LJWorld.com weblogs Notes from John

Colorado exports carbon emissions to Kansas


The Denver Post reported that state regulators approved Xcel Energy's plan to meet energy demands through 2015 (denverpost.com 9/19/2008). This plan includes closing two coal-fired power plants and replacing one with a natural gas plant. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission stated that this advances Governor Bill Ritter's goal of reducing carbon emissions while ensuring an adequate supply of energy at the lowest prices possible.The Lawrence Journal World just two days ago reported that Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Associated is still interested in building the two coal-burning plants in southwest Kansas with 85% of the electricity going to Colorado and Texas.Do I have it right that Colorado reduces its carbon emissions at our expense?Kansas has a long history of conflict with Colorado over water. Now we can add carbon. Don't misunderstand me I love Colorado. Last July I spent two weeks in the mountains and loved it. It is often difficult for states to look beyond their borders. The world doesn't gain a thing if Colorado closes two coal fired plants and we open two. This is why federal legislation is needed.


devobrun 9 years, 6 months ago

It is well known that CO2 mixes readily with the atmosphere. Emissions in Co., Ks., or Patagonia have the same effect on the atmosphere.Labeling CO2 a pollutant is like labeling sex dangerous.Yes, sex can be dangerous, if not properly thought about, and practiced. It can cause unwanted pregnancies, disease, broken relationships, suicide.....yikes.Sex also leads to the continuing of our species. It is obviously necessary.So is the production of CO2. CO2 is produced naturally in quantities much greater than from humans. It isn't toxic to animals until it reaches levels way above any future estimates.But it is said to cause global warming, er climate change, er catastrophic something, anything, er what were we talking about?Oh yeah, CO2 is bad. We should sue somebody. Well, Mr. Poertner, you are wrong. The so-called science behind the great lie is as valid as the science behind the lending practices of the past 10 years or so.Both AGW and monetary/fiscal policy are predicated on computer programs. Bad computer programs. A sure sign of trouble in rational thought is when computer programs replace common sense. When the level of sophistication is beyond the ability of any one person to explain to an average intelligent novice, then you can bet it is hogwash. AGW based upon anthropogenic CO2 emission is hogwash, just like the lending policy of the last 10 years or so.This whole Al Gore/Jim Hansen bologna is gettin' ripe. The same lousy sensors that have been used to predict doom and gloom are now showing that the average temp of the world has stabilized, or even decreased over the past 10 years (and it looks like 11 years now).With the collapse of the western economy (we're not done yet), people will be far less accepting of computer generated hogwash. Look for Obama to start tap dancing on global warming any day now. My suggestion to the state of Ks is build 'em baby, build a lot of them. Set us up as an energy capital of the middle of the U.S. Maybe, the governor won't have to cut education funding by $140 million after all.

Paul Decelles 9 years, 6 months ago

Devo,You are right about the rapid mixing of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-but your statement that carbon dioxide is produced in much greater quantities from natural sources seems to be a bit of obfuscation. After all small increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide production can lead to a slow but steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Your argument is much a like person (if you wish substitute a certain government) saying that I am running a 1% deficit per year but no matter because that is such a small portion of what I spend. So I am using your analogy about lending but to argue the opposite conclusion. ;-)Maybe we can get Vickie to comment here.Regards,Paul

devobrun 9 years, 6 months ago

The earth is far more complicated than one factor, like CO2. The climate models that predict significant temperature implications of CO2 do so by recursion (feedback). A major feedback mechanism is water vapor (humidity).CO2 alone cannot cause temperature increases that would label it a pollutant. But with a feedback effect, it does. The feedback effect is a computer program. The predictions of increasing temp are a computer program. Has this feedback parameter been independently measured and tested? NoAre there other mechanisms that could mitigate the H2O feedback? Probably.Is the temperature of the atmosphere continuing to climb? Not for the last 11 years.Why isn't it climbing? Changes in ocean currents? Maybe, but that would be a feedback mechanism that would mitigate the H2O contribution. If this is the case, the current models are incorrect and that would cause a major economic and political upheaval.What about the output of the sun? OK, wait a minute. There are many possibilities for the direction of the earth's temperature. Our computer programs are inadequate. We are guessing. We don't know. Mr. Poertner wants to purposely avoid an economic opportunity for our state on the basis of CO2 as a pollutant. It is labeled as such erroneously. Mr. Poertner's assertion regarding CO2 is wrong. Many people are inflating the danger of CO2. They do so erroneously and are creating a "fog of war", if you will.Its like spreading rumors. Its dangerous for policy makers because people will read the erroneous assertions and start believing them, without thought, then demand that politicians do something about the erroneous assertion.Prince Charles once commissioned a study of "gray goo" on the basis of its existence in a Michael Crichton book named "Prey". Fiction comes to life. Dangerous territory.

Bob Hechlor 9 years, 6 months ago

The greatest overwhelming majority of scientists have already agreed that not only is global warming occurring, but if something isn't done soon, many problems will ensue which are likely to lead to massive death of humans. Even if you choose to ignore that, mining itself is the beginning of the problem with coal. It is causing massive destruction of mountains, wildlife, fish and rivers and poisoning the water supply causing the need to truck in fresh water. The cost of all of this is enormous and now is not necessary. We now have the technology to produce energy in cleaner ways and need to get on with that. The governor vetoed the coal plants. After she is out of office, no doubt the energy corporation serving legislators will try again. We will need to make sure that we vote for another governor who will continue to veto more pollution in favor of clean technology.

QA_Lady 9 years, 6 months ago

Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for "global warming," Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of "Burning Ice" (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.The issue of "global warming" brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects ("inputs" and "outputs") and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, "Statistics for Experimenters," by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.htmlhttp://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.htmlAlthough these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional "assumption" may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.Mars also has Global Warming (and from the Solar Sun, NOT human-causes) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlhttp://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htmhttp://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htmRetired Univ. of California technical staff member Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, now living in Kansas

Bob Hechlor 9 years, 6 months ago

The problem with this kind of thinking QA and XD is that there are many harmful effects from polluting. Even if we would learn that not polluting didn't reduce global warming, then you can move to the next step. If we learn that it does help, then, we have the problem solved. We need to stop polluting for many reasons beyond global warming. It is a health problem and it causes major destruction to the environment, and that is clearly not theoretical. There is no reason or excuse to try to make people feel good about polluting, period.

Bob Hechlor 9 years, 6 months ago

XD, the author of your article is clearly making political commentary and that makes it suspicious. The author comments on Freud, which is probably not the area of their expertise and the same with Marx. I doubt if the person writing is either a psychologist, psychistrist or political scientist. To make those comparisons would lead me to believe that this person is comfortable pretending to be expert in areas that they are not expert in.

Bob Hechlor 9 years, 6 months ago

XD, Clearly the Telegraph article is another "opinion." The person doesn't even give their credentials. They are a staunch complainer about Al Gore. Again, that leads one to believe that the person has an agenda rather than expertise. This is not about research and there is no attempt to be transparent about where the information comes from. These issues are too important to take on "faith."

John Hamm 9 years, 6 months ago

Ahhhh, it all ends in 2012 anyway so "What Me Worry?"

Bob Hechlor 9 years, 6 months ago

Oonly, you just wish it would end in 2012.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.