Is Carbon Emissions Trading a good or bad idea?

[pgrmdave]

I think that carbon trading needs to be tweaked, but I think that setting it up as a market is a good thing. If a group wants less pollution, they can always simply buy carbon and sit on it. If enough people do that so that the price of the carbon goes up, selling it and using the profits to fund cleanups is an option. I think that it is long overdue, and it provides good incentive for businesses to pay for their own pollution.

[HydrogenBond]

We are all working under the assumption that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Obviously, the fact that warming has occurred in the past lends some doubt to this assumption. The same can be said about the warming that is currently going on, on Mars. I tend to believe the global warming scare is the ends justifying the means.

The environmentalists are part responsible for this pickle. If nuke power had been developed and had evolved from the 1960's to now, the Carbon levels would currently be much lower. The excess power would be used to make hydrogen gas for clean burning auto fuel, etc., making the middle east less stretegic and volatile. This is another one of those boon doggles that will create another set of problem for the future, under the guise short sighted altruism.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

We are all working under the assumption that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Obviously, the fact that warming has occurred in the past lends some doubt to this assumption.

Do you also doubt man is responsible for some forest fires since they happened before we were around?

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The same can be said about the warming that is currently going on, on Mars. I tend to believe the global warming scare is the ends justifying the means.

My understanding is that this observation is based on three photograps of the southern pole region of Mars. In comparison, earth bound measurements have been made using photographs, thermometers, proxy (tree rights, ice cores, etc). These have lead to the conclusion that the earth is currently undergoing a global temperature change.
So, which one can give us a better/more reliable picture of it's respective global temperature?

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The environmentalists are part responsible for this pickle.

I whole-heartedly agree.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

If nuke power had been developed and had evolved from the 1960's to now, the Carbon levels would currently be much lower.

Somewhat lower to be certain, maybe much lower depending upon how many coal plants nuclear displaced.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The excess power would be used to make hydrogen gas for clean burning auto fuel, etc., making the middle east less stretegic and volatile...

I would love to see what information you based this upon
I think our auto fuel infrastructure would not be any different than it is today regardless of the amount of power we have available. The infrastructure is more 'entrenched', in my opinion, in politics. It is less reliant on available energy from power plants (again, in my opinion).

France has a large percentage of nuclear power, does it have a lot of hydrogen powered cars?

[HydrogenBond]

Nuke power plants are most efficient at full power. When consumption is low, and they need to power down, this is done using materials that absorb the excess radiation (not used for power) lowering efficiency. A better strategy would be to always run at full power, and divert the excess output, during off peak, to make hydrogen gas.

When nuke power first emerged it was very competitive. The environmentalists, used doom and gloom, like they still do today, to make the entire process political and therefore long winded. The strategy was to set up too many obstables that nuke power would lose competitive advantage. That strategy was successful, leading to more dependance on oil, gas and coal to meet the ever increasing electric demands. The result is more CO2 emissions than would have occurred in a less gullable world. Now the same jokers are blaming the situation they helped create, with their misguided compassion, on everyone but themselves.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Nuke power plants are most efficient at full power. When consumption is low, and they need to power down, this is done using materials that absorb the excess radiation (not used for power) lowering efficiency. A better strategy would be to always run at full power, and divert the excess output, during off peak, to make hydrogen gas.

I agree with that. However, why do you think that actually would happen? Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it will overturn the oil business world. We currently HAVE some nuclear plants, do we use those few to produce any Hydrogen?

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

When nuke power first emerged it was very competitive. The environmentalists, used doom and gloom, like they still do today, to make the entire process political and therefore long winded. The strategy was to set up too many obstables that nuke power would lose competitive advantage. That strategy was successful, leading to more dependance on oil, gas and coal to meet the ever increasing electric demands. The result is more CO2 emissions than would have occurred in a less gullable world. Now the same jokers are blaming the situation they helped create, with their misguided compassion, on everyone but themselves.

Why use such a broad brush? I count myself an enviornmentalist, and was very pro-nuclear power (still am). I know of many others that also feel the same way. Know, there are some that don't, but I don't think you can pidgeon-hole everyone that cares about the enviornment as these jokers you mention.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Nuke power plants are most efficient at full power. When consumption is low, and they need to power down, this is done using materials that absorb the excess radiation (not used for power) lowering efficiency. A better strategy would be to always run at full power, and divert the excess output, during off peak, to make hydrogen gas.
.

or de-salinate water at night?
They have to have access to (sea?) water for cooling anyway.

"Pebble bed" technology looks like solving the melt-down problem. (One pebble bed reactor looks like being built in China in a few years.
There was a report on "Catalyst" (?) about it last week).

Thorium as a fuel stops the arm race problem and can actually use up plutonium.

Then you are only left with the waste problem (Which is much less with Thorium anyway)

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations
In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001.
He has an interesting take on coal power:-

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."

He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant!
That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104

I wonder how much radioactive junk is floating about from coal?

Where are the men in white coats running about the countryside protecting our food chain and health?

[maikeru]

Carbon emissions trading as it's currently implemented doesn't seem to work so well. It's better than allowing countries and industries to freely pollute as they will, but I think the mindset of how carbon is treated and viewed must also change. In nature, many "waste" products in of themselves are valuable resources, which flow in continuous nutrient and elemental cycles. I have a problem with the mindset that treats CO2 as akin to toxic or hazardous waste. It's a rare approach like terra preta, which views carbon not as a toxic waste product but as a valuable resource, that changes the current paradigm entirely.

[pgrmdave]

For those who think that carbon trading is a good idea but not quite right, how can we fix carbon trading? It seems to me that increasing the cost of carbon would help quite a bit, how could we do this?

[Zythryn]

I think a straight carbon tax would work wonders. Make it a wopper too.
Announce it and tell companies it will be implimented in 5 years at full strength.
The companies that don't do anything to limit their emmisions will pass along the carbon tax to the end users. The companies that do limit their carbon tax, get to undercut the competition without lifting a finger. People will buy the lower priced stuff. Business that didn't lower carbon output is at a major disadvantage and changes or withers.

The only problem I see with it is if NO companies cut their carbon emmisions. However, if money is involved I don't think this will be an issue.

[Michaelangelica]

Just came across this while looking for something else
washingtonpost.com

THE NEW ECO-CAPITALISM
When Being Green Puts You in the Black

By Daniel C. Esty
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page B01

Are America's capitalist titans really going green?

This week's announcement that two of the country's largest privat
Moving from "command and control" regulations to a market approach to environmental protection means that there will be real costs for pollution -- including a price to be paid for greenhouse-gas emissions -- for every business.
But these costs sharpen the economic incentives for pollution control research and development, and create big opportunities for companies that come up with solutions for society's environmental problems.

At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, CEOs fell over one another stepping up to the issue of climate change. Companies large and small are redoubling their environmental efforts in the face of Wal-Mart's demands that its suppliers reduce waste and improve energy efficiency. Billions of dollars of venture capital are flowing into alternative energy and pollution control technology. Leading companies -- call them "WaveRiders" -- have begun to fold environmental thinking into their corporate strategies.