Liberals Can Be Skeptics, Too

Decarbonization and demonisation (2)

I commented over at Crooked Timber on my thoughts about decarbonization, and of course got called a denialist and an ignorant sod... and these guys are on my side? This is what I said...

 "I think the bulk of our emphasis should be on connecting the 1.6-2 billion humans who currently don’t have access to electricity to some grid, any grid, anywhere. Using the Millenium Development Goals as a mechanism…

"The industrial world has gone from burning wood to coal to oil to gas. We are now trying to move less than 1 billion people (EU and US) from gas to a new means of generation. If we instead focussed our efforts on moving those in the third world from wood to oil or gas, we would lower CO2 emissions (deforestation causing 20% of manmade CO2, and less efficient forms of fuel releasing more pollutants, including CO2). We would reduce emissions ofCO2. We would help the people on this planet who need it most. And you would get to shut cranks like me up forever.

"Decarbonization proceeds at about 0.4% per annum. Energy efficient increases by about 1% per annum. I think our policy goal should be to make improvements in decarbonization at least equal to improvements in energy efficiency.

Thinking quantitatively, which would be more beneficial in your opinion? Moving 2 billion people from wood to natural gas, or moving 700 million from oil and natural gas to, well, something?"

This is what some jerk replied,

Tom, that’s false. It’s not your-opinion-is-wrong wrong, it’s factually wrong. The people burning wood would not emit less carbon if they were moved to electricity generated via gas. They’d emit more. Electricity generation inefficiencies, grid inefficiencies, wood being biomass in the first place, people using more energy because now they can … the reasons why you’re wrong are so many that I can only consider your point to be another form of denialist obfuscation. If you’re sincere, then you’re so careless, you should be ashamed of yourself.

To forestall straw man #2, of course people without access to electricity should have it. So connect them to the grid, or give them independent power generators. The process of converting the grid to non-CO2 generating sources, or of developing local generators that are not CO2-generating, will help with that.

To which I had to reply...

Hi all, obviously I would encourage doing both—but as far as priorities go, I think that in this case the humane thing to do for the poorest on the planet is also the smartest thing we can do to combat greenhouse gases, pollution and conserving resources.
Rick, I’m glad your’e so convinced of your opinion. You might look at this before instantly assuming that I am careless or a denialist. You might start using that calculator before making judgements about the character of people you don’t really know very well.

I actually thought that this was so basic and well-known that it didn’t need much in the way of referencing—guess I was wrong.

Energy Comparison
1 pound of wood = 6,401 BTUs = 1.9 KWH
1 pound of coal = 13,000 BTUs = 3.8 KWH
1,000 cubic foot of natural gas = 1,000,021 BTUs = 299 KWH
1 gallon of oil = 138,095 BTUs = 40.5 KWH
1 gallon of propane = 91,500 BTUs 26.8 KWH

Natural gas provides the highest efficiency level followed by oil. Wood offers the lowest efficiency per pound at 1.9 KWH/lb and is followed by coal with twice the efficiency at 3.8KWH/lb. Oil offers almost a 70% efficiency improvement over coal and propane is just slightly more efficient than coal.

Fuel Energy Efficiency
Wood = 1.9 KWH per pound
Coal = 3.8 KWH per pound
Natural Gas = 6.9 KWH per pound (liquid and gas measures are calculated at 6.3 pounds per gallon)
Oil = 6.4 KWH per pound
Propane = 4.3 KWH per pound

http://greenecon.net/how-to-measure-fuel-efficiency-energy-costs-and-carbon-emissions-for-home-heating/energy_economics.html

Update: Same jerk, same story:

"Denialist. You use stats for home heating efficiency for a comparison which you stated as being between burning of wood by people off the grid and connecting them to the grid. Converting heat energy into electricity involves large losses. So does sending it over a grid. And, of course, CO2 within wood has just been taken out of the atmosphere / ecosphere, and returning it doesn’t add CO2 to the system in the same way that digging up natural gas does.

In other words, all of my original objections stand. Denialist."

The Fools In Town Are On Our Side....

The Fools In Town Are On Our Side

By 'our side' I mean the Democrats.

Before we get to this morning's news, a bit of background. Air travel is estimated to produce between 2.5% and 5% of human greenhouse gas emissions. Air travel is also an area where much improvement can be expected in the natural course of events, as airlines immediately save money when efficiency improves. Airlines should be natural allies of those wanting to conserve, and should serve as a well of support for intelligently designed programs. From today's Mail Online:

"Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party, suggested that travellers who regularly jet off to the Costas are threatening the lives of others - and do as much damage as thugs who stab people in the street.

Ms Lucas, who is also a Member of the European Parliament, made the controversial comment during a televised ITV debate about plans for a proposed third runway at Heathrow. She also hit out ‘binge flying’ and people who have second homes abroad.

When asked if flying to Spain was as bad as knifing a person in the street, Ms Lucas said: ‘Yes - because they are dying from climate change.’

This is my inaugural post in the category, The Fools In Town Are On Our Side, where I will put posts from liberals and Greens that make me cringe with their stupidity.

I've seen Caroline Lucas on the BBC interview show Question Time. She is not unintelligent--she's fierce, committed--and absolutely wrong on this. And she's going to get creamed. European Parliament members travel a lot, and I will bet her airmiles will come back to embarrass her.