V. Bruce's Comments

In response to Mark Lytle, I doubt people are being paid. The lack of support for nuclear is partially due to people not understanding the seriousness of climate change. I do not think nuclear is the best option, but we need an ABC policy, Anything But Carbon. In response to pierrot, I am hardly the expert, but there is work being done on 4th generation reactors that would burn existing waste. Again, my view is ABC.

I do not think anyone should get ecstatic on the demise of nuclear. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Nuclear is the enemy of coal, and climate change outweighs the risks of nuclear.

The real problem is the refusal of the GOP to acknowledge the threat to our future well-being of climate change. We can get rid of all subsidies and renewable energy will thrive if we start to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for future damages with a steadily progressive carbon fee (and dividend).

In response to jnord3742, I do not think you understand that magnitude of the problem. In effect, you are getting double use of carbon dug or pumped out of the ground, but you are still taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere as CO2. Along the same lines, suppose we have 500 years worth of coal at today's usage rates, and we double our efficiency, so that 500 years worth of coal is 1000 years worth of coal. The net effect of burning up that coal in 500 or 1000 years is the same, we destroy the planet. Most of the fossil fuels that we know about, and all of the fossil fuels that we have not yet discovered have to be left in the ground.

I do not have the author's expertise, but my gut reaction is that making it permanent is more important than making it refundable. What good will it be if it is refundable if it expires in two years?

CO2 is not a good feed stock for fuels if you do not capture it a second time. Dual use of the carbon in natural gas is good, but not good enough. Best to leave it in the ground. It could serve as a transition to totally carbon free electricity, but it has to be kept in mind that the end goal is to be carbon free.

If anyone in Denmark is reading this, I would question the wisdom of ground source heat pumps. I am a strong advocate of them in 'cold' climates, but I doubt Denmark is cold enough. The basic technology of ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps is the same. Both lose efficiency as the temperature of their heat source drops. There is a natural tendency for the loop field of a ground source heat pump to stabilize at 0 degrees Celsius. Air source heat pumps are a better option anyplace the temperature is not below the freezing point of water most of the time during the heating season. Air source heat pumps work considerably below that point, it is just that their efficiency drops off and a homeowner or business would be better off with a ground source heat pump.

Solar is the answer. Now, what's the question? What problem are they trying to solve? To me, the issue to address is climate change. Solar certainly has it's part in solving that issue. For northern tier states, they should first address home heating. It could be biomass, or super-insulated houses and electric resistance heat. I am biased towards ground source heat pumps married to carbon-free electricity. If Vermont is like Minnesota, there are a few issues. First, there are not enough installers, so they over-charge. Second, there are not enough well-drillers, so they over-charge. Third, you still have the loop field. I would suggest two things, first use a PACE mechanism to fund the loop field. Second, require contractors to give an itemized billing so that homeowners can see how much these guys are making and put a bit of pressure on them. I have a ground source heat pump and buy all of my electricity from our local "WindSource" program. I am also in the process of super-insulating much of my house.

First, why does the author talk about 'slowing' climate change when we should be talking about reversing it. If we have to destroy a small portion of the desert to save the planet, that seems pretty reasonable. We can easily halt any increase in GHG emissions we a much more aggressive attitude towards conservation and solar.

I agree. In the northern tier of states, everyone who owns a house has to heat it, not everyone has to have solar panels. In the northern tier of states, if we wish to become carbon neutral, we have to address home heating. I prefer ground source heat pumps married to a carbon free source of electricity.

@John
The seven degrees that I referred to is the change in overnight lows in January in Hinckley, MN, 1960-1967 versus 2000-2007. I dug this information up to make sure my mind was not playing tricks with me. I originally did this for the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, for which the figure is 9 degrees, but 40 years ago the airport was on the outskirts of the metro area whereas now the metro area has grown up around it. That would appear to point to a heat bubble over the metro area. If there is a heat bubble over Hinckley, MN, it would be a fraction of a degree.

@mafuba
What point? That he publishes a well written article with misstatements to sooth everything over?

@John-Bronson
The point isn't that they like having it a bit warmer, the point is that if we do nothing, then 40 years from now it is another 7 degrees warmer, and 40 years after that another 7, but at that point in time we won't be complaining about the weather, we will be complaining about all the refugees from the coastal regions who got flooded out, and may or may not have any money since their homes were flooded. It sounds like a game of Russian roulette where the only winners are the current owners of fossil fuels. I am sure the above argument will roll off the backs of many people, after all there are people who do not fix the leak in the roof when it is sunny because there is no need to fix it, and they don't fix it when it is raining, because, hey , it is raining and they'd get wet.

@John-Bronson

Yes there is discussion of that, and I doubt either of us is qualified to say who is correct. However, overnight lows in Hinckley, MN in January are 7 degrees warmer than 40 years ago. Pick up a phone book and start calling people in the interior northern tier of states until you have talked a few 'mature' adults. Ask them what winter is like now compared to when they were growing up. We have not doubled our CO2 level, and winters are drastically different, and it is not my imagination. Since neither of us is qualified to know what the effect of doubling CO2 is, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. The laws of physics are much less forgiving than the laws of economics.

He is correct that predictions of climate are hard to make. However, his statement:

"the large natural forces on our climate that include sun spots, variations in the earth's orbit, and volcanoes all of which have not been taken into account"

leaves much to be desired. From the little that I have read, climate scientists have taken this into account to explain what is happening now. Can they extrapolate that to make predictions? Probably not in that they cannot predict when a volcano is going to erupt. From what I have read, we should be in a cooling trend right now due to variations in the Earth's orbit, but man's activities are overwhelming the Earth's feedback mechanisms. From the people I have talked to, I find most believers in AGW to be far better informed than the deniers.