backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 166 comment(s) - last by piroroadkill.. on Sep 16 at 4:31 PM


The world's first industrial scale carbon sequestration plant pumps carbon dioxide up to 800 m underground. Unfortunately it is not very popular with climate change skeptics and environmentalists alike.  (Source: Der Spiegel)

The new plant receives CO2 shipments by truck from a special 45 MW coal plant 217 miles away.  (Source: Der Spiegel)
New plant pumps carbon safely into the ground, but is it really helping?

Carbon sequestration technology aims to store carbon, regardless of its source, whether it is from a new high-efficiency coal plant or an ancient relic of a plant.  In the past, researchers looked at many ways of doing this.  Some argued to put it in the sea while others argued to sink it in artificial wetlands.

However, the most popular idea is to pump it underground.  The U.S. Department of Energy already launched an expensive initiative to test out such a system.  Now Swedish power supplier Vattenfall has beat everyone to the punch, building and bringing online the world's first industrial-ready carbon sequestration plant, located in Brandenburg, Germany.

Construction on the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plant began two years ago.  The plant cost $97.4M USD to construct.  Many view it and other CCS plants as essential for coal to stay competitive against greener energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power.  The plant officially opened with a ceremony this Tuesday.

The power plant used by the facility is a specially built 45 MW plant 350 kilometers (217 miles) away.  CO2 is delivered by the truckload to the waiting plant, where it is pumped underground into a natural gas reservoir.  Vattenfall's main competitor, RWE, is looking to build a 450-megawatt CCS power plant in Hürth, nine kilometers southwest of Cologne.

The technology is thought to be viable at current carbon credit costs when it can be coupled with a plant with about 1,000 MW of capacity.  Thus the current new plant is an experimental proposition, which is losing money in the short term.

At the new plant, gas is pumped into 800-meter-deep bore holes into the depleted reservoir.  Estimates vary, but it is expected to be trapped there anywhere from 1,000 and 10,000 years.

While some power companies are promoting the technology as a green dream, interestingly many environmental groups are vocally opposing it.  Over 99 organizations in a group called the "Climate Alliance" invited protesters to the opening of the plant.  They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.  Further, they say it will slow the adoption of alternative energy sources, lulling people into a false sense of security.

While some, particularly in the green community are particularly opposed to the technology, it doesn't seem likely to go away anytime soon.  SPD (Germany's top political party) head Kurt Beck acknowledged the criticism, but cautiously plugged the effort, stating, "One sees clearly that it is far more than just a theoretical beginning.  It is one of a number of solutions to the climate problem."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

crazy kids
By ViroMan on 9/12/2008 8:39:37 AM , Rating: 4
Eco Freak: Ohh.. its horrible... the coal plants are polluting!

Engineer: I have the solution! Ill take the CO2 out of the bad air and pump it back into the ground!

Eco Freak: HEY! Stop that! We need to have something to yell at!

Engineer: I can solve that too! <Puts a pump to the eco freak's mouth and starts pumping out the CO2 from the polluting eco freak>




RE: crazy kids
By 306maxi on 9/12/2008 8:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's pretty poor on the part of the enviro-tards.

I consider renewables to be a big part of the solution in the future just as nuclear power should be as well. But we should also look at whether CO2 can be stored like this as this can also be part of the solution.


RE: crazy kids
By wvh on 9/12/2008 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's not solution as such. It's delaying a problem, much like hiding a dead body under the floorboards.

:)


RE: crazy kids
By epobirs on 9/13/2008 1:04:58 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently you don't understand where coal comes from.

This is returning the carbon, released from burning the coal, back underground where the coal was first obtained. If the goal is to keep carbon out of the atmosphere, then this is entirely sensible.

The real question is whether CO2 is the threat it has been made out to be. So far the evidence says it has vastly less effect than the alarmist claims. On that basis the skeptics at least have a rational point for criticism. If CO2 isn't a problem then this sequestration operation is adding needless expense to energy production.

The environmentalist complaint that this is reducing the pace of development for alternative energy production is just plain whining. No amount of money and personnel is likely to deliver any time soon a replacement that will be both clean and so cheap we can immediately do away with our current power sources. So mitigation of those power sources' undesirable outputs is necessary.


RE: crazy kids
By jtemplin on 9/14/2008 6:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well reducing the pace of innovation is mentioned in the article but you forget to mention that in the preceding sentence the author cites the
quote:
group called the "Climate Alliance" invited protesters to the opening of the plant. They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.


That doesn't sound like whining to me. Sounds like something everyone can agree on. Reducing the efficiency of power generation to enable this re-capturing which may not have any effect on or relationship to climage change seems backward to me.

I mean, you said it yourself:
quote:
If CO2 isn't a problem then this sequestration operation is adding needless expense to energy production.

So you agree with the "environmentalist complaint"...does that make you a whiner too?


RE: crazy kids
By Storkme on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By porkpie on 9/12/2008 10:27:20 AM , Rating: 5
How is it a "stunt"? The plant doesn't release any carbon. Isn't that what the problem was supposed to be all along?

Honestly, this just reveals the enviros true agenda. They don't really believe in global warming (who does?), they're just using it as an excuse to reverse industrialization and take us all "back to nature".


RE: crazy kids
By BansheeX on 9/12/2008 12:38:44 PM , Rating: 5
The most hilarious and crazy thing about it is that, in light of the impossibility of this task, what they're inadvertently doing is slowing down cleaner successors. Because old technology, old types of fuel, invariably contributes to the development of its cleaner, more efficient successor. In other words, we would have never entered the nuclear and battery age if it weren't for fossil fuel combustion and horse crap all over the streets. Now we have the capacity to create vast amounts of power under any conditions 24/7 with a resource that is 10,000 years in supply, capturing the voluminously small waste before it enters the environment, storing it in impenetrable steel and concrete containers until our technology is so amazing that we can easily jettison it and other garbage into the sun. But... that's not good enough for them. Nothing is. Short of pie in the sky nonsense like windmills and solar for EVERYTHING, which is mathematically impossible for future needs and costs way more per energy unit. They have no answer, all they know how to do is fearmonger, lobby, and picket. The answer has been with us for thirty years and they've blocked it.

My contempt boils over for these people. They have no understanding of cost/benefit ratios, they think that millions dead, dying, and impoverished from oil resource wars and subsidized food-based bio-fuels is preferable to a chance of radiation contamination equivalent to being struck by lightning twice on the same day. There's more risk crossing the damn street, but they've turned nuclear into some kind of boogeyman. Vote me in as president and I will charge them all with crimes against humanity.


RE: crazy kids
By Jaybus on 9/12/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 4
I hope that includes Jerry Brown, Ronald Reagan's successor as Governor of California from 1975-1983, and one leaders of the 70,000 person anti-nuclear march on Washington in 1979 that essentially halted the building of nuclear power stations in the US for 28 years. Some of us still remember the hysteria.

Here's a tidbit. Every time there's a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, gasoline prices soar due to the shutdown of refineries along the Gulf Coast. We are right now expecting $1/gal hike in Tennessee to be caused by Ike. Yet Andrew hit the Turkey Point station in south Florida in 1992 and it was a non-issue. What does that say about the safety of nuclear power?


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 4:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you got me, what does this say about the safety of nuclear power? It has had pretty much 0% failure rate since inception.


RE: crazy kids
By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
With a 0% failure rate makes you wonder why eco-freaks are opposed to nuclear power doesn't it? Maybe they really just hate people.


RE: crazy kids
By Myg on 9/12/2008 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
I bet your one of those people who wants to live forever.


RE: crazy kids
By Shining Arcanine on 9/12/2008 6:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
The carbon never was a problem. The radioactive uranium and thorium, among other radioactive elements, that coal burning power plants, as well as their high cost per unit of energy, is the problem.


RE: crazy kids
By PhoenixKnight on 9/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 1:31:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why are you invoking some mythical conspiracy? Radical environmentalism isn't a conspiracy. It's simply a group of people that share a set of commmon beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-humanity.

From Greenpeace activists destroying GM crops to Sierra Club lawsuits preventing new power plants to PETA activists vandalizing medical facilities to Earth First! members torching factories and car dealerships -- the goals are the same.

It's no more an organized conspiracy than a mob is. But it's just as destructive.


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/12/2008 11:05:18 AM , Rating: 5
Considering we're not even sure that man-made C02 is really causing any warming, this is a complete waste of money.


RE: crazy kids
By walk2k on 9/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: crazy kids
By bhieb on 9/12/2008 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If it helps clean up the air


Sums up your attitude right there. There is absolutely nothing "dirty" about C02. Now I agree it isn't a good thing to be dumping into the air, but calling it unclean clearly highlights your eco-ignorance.


RE: crazy kids
By quiksilvr on 9/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: crazy kids
By Hare on 9/12/2008 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 5
Everything can be "toxic". Did you know that oxygen is also toxic? Same thing with dear old H2O, you can die if you drink too much water...


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 2:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies for duplicating your information; I didn't refresh before I posted.


RE: crazy kids
By foolsgambit11 on 9/12/2008 5:34:34 PM , Rating: 1
Perfect. Your logic is infallible.

I don't care how many toxins there are in plant exhaust. I just don't want them dumping their garbage in our public space. I can't just throw my grass clippings out in the street. My grass clippings are definitely going to be less toxic than plant exhaust. The city makes me pay to take away my clippings, or I can take care of them myself by composting it. Either way, it's my responsibility. I just think the plants should take care of their waste the same way I'm expected to take care of mine.

Why should I get a $200 fine for throwing a paper bag out my window on the highway, but coal plants can pump tons of garbage into our public spaces without any repercussions?

Since it's not realistic to expect all our coal powered plants to tackle this problem instantly, I support a carbon tax or a cap and trade system where people pay for their initial allotments of carbon usage.

(And yes, I realize these costs will be passed on at least partially to me.)


RE: crazy kids
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 8:57:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I support a carbon tax or a cap and trade system where people pay for their initial allotments of carbon usage.

Any tax levied against a company is paid for in full by its customers. If you buy power and the government taxes it, YOU pay the tax. IN FULL. The power company can't pay the tax unless it uses money out of its customer's pockets.

If the government decides that you somehow deserve a tax refund that is fine, but don't dilude yourself into thinking that you didn't pay the tax in the first place. Just be thankful that you are poor enough to receive welfare.

Remember a tax - any tax, acts like a tax on the economy.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/14/2008 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't care how many toxins there are in plant exhaust. I just don't want them dumping their garbage in our public space. I can't just throw my grass clippings out in the street. My grass clippings are definitely going to be less toxic than plant exhaust. The city makes me pay to take away my clippings, or I can take care of them myself by composting it. Either way, it's my responsibility. I just think the plants should take care of their waste the same way I'm expected to take care of mine.

If you want to be that strict about gas emissions, FYI your composting releases CO2, as well as CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) which are both greenhouse gases much, much worse than carbon dioxide. CH4 is 75 times worse, and N2O is 298 times worse. Furthermore, the fact that you mowed your lawn means the grass is able to remove less CO2 from the atmosphere.

You could also institute a breathing tax, for all the CO2 and water vapor you exhale (yup, good old H2O is also a greenhouse gas - we'll need to tax swimming pools and hot showers too). If you own a pet, you should have to pay more to offset their breathing. Baked beans should have a methane tax added onto them.

Yeah, this is getting silly, but I think by now you'll agree that this isn't a "why aren't they responsible like I am?" situation. Lots of things we do impact greenhouse gas emissions, not just power generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Occurre...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Methane_as_a_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_o...


RE: crazy kids
By Oregonian2 on 9/12/2008 7:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
But it's Natural so it MUST be good!!! Even the fuzzy cute kittens and baby deer produce it!


RE: crazy kids
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 1:57:44 PM , Rating: 3
You're talking about atmospheric concentrations of CO2 literally 20 to 100 times the current levels. Even if we TRIED to put that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we would likely fail. There simply isn't enough free carbon available.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 1
> ""Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis "

Too much of anything is bad for the human body. Too much oxygen in your organs is toxic and will destroy tissue, and people have died from water poisoning (and no, I'm not talking about drowning). Vitamins, iron, and other minerals are essential to our diet...but too of these are toxic as well.

CO2 is utterly benign. We emit it ourselves in every breath and in fact its a requirement not only for plants to survive, but humans as well (with none whatsoever in the air, seems we forget to breath). In massive doses -- far outside what one would ever see in the atmosphere, even after another thousand years of fossil fuel emissions -- it's dangerous, yes. But that's entirely irrelevant.


RE: crazy kids
By croc on 9/12/2008 9:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Carbonic acid, anyone?

The ocean is a great CO2 storage system, with one minor drawback. As atmospheric levels of CO2 increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. This in turn leads to a decrease in various organisms' ability to form their various calcium-based shells.

I guess the human race can live without shrimp, oysters, lobsters or reef-formation.... But shellfish do tend to be very low on the food chain.

But I am sure that the all-knowing masher already knows this and has the disputing data (no matter how cherry-picked) at his fingertips.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 9:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "I guess the human race can live without shrimp, oysters, lobsters or reef-formation"

The modus operandi of the AGW crowd-- start with a fact, then instantly extrapolate it to mean the sky is falling.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been ten, even twenty times higher in the Earth's past. Shellfish both survived and thrived during those periods. The notion that shrimp and lobster are about to go extinct is worse than sophomoric.

Furthermore, ocean productivity, as measured by the total global biomass, is on an upward trend, not downward. . . especially in cold Arctic waters, the ones most influenced by global warming. This research from just a few days ago concurs, though hundreds of similar papers exist:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1470...


RE: crazy kids
By Jaybus on 9/12/2008 2:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
So 0.036 to 0.039% is normal atmospheric levels and its not much of a problem until its 3%. In other words, if we increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 100x it will be toxic?


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/12/2008 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 3
Um, you do know that plants need CO2 in order to survive, right? Eliminate CO2 and life on Earth ceases to exist.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 3:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because of this statement, hippies heads are exploding all over the world. Nothing like conveniently forgetting that plants live on the stuff.


RE: crazy kids
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/12/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the more CO2 in the air the the more number of plants that will grow and the stronger (healthy) they will be... It's vitamins for plants.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By Omega215D on 9/12/2008 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
A bit too simplistic don't you think? Back to school with you.

Here's the detailed info on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Take a look at the chemical reaction that takes place and how the equation balances out.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 6:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
"All of these plants have eukaryotic cells with cell walls composed of cellulose, and most obtain their energy through photosynthesis, using light and carbon dioxide to synthesize food . About three hundred plant species do not photosynthesize but are parasites on other species of photosynthetic plants. Plants are distinguished from green algae, which represent a mode of photosynthetic life similar to the kind modern plants are believed to have evolved from, by having specialized reproductive organs protected by non-reproductive tissues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants

Now, according to the bold portion, plants use CO2 (carbon Dioxide, it is the same thing) to make food. DUH, they don't need CO2, they run on magic and dreams. Their by product of this happens to be oxygen, it is a cycle, go figure.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/12/2008 8:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
???

CO2 is carbon dioxide. Carbon = C, di = 2, oxide = O. Hence CO2.


RE: crazy kids
By johnsonx on 9/12/2008 10:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
oh dear, someone doesn't know what CO2 is.


RE: crazy kids
By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
Oh my God! Someone doesn't know what carbon dioxide is! Where have you been? There are millions of eco-freaks who done know anything about carbon dioxide but they are scared to death of it!


RE: crazy kids
By Cullinaire on 9/13/2008 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
Your blunder here is on a similar level to those who correct others' "grammer" (sic).


RE: crazy kids
By rcc on 9/15/2008 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's never a blunder to want to see correct grammar. It minimizes misunderstandings.

The fact that so much of the online community is too lazy to learn to use their tools is quite another problem.

Perfection is not necessary, but a basic proficiency would be more efficient.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 5:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
Your all right, i made a translation mistake as in dutch we usually don't use as many abbreviations as Americans do, it cot lost in translation ;-)


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/14/2008 2:01:14 PM , Rating: 1
Carbon sequestration won't do sh*t. Why don't we spend the money elsewhere, like creating cleaner-operating car production plants, or nuclear energy, or anything else that actually CLEANS THE AIR, and has a measurable impact on the environment. Carbon sequestration doesn't have any measurable impact on the environment.


RE: crazy kids
By nismotigerwvu on 9/12/2008 9:11:05 AM , Rating: 4
I wish I could get some of that Government money. I'll take just as much CO2 out the air and increase the O2 concentration while I'm at. For the low price of just 1.5 million dollars I'll plant a few trees :)


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 9:24:19 AM , Rating: 4
Whoa, slow down there, we don't need these crazy tree planting ideas. That isn't nearly expensive enough, or hair brained enough. What we need is a zany Mousetrap type machine, that snaps some sort of plank, after you turn the crank of course, and maybe knocks a ball right down a chute, and so on. What would it do? Who cares??!! It would be perfect to fix the problem.

/sarcasm


RE: crazy kids
By Spivonious on 9/12/2008 9:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the guy that jumps into the bucket.


RE: crazy kids
By SoCalBoomer on 9/12/2008 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like those hairbrained schemes that the Discovery Channel is promoting?

Like using bombs to plant trees? Hell, when I was in college, it was COLLEGE STUDENTS who planted trees - don't they still do that? We have PLENTY of college students. . . and they gotta be cheaper than a bunch of little bombs, planes, and trucks. . .


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing good to come from that Project Earth show was those wind balloons, those are slick, and could be a decent supplement to our current power structure. Everything else on that show so far has been just insane at best.

Hippies just need to go back to tree planting, it was free labor, and who doesn't like a good tree?


RE: crazy kids
By Murloc on 9/12/2008 1:32:00 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, it would more useful to stop using carbon and use nuclear and hydroelectric instead, and don't allow ppl destroy the ammazonian forest, if they put down trees the co2 will increase, so we need more trees.
What about a forest in the sahara.


RE: crazy kids
By AnnihilatorX on 9/12/2008 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
Would people stop lump-summing environmentalists!

There are critics groups whatever you do, and within a group called environmental activists they all have different ideas on how to tackle problems. An occupation called doctors include opticians, surgeons, you just can't expect them to share the same views and goals. Some may support an idea like this, some don't, some supports nuclear fission for the time being, some supports solar and wind. Just don't lump-sum them under 1 banner and call them hypocrites for yelling at every solutions, because chances are they are different people. There is not a single individual on this, and there is certainly no right way of solving environmental problems.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 10:59:05 AM , Rating: 4
The problem is that, regardless of what the rank-and-file environmentalists believe, the leaders of the environmentalist movement all share the same goals. The authors, public speakers, heads of all major environmental groups -- those are the people that set the agenda for the movement. They're the ones that control the billions in funding environmentalist groups receive each year, the ones that endorse candidates, organize protests, threaten corporations, file progress-blocking lawsuits.

Your opinion may differ from theirs. But they're the ones in charge of the madhouse.


RE: crazy kids
By Cygni on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
The "idea" may not have leadership, but the movement itself certainly does. And it is that movement, rather than some disembodied idea, that control what actions are taken and the consequences and detrimental effects of those acts.

It's no different than a political party. What the member on the street believes doesn't control the party. The leadership does. They're the ones who make the public statements, and control the laws passed and the actions taken.

The environmental movement itself has never been shy about expressing its true goals...and climate change is simply a stepping stone to achieve those goals.


RE: crazy kids
By foolsgambit11 on 9/12/2008 5:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oooh, you make it sound so sinister - "The environmental movement itself has never been shy about expressing its true goals..."

Would you care to explain what these "true goals" of the movement are? Because if they aren't environmental awareness, conservation, and stewardship, then I'm not sure I understand the English language.

There are different branches within environmentalism, to be sure, that all share those aforementioned goals, but have some additional ideas.

1. 'The Al Gore Greens' - Advancing technology will lead to a clean, healthy, sustainable utopia powered by peace and sunshine.

2. 'The Gung-Ho Greenpeace Guys' - misanthropic people looking to pick a fight who have stumbled upon supporting everything that isn't human, i.e., 'nature'.

3. 'The Granola Greens' - holistic hippies who believe that mankind should stumble back into the forests. After all, that's where them mushrooms and marijuana are, anyway, right?

How's that for sketching a caricature of the most vocal green proponents? The fact is, most people believe in the basic tenets of the green movement - environmental awareness, conservation, and stewardship. But it's the passionate advocates who get out there and get heard. It's the same as what happens in politics - the far left and the far right get heard, and the voices of compromise get drowned out.


RE: crazy kids
By Spuke on 9/12/2008 6:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would you care to explain what these "true goals" of the movement are?
Actually, he has posted them in other threads. He might do it yet again because it seems people here are blind as well as dumb.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 7:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Oooh, you make it sound so sinister"

In all candor, it is. It's arguably the largest threat to civilization and progress since the fall of the Roman Empire.

> "Would you care to explain what these "true goals" of the movement are?"

Be glad to.

quote:
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental
— Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!

quote:
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels
— Prince Phillip, speaking for the World Wildlife Fund.

quote:
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
— Lamont Cole, Yale University Professor and environmentalist

quote:
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
— Dave Graber, biologist, National Park Service

quote:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans
— Dr. Reed Noss, Biology professor and founder, the Wildlands Project.

quote:
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs
— Earth First! newsletter.

quote:
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species [mankind] upon the rest of the natural world—
John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News.

quote:
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed
— Pentti Linkola, noted Scandinavian environmentalist and author.

quote:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy
— Amory Lovins, noted environmentalist and author, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last
— from the Whole Earth Catalog.

quote:
Capitalism is destroying the earth.
- Dr. Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.

quote:
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S
— Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.


RE: crazy kids
By wrekd on 9/12/2008 8:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nice list. It would be nice to reach some sort of Star Trekian coexistence between the modern age and our animal roots.

I realize I may be in the minority in this belief, but humans are no more special than any other species on this planet. To believe otherwise is a throwback to the times when the Earth was the center of the Universe.

Capitalism is not the problem; it’s when the government tweaks the market that the system breaks. Otherwise the system mimics natural selection found elsewhere on the planet.

But you can't force people to not over use, over consume...to be responsible. You can only teach good practices and hope that the majority of the population will find equilibrium.


RE: crazy kids
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2008 9:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but humans are no more special than any other species on this planet.


Humans are the only species on this planet with the ability to question its existence. We are self aware, animals are not. Animals accept the realities which they are presented without question.

I don't know if that makes us more " special " or not, but we sure as hell are the most unique.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 10:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
I can not agree with most statements, but there is truth in what they are saying that there are to many people on the world, a reduction of 50% would properly solf 95% of current problems.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 10:31:56 PM , Rating: 3
> "there are to many people on the world, a reduction of 50% would properly solf 95% of current problems. "

You're frightening. Whom do you suggest we start with?


RE: crazy kids
By johnsonx on 9/12/2008 10:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whom do you suggest we start with?

The environmentalist and animal-rights whack-jobs who advocate that sort of thing, of course. If they think it's so important, they should be the first to 'take one for the team'.

Once they're all gone, there'll be more peace and quiet for the rest of us.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 3:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah only God fearing peaceful people like Bush are left over then. ;-0


RE: crazy kids
By Jim28 on 9/16/2008 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
what does that have to do with it?

If you think 50% of the people need to be gone, then volunteer yourself first.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 4:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I never said I have a viable solution, I just state the acknowledgement that er are to many people on this world for it to sustain it in a healthy way, not that one live is more precious than a other.

On the other hand imho a lot of Americans think about in a different way, as they state that war in Iraq ect. is so bad because "American lives are lost" and don't really give a rats ass about what happens to local population.

It shows in the philosophy the current US army has to create as many machine controlled weapon systems as possible, so the war at the US side is as clean as possible, how cares a bout the enemy?
I think war should be a dirty business so people try to avoid it, and remember that it is not a clean business at all.

But i have discussed US/UK/EU middle east/world history whit you before and you don't seam to see any problem whit it, so its pointless to discuss it, as we totally can't agree with each others point of view on history

But real world solutions would be.

1. A long term solution would be real education of the poor people in the world, as educated people tens to have less of a need of having many children.
(not likely to happen as we from the wealthy side of the world, understandably don't wane share our wealth)

2. Short/mid term solution that would give some relieve, sexual education and birth control options for free ore real cheap.
As current Bush administration is just imho borderline criminal whit the policy of "stop condom & birth control programs ore you don't get any US governmental aid"
(could happen depending on the new US government and acknowledgement that these things are internal problems of those 3th world country's)

3. Other short/long term solution would be the draconian solution the Chinese use 1 ore max 2 children per parent till population rates are at sustainable levels.
(not likely going to happen as most country's don't have a strong centralized powerful atheist government as Chinese, properly also undesirable as it would result in lost of civilian unrest)


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 11:31:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "Hey I never said I have a viable solution"

And that's the real problem with environmentalists. No solution is perfect; anyone can point out problems. But if you don't have a better idea, you're simply spitballing.

> "As current Bush administration is just imho borderline criminal whit the policy of "stop condom & birth control programs ore you don't get any US governmental aid"

Are you trying to embarrass yourself? The Bush Administration spends billions on such programs around the world, including several hundred million condoms a year. The US government is, in fact, the largest supplier of condoms in the entire world by far. I quote:
quote:
By the end of December, US officials project that they will have shipped more than 612 million condoms this year to Africa, Asia, and Latin America
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2...

You've probably confused yourself over some 5-year old story on the "Mexico Policy" of denying aid to groups which advocate abortion. I don't personally agree with that policy, but the only thing "borderline criminal" here is your fictional account.

> "It shows in the philosophy the current US army has to create as many machine controlled weapon systems as possible, so the war at the US side is as clean as possible"

If a war must be fought, I prefer it be done with as little loss of life as possible. That includes the lives of our own troops. I suppose you'd prefer they all die?

In history past, wars often meant as meany as 100X or more civilian deaths as actual combatants. Today, unless a nation intentionally uses civilians as shields, such deaths are a small fraction of the total. If the wars of the future are fought entirely by machines, that will likely be a positive thing. Whoever has the better machines wins... and there's no need to actually shed any real blood.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 8:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're simply spitballing

The first part in finding a solution to a problem is identifying the problem and what needs to be done, a complex and still not fully understand global ecosystem is not something you fix over night, you can how ever try to do everything that prevents the problem from getting worse, if you later find out that what you bin doing was unnecessary, great you wasted lots of money, still better to be safe then sorry.

On the other hand putting your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" doesn't help whit solving any problem.

quote:
You've probably confused yourself over some 5-year old story on the "Mexico Policy" of denying aid to groups which advocate abortion.

http://www.tamilstar.com/news/health/article_8391....
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/poli...
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_...
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/070918.shtml
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mcca...
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms120...
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article....

The lack of your knowledge what your government is doing and how it influences the world is really typical of US FOXnews educated Republican American society.

Michael your a great debater, being good at it docent make you right do.

quote:
I suppose you'd prefer they all die?

No, but as you maybe aware of most people (including me) in the world see the US (not all its citizens do) as having a aggressive foreign policy, that is sometimes only tempered by the dead-toll its citizens can stomach, turning war in to a video game dose the opposite.

War should be horrible, (otherwise there is no reason not to have them) as i think everything possible should be tried to prevent them.

quote:
If the wars of the future are fought entirely by machines, that will likely be a positive thing. Whoever has the better machines wins... and there's no need to actually shed any real blood.

I always had respect for your thinking even do i don't agree whit you often, but this is just a brain fart your having if you really think this reality.

If any enemies even would have weapons like these, once depleted they would start using "human" soldiers if you have in the end noting to defend your self and your home/country whit anymore, you pick up a rock and trow at the machine, if ware becomes a game it would be very easy to push a button and kill person, because he is not there, on the other hand having a M16 in your hand and pull the trigger is imho something completely different.

Hence my aversetie to that type of automated weapon systems, a specially in the hand of Bush like government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0japj2XWNwc


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 11:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "The lack of your knowledge what your government is doing and how it influences the world is really typical of US FOXnews educated Republican American society"

That's quite amusing since it is your own knowledge here that is flawed. You compiled an impressive list of links, unfortunately none of them support your claim. Most are simply blogs/editorials whining because the Bush administration has chosen to emphasize abstinence. But that emphatically does not mean they have "banned" spending on condoms. The US government is still the largest purchaser of condoms in the world. By far. It still distributes hundreds of millions of condoms annually to poor nations.

In short, you were wrong. Time to admit it, and move on.

By the way, I don't watch Fox News. In fact, the only broadcast news I ever watch is the BBC.


RE: crazy kids
By NarcoticHobo on 9/13/2008 5:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think the point is not to go around and kill off 50% of the world's population, but rather to implement population control measures so that this number reduces over time. No sane person would back killing off 3 billion people.

Do you know why our population has increased so dramatically in the last one hundred years or so?

The easy answer is industrialization, but the core of the answer lies in the way we produce and use energy. For the vast part of human history we produced energy at a current rate or near current rate. What that means is that the energy we used was roughly equal to the amount of energy we were receiving from the sun. We ate plants, burned trees, etc etc. All of these things got their energy from the sun within about a human lifespan.

This allowed us a certain amount of productivity, a certain amount of food, and thus a certain population. And indeed if you look at human population trends you will find that population has stayed relatively stable in our past when compared to the industrialized era.

So what changed? We started using non-current energy, or energy that was previously trapped and stored, IE fossil fuels. Now this ancient energy basically allows us to increase our productivity and available food, and thus we have a dramatic population increase.

The obvious problem here is that those sources will run out. Like it or not fossil fuels are finite. Now if we don't switch our energy production from these sooner rather than later what you have is a large problem. Energy systems fail, people starve. We can all agree that mass human starvation is a bad thing can we not?

In order to support a large population and large productivity (which seems to be of higher value to our friend masher) we must make a switch to sustainable energy sources, be it wind, solar, nuclear (preferably fusion, we are talking long term here), or hydroelectric.

In summation:

1) Current population is inflated based on unsustainable energy pulls.

2) Eco-friendly choices are not only best for the environment but best for the economy and humanity in the long run.

3) Thus, any argument supporting conventional energy sources over the higher start-up cost enviro-friendly option is one that only looks to the short term, and therefore is not really in the interest of human civilization.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 6:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
Very good post, do unless there is a scientific break-true the reality will properly be that there will be a WOIII.
(just not in the same way previous 2 WO, and it will be poor against rich and end up in wars of economic blocks like the old country wars between the Dutch, UK, Spain and France, only whit more horrific weapons)
Because i don't see any leaders ore citizens that are willing to commit or have the vision to suds a long term commitment.

I am hopeful that long term projects like the EU Sahara solar farm would start as those are the only available guaranteed viable solutions, and i am hopeful fusion will work, even do its still not certain it will work a economical scale.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/13/2008 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know why our population has increased so dramatically in the last one hundred years or so?

The easy answer is industrialization, but the core of the answer lies in the way we produce and use energy. For the vast part of human history we produced energy at a current rate or near current rate. [...]

This allowed us a certain amount of productivity, a certain amount of food, and thus a certain population. And indeed if you look at human population trends you will find that population has stayed relatively stable in our past when compared to the industrialized era.

So what changed? We started using non-current energy, or energy that was previously trapped and stored, IE fossil fuels. Now this ancient energy basically allows us to increase our productivity and available food, and thus we have a dramatic population increase.

That's a rather elaborate theory but the numbers just don't support it. The countries with the highest birthrates are undeveloped. The countries with the lowest birthrates are all industrialized and highly developed. If anything, industrialization and modernization has slowed global population growth. Europe and Japan even have negative population growth (they are declining in population).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

I won't go into a full explanation here (it would span many pages). But to summarize, it has to do with labor. When your core economic activities (food, shelter, clothing production) are very labor-intensive, the most important asset is having lots of people to do these labor-intensive jobs. So in poorer undeveloped nations, there's great incentive for people to have large families. They help harvest the fields, they help alleviate risk (so one person falling ill does not adversely impact the family's survival chances).

OTOH, when your core economic needs can be fulfilled with relatively little labor (industrialized, automated, mechanized), this pressure disappears. Families then shift away from producing as many laborers as they can, towards producing as much knowledge as they can (education, research, business development).

The key to slowing or stopping population growth is to modernize the poorer countries, not to revert the modernized countries to a pre-industrial level.

The "relatively stable" population level you see in the past is an illusion created by the exponential growth curve. You need to plot it on a logarithmic scale to properly measure it. Same thing for numbers affected by inflation (Dow Jones Industrial Average), doubly so for things affected by both inflation and population growth (national debt, movie box office sales). Once you plot population growth on a log scale, you can see that the rate of growth has been slowing since the middle of the last century. At least it's been slowing in developed countries. The undeveloped regions of Africa and the Middle East are still flying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Rate...


RE: crazy kids
By NarcoticHobo on 9/13/2008 10:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
1) I was talking about before the 20th century, every statistic you gave me referred to birth rates and population rates within the 20th century. If your point is birth rates are declining over the 20th century I have no argument with you.

2) I said nothing about birth rates, its about actual population that this theory concerns. While very much interrelated you still need to draw the connection.

3) It's not a terribly elaborate theory and is one put forward by several noted scientists.

4) You fail to read the first paragraph of the wiki page you linked me to:

As of September 2008, the world's population is estimated to be just over 6.721 billion. In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century, although the rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. The world's population, on its current growth trajectory, is expected to reach nearly 9 billion by the year 2042.

If you had read that, and noted that I was talking about historical population rates vs. the last 100 years or so, or after the 20th century, you would see that the link you have provided wholeheartedly agrees with my point.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 11:46:43 PM , Rating: 1
> "In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century"

Barring immigration, most European nations have birth rates below levels to sustain themselves. Some are so far below replacement values that the Germans, Japanese, Swiss, and Austrians will effectively be extinct within a couple of centuries. Barring Africa and South America, world population is sinking at an alarming pace.

Your theory about energy sources is, though interesting, incorrect. Cheap abundant energy is responsible for our standard of living, but the population expansion of the 19th-20th century is due almost entirely to the agricultural (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the medical) revolution. In earlier times, starvation, famine, and disease placed sharp limits on human population. During the Roman Empire, the average farmer only produced about enough food to feed less than two familes. Result? More than half the people in the world needed to farm. . . and a single bad harvest meant death. The agricultural revolution didn't begin with diesel-powered tractors-- it started with simpler things like crop rotation, steel plows, and high-yield crops and food animals, generated through intelligent breeding programs.

If food was sufficient, population increased-- but then epidemics swept through on a regular basis. The simple basics of how to control infectious diseases and (even more importantly) septic systems that don't kill millions by pouring raw sewage into our water supplies.

There's a bit of synergy and overlap in the 20th century, as modern fertilizers and harvesting depend utterly on oil. But this is a secondary and latent effect to the two much larger factors detailed above.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 6:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Barring immigration, most European nations have birth rates below levels to sustain themselves.

This is true, and native dutch people has even the highest Nr of negative population growed in the world.

Research on this topic has shown that there are 3 main factors that are responsible for this in Holland
1. the higher the living standard is the less there is a need for having many children
60 years ago families had about 5~20 children this Nr dropped to a bout 1.4 child per familie
2. the amount of children's is also relative to intelligence.
The higher the IQ the lower the amount of children.
(the down side of this is the smart gene isn't spread around, ware the gene for stupidity is spread in abundances, hence all the trouble we are facing now a days, humanity is devolving)
3. religion, the level of active Christians (no explanation needed here ;-)

quote:
world population is sinking at an alarming pace.

I find noting alarming about it, only thing that will be problematic is how is going to pay the TAX when people retire and there is no replacement work force, but in the long run this will only be a good thing, because there will be less strain on scarce resources, because developed societies put the biggest strain on natural resources.
(EU and US consume 60% of natural resources, but only being 10% of the world population)

quote:
There's a bit of synergy and overlap in the 20th century

No his statement still holds true, yes you are right that improvements was allowing for higher growed rate, but by far not as big as modern power systems allowed.

yes epidemics reduced population but as soon it was over population grow fast back to the maximum sustainable level.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 10:55:16 PM , Rating: 1
> "I find noting alarming about it, only thing that will be problematic is how is going to pay the TAX when people retire and there is no replacement work force, but in the long run this will only be a good thing"

Spoken like a true misanthrope. This trend-- if not eventually reversed-- means the end of human civilization, possibly the end of humanity itself. Do you actually hate mankind so much?

Modern society is very complex; it demands a certain degree of specialization. Simply put, the world **requires** a population of several hundred million people. Any less, and too many needed professions will vanish entirely. A shrinking population will eventually lead to the collapse of modern society. . . and that will lead to the deaths of countless more. Many environmentalists would applaud such an end. I do not.

Having more people in the world is a very good thing. Not less. A higher population means more scientists creating new knowledge, more artists generating art, more novelists writing more books, more engineers solving more problems.

For anyone concerned about mankind, a shrinking population is incredibly bad news. Do not wish for it, lest it one day come true.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/14/2008 6:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4) You fail to read the first paragraph of the wiki page you linked me to:

As of September 2008, the world's population is estimated to be just over 6.721 billion. In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century, although the rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963.

Like I explained, the vast majority of that population growth was due to undeveloped countries, which contradicts your claim that industrialization is to blame.
quote:
If you had read that, and noted that I was talking about historical population rates vs. the last 100 years or so, or after the 20th century, you would see that the link you have provided wholeheartedly agrees with my point.

If we compare historical population growth rates with growth rates in current modernized countries, it disproves your point even further. Europe and Japan used to have positive population growth rates in the 19th century and most of the 20th century. They are now declining in population. The U.S. has also experienced a drop in population growth (though it's still positive).

So if I do as you suggest and compare population growth in the last 100 years to pre-20th century history, the conclusion would (again) be that modernization and increased energy use correlates to slower or negative population growth.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 10:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The key to slowing or stopping population growth is to modernize the poorer countries, not to revert the modernized countries to a pre-industrial level.

you bring your argument good do there is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

We the west(EU/US/Australia/japan) are 10% of the world population do we consume about 60% of all it resources.
If they also would modernize to the same level as we have, there would then not be anouge resource to sustain our level of lifestyle.
It would mean we would only have anouge to sustain a population level of about 1b people, unless we change drastically the way we live.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 11:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "We the west(EU/US/Australia/japan) are 10% of the world population do we consume about 60% of all it resources"

We consume more because we produce more. Nothing unfair about it at all. The best possibly option for humanity would be to give the remaining 90% of the world's population access to the same resources we enjoy in the west, raising their lifestyles and standards of living immeasurably in the process.

Unfortunately, some backwards-thinking individuals don't want to raise those people up out of the mud. Instead, they want to sink the rest of us back into it. A disgustingly morally bankrupt philosophy...but such it is.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The key to slowing or stopping population growth is to modernize the poorer countries, not to revert the modernized countries to a pre-industrial level.

you bring your argument good do there is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

We the west(EU/US/Australia/japan) are 10% of the world population do we consume about 60% of all it resources.
If they also would modernize to the same level as we have, there would then not be anouge resource to sustain our level of lifestyle.
It would mean we would only have anouge to sustain a population level of about 1b people, unless we change drastically the way we live.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/14/2008 1:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
So you're giving up the argument that population growth is the problem, and are now stating that consumption is the problem? Well why didn't you say so from the beginning instead of scaring us with talk about killing off 3 billion people?

Consumption follows basic economic principles of supply and demand. If there are insufficient resources to support modernizing all of the globe, their prices will rise in response. People will consume less of what's considered "luxury" goods, and concentrate instead more on necessities. Modernization will still happen. You can't simply extrapolate out using a straight line and proclaim that something is impossible.

Furthermore the price increases will drive efficiency gains - people will be able to get the same thing done while consuming fewer resources. We've gone from candles, which convert about 0.04% of the available energy into light (the rest becomes heat), to incandescent light bulbs which convert 2.5% of the electricity to light, to CFLs at 10%, and are switching to LEDs at 15%-20%. Would you really prefer that we were still using candles for light as we did pre-industrialization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Exa...