored the warnings until people died. Looking at the facts today tells us something bad is afoot. Sea level rise is not the only effect of global warming. Droughts, flooding and other weather extremes are. I am glad that the Napa water folks don't kowtow to the crackpot fringe in Napa and "pray for rain" instead of building water projects in advance of need. Please note that NOT ONE of the global warming deniers has even offered to buy my well-maintained low mileage SUV yet. That indicates that deep deep down even they don't believe their own bullcorn. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 26, 2007 6:45 AM:

" I get a kick out of "common sense" declaring on this thread that third-world African nations could operate nuclear powerstations. Oh, really??? Doesn't "CS" recall all the war drum pounding over allowing Muslim Iran to operate a nuclear powerstation? Many nations in Africa are largely full of those scarey Muslims in their population, not just Iran. The US is part of a proxy war against Muslims in Somalia right now. Sooooo.... "CS" please explain how you rationalize building nuclear powerstations in Muslim Africa? Inquiring minds want to know. ~Ruff "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:03 AM:

" Ruff, you have to pay attention to the discussion. I addressed your issue previously with the same solution the Euros offered Iran...process the fuel somewhere other than a radical Islamo-fascist nation. Dr. Faustus, thank you for correcting my error, I was not clear in my response...yes, tritium can be harmful when ingested internally. However, even then, it takes large doses relative to the common everyday sources of radiation we typically experience. Here in the Bay Area, we get approximately 180 mrem/year...back east, it goes up quite a bit due to radon. Other parts of the world are even higher...one location in India gets 17 rem/year (it takes an acute dose of 25 rem to slightly lower you white blood cell count and increase your chances of getting a cold). Again, my point is that our limits are way too restrictive and there is a huge economic cost for the relatively minuscule health benefits. If people know how much radiation they get in the sun, or from smoking (polonium-210), they would likely reconsider. The politics of fear...both sides use it, but it is the environmental elitists that use it in the genocide of third-world people. "

kevin wrote on Nov 26, 2007 12:50 PM:

" BTW Chris, geothermal produces large amounts of sulphuric acid as a byproduct. The geysers in Middletown have a bad habit of it ending up in the Napa river. Also, geothermal sites tend to have a short lifespan unless more water is injected back underground. "

chris wrote on Nov 26, 2007 4:15 PM:

" Russ: Absolutely there are problems with geothermal energy. NO energy source is flawless, nor is it eternal. Entropy wins. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 26, 2007 4:39 PM:

" No, "common sense"... if we can't trust the Iranians to process their fuel under international protocols acceptable to everybody else but the Bushites, are you going to now clsim that a promise to ship the stuff to the Euro zone by Muslim nations more likely to be kept? Such a sweet trusting soul you are when it comes to SOME promises of Muslim nations... it is so very... Bushite Republican. Your Bushite Republican situational ethics are showing yet again! Not to mention your love of huge government subsidy projects by corporate crocodiles instead of "We, the People..." Some free market advocates Bushite Republicans turn out to be. ~Ruff "

NVR Moderator wrote on Nov 26, 2007 7:04 PM:

" To everyone commenting on this thread. Persons who continue to include degrading personal comments/attacks in their posts are going to have their entire posts deleted, no matter how much relevant material is also included in the post. If bloggers continue with the degrading comments/attacks, that person's account will be suspended. "

russ wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:18 PM:

" chris, I did not comment on geothermal, and I have not commented on it's potential, but it is a good source of power, imagine, steam to drive a turbine which produces electricity without burning fossil to produce heat, to make steam to drive a turbine, occuring naturally from the earth, 24/7, unlike wind and solar!! The only problem at this time is the lack of capacity and the SO2 content of the steam, which needs to be abated before being exhausted, expensive. Some producers are injecting clean water into the hot earth to increase production of steam. Good Idea! Being the object of personal attack, I totally support the NVR moderator. Stick to the subject or else. 10,000 wind turbines? If you do not want a new housing development in your city, where are you going to put 10,000 turbines, which are still a drop in the bucket. The US produces about 5 billion gigawatt hours of electrical per year. Big fans do not run 365/24/7 nor does solar. Peanuts! poor, poor, ole russ :) "

russ wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:21 PM:

" chris, no matter what you do entropy always increases. Third law of thermodynamics. russ "

russ wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:25 PM:

" Ruff, if the glaciers at the poles did not shed their excess, the thickness of the ice due to precipitation would endanger humankind, lowering the water level around the earth, just like in the Great Lakes. Thank God for the freeze and thaw cycle. russ "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:59 PM:

" There are too many political economic issues surrounding nuclear power to make it a viable solution for the near future - especially in developing nations. There are all sorts of implications surrounding national sovereignty, who will transport, who will secure, who will decide - too much room for anger and frustration. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 439 reactors in the world. Ninety-four reactors planned as of October, and 222 proposed for the future - all requiring 66,529 tonnes of Uranium. That's a lot of mining, transport, security, waste disposal etc. As I stated before, nuclear power is a study of risk transference - in terms of environmental conservation - not risk elimination. We would be exchanging the risk of global warming for the risks involved with nuclear proliferation. Furthermore - and correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm under the impression that a nuclear reactor requires an outside power source to pump coolant. I'm also under the assumption that these external sources are powered primarily with fossil fuels. So, assuming this is the case, how can nuclear power eliminate carbon emissions? Total emissions could possibly be lower, I'll agree. But is the total risk worth it? Not to mention the morality involved with exposing non-human organisms to our nuclear waste "

common sense wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:22 PM:

" Ruff, President Bush was open to the Euro fuel processing options. And yes, while I am highly libertarian in most of my positions, I am in favor of 'big government' projects that achieve a specific objective when there is 1.) overwhelming need, 2.) a project too big for the private sector to tackle alone, and 3.) predetermined exit strategies with turnover to the private sector. Social security fails all three criteria, and therefore needs to go away. I would support a big government project that develops fusion power or space-based solar power on a more rapid timeline. However, these must be turned over to the private sector upon completion. Over the long term, government-run operations are simply more expensive (increased regulatory costs) and less efficient (no competition). Government can not remain unbiased when it has fingers in the cookie jar. The Founding Fathers knew this, and did everything in their power to keep government small...and only wielded government power when necessary. "

common sense wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:38 PM:

" Dr. Faustus, the power needed to pump coolant is generated by the reactor itself. No carbon emissions (not that I'm concerned, since carbon dioxide is not a pollutant). The only output from a reactor is warm water. Additionally, the new generation IV reactors are highly efficient and safe...by orders of magnitude over previous generations of reactors. No Chernobyl's with the new ones. Nuclear waste can be safely stored for decay and even reprocessed and reused (much progress has been made in this area recently). Since nuclear power is really the only option, people are now taking a good hard look at how to improve the process. Again, nuclear proliferation is not an issue if the fuel is processed at a trusted location and inspectors have full access to the facilities ('hide and go seek' with inspectors can't be allowed). And, as a bonus, we save tremendous money and resources by powering desalinization plants and producing hydrogen fuel for vehicles. The difference between now and the 1950s is that we now know what we're doing, and how we can do it profitably while taking in to account the environmental issues. Ironic that concern for the environment stopped all nuclear reactor construction (in the US) in the 1970s, and concern for the environment is the driving force bringing them back now. "

steph wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:47 PM:

" NYT 11-23-07: "“The environmental benefits of wind are not as great as its champions claim,” said Euan C. Blauvelt, research director of ABS Energy Research, an independent market research firm in London. “You’ve still got to have backup sources of power, like coal-fired plants.” Mr. Blauvelt publishes an annual report on wind energy in which he discusses its flaws. People in the industry would accuse him of propagating myths, he said. Now, the criticism is more tempered. “One of the big problems with wind is that people tend to get hyped up about it, very emotional,” Mr. Blauvelt said. “The difference is that the arguments are becoming more rational.” Germany is running out of places to put the turbines because of restrictions on the location and height of the devices. And rising raw material prices are making wind farms more expensive to build. “Under the current circumstances, Germany’s climate protection targets are not achievable,” said Hermann Albers, the president of the German Wind Energy Association. Open land is not a problem in the United States, but wind parks have faced resistance, particularly in scenic locales near the shore. A privat