<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm:  The full global warming solution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:55:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gundospxu</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-200317</link>
		<dc:creator>Gundospxu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-200317</guid>
		<description>Aloha! hat</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aloha! hat</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael F. Sarabia</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-165054</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael F. Sarabia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-165054</guid>
		<description>Watch It! This is a double edge sword!!
&quot;Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.&quot;

Yes, Houston, and the world, we&#039;ve got a problem! A BIG one!
The other half of the analysis is to determine how did the CO2 disappear?

It is my understanding that CO2 is an stable molecule and would last indefinitely, am I wrong? Does CO2 disappear in a million years?
Is that process known? Can it be duplicated and enhanced? Provided, of course, that witchcraft had nothing to do with it, or a meteor blew the atmosphere away, or some other crazy and incredible idea. 
How about the Super Nova that sent Gamma rays, a long time ago, and blew our air molecules apart? Did I read that somewhere, more importantly, did YOU?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Watch It! This is a double edge sword!!<br />
&#8220;Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes, Houston, and the world, we&#8217;ve got a problem! A BIG one!<br />
The other half of the analysis is to determine how did the CO2 disappear?</p>
<p>It is my understanding that CO2 is an stable molecule and would last indefinitely, am I wrong? Does CO2 disappear in a million years?<br />
Is that process known? Can it be duplicated and enhanced? Provided, of course, that witchcraft had nothing to do with it, or a meteor blew the atmosphere away, or some other crazy and incredible idea.<br />
How about the Super Nova that sent Gamma rays, a long time ago, and blew our air molecules apart? Did I read that somewhere, more importantly, did YOU?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn Tamblyn</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-108865</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn Tamblyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-108865</guid>
		<description>Joe

Perhaps deserving of a separate wedge is energy storage. Not any particular type but all possibilities. Because one of the biggest limitations for solar and wind is energy storage. Without that, the amount of energy that these sources can supply to a grid is very limited without breaking the grid. Even with smarter grids and HVDC and other developments. Also storage is central to transport energy. 

And applying energy storage technology effectively needs to be done at the right scale - batteries in every home for your solar panels vs huge grid connected battery farms that provide load balancing for whole regions; pumped storage as giant hydro projects vs tanks in your roof and cellar. Getting the mix of scales right for each type of technology is important to getting the optimum benefit from each technology and maximising the efficiency of the technology&#039;s use of resources - just how much lead will we need for all those billions of old fashioned batteries; how much concrete for all the pumped storage facilities, etc.

Energy storage is potentially a critical enabler for other technologies, to some degree taking the base load demand constraint off the energy generation technologies back and seeing it as a storage problem instead. This can give us greater flexibility in how and on what scale we deploy the products of the other wedges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe</p>
<p>Perhaps deserving of a separate wedge is energy storage. Not any particular type but all possibilities. Because one of the biggest limitations for solar and wind is energy storage. Without that, the amount of energy that these sources can supply to a grid is very limited without breaking the grid. Even with smarter grids and HVDC and other developments. Also storage is central to transport energy. </p>
<p>And applying energy storage technology effectively needs to be done at the right scale &#8211; batteries in every home for your solar panels vs huge grid connected battery farms that provide load balancing for whole regions; pumped storage as giant hydro projects vs tanks in your roof and cellar. Getting the mix of scales right for each type of technology is important to getting the optimum benefit from each technology and maximising the efficiency of the technology&#8217;s use of resources &#8211; just how much lead will we need for all those billions of old fashioned batteries; how much concrete for all the pumped storage facilities, etc.</p>
<p>Energy storage is potentially a critical enabler for other technologies, to some degree taking the base load demand constraint off the energy generation technologies back and seeing it as a storage problem instead. This can give us greater flexibility in how and on what scale we deploy the products of the other wedges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bb</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-96514</link>
		<dc:creator>bb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-96514</guid>
		<description>The earth is not over populated by humans. The entire human population of the earth can fit in the continent of Australia. I&#039;ll prove it. Every man, woman, and child can have 1/4 acre of land. A 1/4 acre of land can fit a 2-story 2-bedroom townhouse with solar power and a self-sustaining garden. I know it is possible, because I live on 1/4 with a 2-story 2-bedroom townhouse and a garden, BUT no solar power yet. Now, here is the numbers:

1 sq mile = 640 acres; Australia is approx. 3 million sq miles
640 x 3 million = 1.95 billion
approx. 7 billion people who each get 1/4 acre
1/4 x 7 billion = 1.75 billion

So, as you can see, Australian holds approx. 1.95 billion acres which is more than 1.75 billion acres needed to give 1/4 acre to every man, woman, and child of an approx 7 billion human population. Each 1/4 acre can fit a 2-story 2-bedroom solar powered townhouse with a 1 person self-sustaining garden. Now, this will leave the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, South America, and North America NOT inhabited by any human.

The problem that we are facing is not over population, but MIS-management of what we have. This article&#039;s wedge proposal is a very good step in a management solution. I agree with the wedge proposal, but not with a Cap and Trade tax (which has been proven a failure as a solution in many countries) to be implemented in the U.S.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The earth is not over populated by humans. The entire human population of the earth can fit in the continent of Australia. I&#8217;ll prove it. Every man, woman, and child can have 1/4 acre of land. A 1/4 acre of land can fit a 2-story 2-bedroom townhouse with solar power and a self-sustaining garden. I know it is possible, because I live on 1/4 with a 2-story 2-bedroom townhouse and a garden, BUT no solar power yet. Now, here is the numbers:</p>
<p>1 sq mile = 640 acres; Australia is approx. 3 million sq miles<br />
640 x 3 million = 1.95 billion<br />
approx. 7 billion people who each get 1/4 acre<br />
1/4 x 7 billion = 1.75 billion</p>
<p>So, as you can see, Australian holds approx. 1.95 billion acres which is more than 1.75 billion acres needed to give 1/4 acre to every man, woman, and child of an approx 7 billion human population. Each 1/4 acre can fit a 2-story 2-bedroom solar powered townhouse with a 1 person self-sustaining garden. Now, this will leave the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, South America, and North America NOT inhabited by any human.</p>
<p>The problem that we are facing is not over population, but MIS-management of what we have. This article&#8217;s wedge proposal is a very good step in a management solution. I agree with the wedge proposal, but not with a Cap and Trade tax (which has been proven a failure as a solution in many countries) to be implemented in the U.S.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Pearson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-72448</link>
		<dc:creator>John Pearson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:14:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-72448</guid>
		<description>&quot;It is much easier to suggest technological fixes rather than fundamental behavioural changes like controlling population.&quot;

this is true. however the implementation of those changes will prove to be a great deal harder than simply having less children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It is much easier to suggest technological fixes rather than fundamental behavioural changes like controlling population.&#8221;</p>
<p>this is true. however the implementation of those changes will prove to be a great deal harder than simply having less children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nichol</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-52141</link>
		<dc:creator>Nichol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 03:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-52141</guid>
		<description>Was there a rule forbidding a dirty wedge,  doing some geo-engeneering, just to postpone disaster somewhat? Something like a sulfurious addition to jetfuel of airplanes.  Much better than the pure disaster wedge of collapse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was there a rule forbidding a dirty wedge,  doing some geo-engeneering, just to postpone disaster somewhat? Something like a sulfurious addition to jetfuel of airplanes.  Much better than the pure disaster wedge of collapse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MrPete</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-51289</link>
		<dc:creator>MrPete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 21:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-51289</guid>
		<description>You might as well drop the wind power wedge and allocate it elsewhere. Wind is proving to be environmentally disastrous. Has terrible consequences for avian life, etc. As that realization begins to sink in among communities of influence, the realistic prospects for major wind power deployment are rapidly heading south.

[&lt;em&gt;JR:  Not.  China is up to a 100,000 MW commitment by 2020.  And we&#039;ll be close to that.&lt;/em&gt;]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might as well drop the wind power wedge and allocate it elsewhere. Wind is proving to be environmentally disastrous. Has terrible consequences for avian life, etc. As that realization begins to sink in among communities of influence, the realistic prospects for major wind power deployment are rapidly heading south.</p>
<p>[<em>JR:  Not.  China is up to a 100,000 MW commitment by 2020.  And we'll be close to that.</em>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-49134</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 22:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-49134</guid>
		<description>Nobody has answered Dorothy&#039;s sound observation that we have to go significantly lower than where we are now - perhaps back to 1950s levels (and perhaps lower) because its all falling apart already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nobody has answered Dorothy&#8217;s sound observation that we have to go significantly lower than where we are now &#8211; perhaps back to 1950s levels (and perhaps lower) because its all falling apart already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Lusky</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-44780</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Lusky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 15:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-44780</guid>
		<description>Another substantial benefit would be for &quot;intelligent transportation systems&quot; that focus on synchronization for energy efficiency.  The prominent meter in the windshield would be the MPG, since speed would be managed automatically.  We have the capacity for wireless systems to bridge among vehicles and traffic control devices.  

If you and your vehicle know that a traffic light is to turn red in 30 seconds and you are 31 seconds away, your car would tell you and start regenerative breaking (or simply coast) so you would arrive at the light after the red when the light is turning green without the need for a full stop nor the energy to accellerate from a full stop.  Convert stop signs to round-abouts where your cars automatically stop only if another vehicle (or pedestrian/cyclist) is detected.

On freeways, cars would automatically match speeds to avoid the accordian-like stop and start waves during heavy traffic, and enabling higher traffic densities that reduce the need for extra lanes (and the high CO2 of concrete plants).  Turn on your signal indicator and cars in the next lane will make a gap to let you in.

The difficulty is not so much technical as attitude.  Car companies still market speed as the prime motivator to sell cars.  Drivers prefer &quot;performance&quot;, high gas costs and traffic jams.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another substantial benefit would be for &#8220;intelligent transportation systems&#8221; that focus on synchronization for energy efficiency.  The prominent meter in the windshield would be the MPG, since speed would be managed automatically.  We have the capacity for wireless systems to bridge among vehicles and traffic control devices.  </p>
<p>If you and your vehicle know that a traffic light is to turn red in 30 seconds and you are 31 seconds away, your car would tell you and start regenerative breaking (or simply coast) so you would arrive at the light after the red when the light is turning green without the need for a full stop nor the energy to accellerate from a full stop.  Convert stop signs to round-abouts where your cars automatically stop only if another vehicle (or pedestrian/cyclist) is detected.</p>
<p>On freeways, cars would automatically match speeds to avoid the accordian-like stop and start waves during heavy traffic, and enabling higher traffic densities that reduce the need for extra lanes (and the high CO2 of concrete plants).  Turn on your signal indicator and cars in the next lane will make a gap to let you in.</p>
<p>The difficulty is not so much technical as attitude.  Car companies still market speed as the prime motivator to sell cars.  Drivers prefer &#8220;performance&#8221;, high gas costs and traffic jams.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Howes</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-43729</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Howes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/#comment-43729</guid>
		<description>Joe,
You didn&#039;t mention hydro power, I think you said  you were planning an article, this post may help
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5216#more

Basically expanding hydro has great potential but should use a continental North American approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe,<br />
You didn&#8217;t mention hydro power, I think you said  you were planning an article, this post may help<br />
<a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5216#more" rel="nofollow">http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5216#more</a></p>
<p>Basically expanding hydro has great potential but should use a continental North American approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
