<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Why bother criticizing S&N?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:29:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/1 Let's look at Joe's solution...

Looking over at climateprogress.org, I found this interesting comment on Joe's program as laid out in his book, "Hell or High Water":

Launch a massive performance-based efficiency program for homes, commercial buildings, and new construction.
Launch a massive effort to boost the efficiency of heavy industry and expand the use of cogeneration (combined heat and power).
Capture CO2 from 800 new large coal plants and store it underground.
Build it 1 million large wind turbines (or the equivalent in renewables such as solar power).
Build 700 new large nuclear plants while shutting down no old ones.
Every car and SUV achieves an average fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon.
Every car can run on electricity for short distance before reverting to biofuels.
We stop all tropical deforestation, while doubling the rate of new tree planting.

Now, I certainly disagree with several of those points (and would add many more), but the point I want to bring up is this: at the very least, points 1,2 and 4 look to me like they require public investment; maybe 8 as well; and even though I disagree with 3 and 5, they look like they need public investment as well.  Which means that of his 8 points, only 2 look like they are amenable to regulation!

So I'll repose Joe's question: Why bother criticizing S&N, when we should just get on with the task of figuring out what are good uses of public investment?










]]> Let's look at Joe's solution...

Looking over at climateprogress.org, I found this interesting comment on Joe's program as laid out in his book, "Hell or High Water":

Launch a massive performance-based efficiency program for homes, commercial buildings, and new construction.
Launch a massive effort to boost the efficiency of heavy industry and expand the use of cogeneration (combined heat and power).
Capture CO2 from 800 new large coal plants and store it underground.
Build it 1 million large wind turbines (or the equivalent in renewables such as solar power).
Build 700 new large nuclear plants while shutting down no old ones.
Every car and SUV achieves an average fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon.
Every car can run on electricity for short distance before reverting to biofuels.
We stop all tropical deforestation, while doubling the rate of new tree planting.

Now, I certainly disagree with several of those points (and would add many more), but the point I want to bring up is this: at the very least, points 1,2 and 4 look to me like they require public investment; maybe 8 as well; and even though I disagree with 3 and 5, they look like they need public investment as well.  Which means that of his 8 points, only 2 look like they are amenable to regulation!

So I'll repose Joe's question: Why bother criticizing S&N, when we should just get on with the task of figuring out what are good uses of public investment?










]]> Comment #2 by amphibious http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:58:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/2 Debunking S&N

"..humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life.. " - no, not humans per se, but cetainly white westerners as an overconsuming group and amerikans as the greatest overconsumers (in toto & per capita)of all. Odd that the quality of life of an ice bound Swede or Finn is higher than an amerikan with about 40% of the average energy consumption (apart from other resources)

]]> Debunking S&N

"..humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life.. " - no, not humans per se, but cetainly white westerners as an overconsuming group and amerikans as the greatest overconsumers (in toto & per capita)of all. Odd that the quality of life of an ice bound Swede or Finn is higher than an amerikan with about 40% of the average energy consumption (apart from other resources)

]]> Comment #3 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:48:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/3 Where Romm and S&N agree...

...seems to be stronger than the disagreement, despite the sturmunddrang.  Let's put this in logical terms:

Romm: Regulation of the market is necessary and sufficient to mitigate global warming

S&N: Regulation of the market is necessary but not sufficient; public investment, mostly in R&D, would make the program sufficient.

So, if a policy was implemented that was based on regulation (hopefully it would lean toward something like state renewable electricity standards), and it included many billions for public investment -- then it seems to me that Romm and N&S would all support it.

However, I don't see how global warming is going to be mitigated without a massive program of public construction of mass transit, at the least.  Mass transit is necessary, although not sufficient by itself, because a global vehicle fleet approaching 1 billion will fry the planet.

If you want intellectual cover for this, Mr. Market himself, Thomas Friedman, in today's NY Times, approvingly talks of taxes to "rebuild bridges or schools or high-speed rail or our lagging broadband networks"

]]> Where Romm and S&N agree...

...seems to be stronger than the disagreement, despite the sturmunddrang.  Let's put this in logical terms:

Romm: Regulation of the market is necessary and sufficient to mitigate global warming

S&N: Regulation of the market is necessary but not sufficient; public investment, mostly in R&D, would make the program sufficient.

So, if a policy was implemented that was based on regulation (hopefully it would lean toward something like state renewable electricity standards), and it included many billions for public investment -- then it seems to me that Romm and N&S would all support it.

However, I don't see how global warming is going to be mitigated without a massive program of public construction of mass transit, at the least.  Mass transit is necessary, although not sufficient by itself, because a global vehicle fleet approaching 1 billion will fry the planet.

If you want intellectual cover for this, Mr. Market himself, Thomas Friedman, in today's NY Times, approvingly talks of taxes to "rebuild bridges or schools or high-speed rail or our lagging broadband networks"

]]> Comment #4 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:01:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/4 Global vehicle fleet

Very interesting point there ... could you expand.  My initial research into clean fuels for ships, locomotives, and diesel equipment in the name of lowering particulate and NOx (e.g., California regulations) have inadvertently caused MORE CO2.  This is chiefly because of two things:  (1) clean fuels result in a 2-15% loss in fuel economy and (2) because highly processed liquid fuels require more refining so as to reduce sulfur, enhance boosters, and add lubricants.  What gives?  

Onward through the fog

]]> Global vehicle fleet

Very interesting point there ... could you expand.  My initial research into clean fuels for ships, locomotives, and diesel equipment in the name of lowering particulate and NOx (e.g., California regulations) have inadvertently caused MORE CO2.  This is chiefly because of two things:  (1) clean fuels result in a 2-15% loss in fuel economy and (2) because highly processed liquid fuels require more refining so as to reduce sulfur, enhance boosters, and add lubricants.  What gives?  

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #5 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:07:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/5 Sam --

I'm assuming all mass transit is electric, and the electricity comes from solar/wind/geothermal.  I don't fuels in general will be used by the end of the century.

]]> Sam --

I'm assuming all mass transit is electric, and the electricity comes from solar/wind/geothermal.  I don't fuels in general will be used by the end of the century.

]]> Comment #6 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:38:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/6 Oh, cool

I was thinking global shipping ... you know, large ships with engines up to 100,000 HP and burning over 100 metric tons of fuel a day.  More globalization equals more shipping.  To me its frightening ... the contribution of ship bunkering to global fuel supplies is truly staggering.  And guess who is the major destination of all those ships?  Us.  Just a thought.

Onward through the fog

]]> Oh, cool

I was thinking global shipping ... you know, large ships with engines up to 100,000 HP and burning over 100 metric tons of fuel a day.  More globalization equals more shipping.  To me its frightening ... the contribution of ship bunkering to global fuel supplies is truly staggering.  And guess who is the major destination of all those ships?  Us.  Just a thought.

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #7 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 04:22:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/7 reference for ships & CO2

DieselNet_News

Onward through the fog


]]> reference for ships & CO2

DieselNet_News

Onward through the fog


]]> Comment #8 by mkayser http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:29:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/8 Next time you guys talk

I think none of the people in this flame war should be able to post anything more except

What is the precise suite of policies you want enacted;
How much will each policy reduce CO2;
What are your calculations and assumptions.

Talking any more at a high level is useless. Clearly you are operating from different assumptions.

]]> Next time you guys talk

I think none of the people in this flame war should be able to post anything more except

What is the precise suite of policies you want enacted;
How much will each policy reduce CO2;
What are your calculations and assumptions.

Talking any more at a high level is useless. Clearly you are operating from different assumptions.

]]> Comment #9 by theBike45 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:38:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/9 Obsolete technologies

 I'm rather amazed that after the news of Ausra's obviously gamechanging solar thermal technology,
plus the resurgeance of the only significant means we currently possess for producing carbon free electricity (nuclear - 32 new US plants, 304 new plants outside the US in the next 3 to 5 years) anyone is bothering to even discuss such outmoded and doomed technologies as photovoltaic, (non-dispatchable) wave and wind and carbon sequestration. Keep talking, but I won;t be listening anymore - your discussions have been rendered totally irrelevant. Sorry, you misinformed folks. The environmental game is over, along with its multiitude of  nonensical theories, technologies and arguments. Conservation ala fat Al is likewise now just plain dumb.

]]> Obsolete technologies

 I'm rather amazed that after the news of Ausra's obviously gamechanging solar thermal technology,
plus the resurgeance of the only significant means we currently possess for producing carbon free electricity (nuclear - 32 new US plants, 304 new plants outside the US in the next 3 to 5 years) anyone is bothering to even discuss such outmoded and doomed technologies as photovoltaic, (non-dispatchable) wave and wind and carbon sequestration. Keep talking, but I won;t be listening anymore - your discussions have been rendered totally irrelevant. Sorry, you misinformed folks. The environmental game is over, along with its multiitude of  nonensical theories, technologies and arguments. Conservation ala fat Al is likewise now just plain dumb.

]]> Comment #10 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:07:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/10 Bike,

Keep talking, but I won;t be listening anymore

Promise?

grist.org

]]> Bike,

Keep talking, but I won;t be listening anymore

Promise?

grist.org

]]> Comment #11 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:01:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/11 Uh-oh, was I bad ... again??

My comment about global shipping was maybe off track but to me a big deal since it is my specialty.  So far, we've only been able to identify two kinds of CO2 reduction strategies - improved diesel combustion and greater efficiency in shipping routing.  Both are happening, I'm glad to say, but some estimates are a doubling of ocean ship emissions by the end of the century - at least.  The prospect of opening the Northwest Passage only makes me worry more.  So far, no technology substitutes.

Onward through the fog

]]> Uh-oh, was I bad ... again??

My comment about global shipping was maybe off track but to me a big deal since it is my specialty.  So far, we've only been able to identify two kinds of CO2 reduction strategies - improved diesel combustion and greater efficiency in shipping routing.  Both are happening, I'm glad to say, but some estimates are a doubling of ocean ship emissions by the end of the century - at least.  The prospect of opening the Northwest Passage only makes me worry more.  So far, no technology substitutes.

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #12 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:32:58 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/12 Sam, you were fine, as far as I can tell...

...I don't know if I asked you this before, but do you have any sources on how much diesel (or fuel) cargo ships use, in other words, how dependent are they on cheap oil and what percentage of ghg's do they emit? (who knows, maybe more than beef-- just kidding!). Globalization depends on them, so it's a serious question, but since the ships belong to so many different countries, it might be difficult to come up with statistics.  And somebody on here once commented about nuclear-powered cargo ships, have you ever heard of that?

]]> Sam, you were fine, as far as I can tell...

...I don't know if I asked you this before, but do you have any sources on how much diesel (or fuel) cargo ships use, in other words, how dependent are they on cheap oil and what percentage of ghg's do they emit? (who knows, maybe more than beef-- just kidding!). Globalization depends on them, so it's a serious question, but since the ships belong to so many different countries, it might be difficult to come up with statistics.  And somebody on here once commented about nuclear-powered cargo ships, have you ever heard of that?

]]> Comment #13 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:02:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/13 Or sail cargo ships?

During the OPEC oil embargo there was some interesting technology for motor sailers.

]]> Or sail cargo ships?

During the OPEC oil embargo there was some interesting technology for motor sailers.

]]> Comment #14 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:42:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/14 some ship fuel thoughts

My good friend Dr. James Corbett at U-Delaware has probably published the most authoritative articles on global fuel consumption of ship bunker fuel.  See J. of Geophysical Research and others or Google his home site webpage.  I work with him quite often although not recently - and hey, he was a major driver in the analysis regard ship/whale strikes as well. Cool man.

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?jcorbett

Ship fuel is known as "heavy fuel oil" and varies between 2.7 and 1.5 percent sulfur.  This is similar to what we in the US used to call "Bunker C."  The stuff is so thick it has to be heated and run through a centrifuge before it can even be burned.  

These fuels can be blended down or hydro-treated so as to achieve sulfur limits of 0.5 percent sufur and even lower.  These grades of ship fuel are called marine distillate oil.  Cleaner than that, you're talking marine gas oil, which is very similar to diesel, which is a true distillate.  California has a regulation for ships to use marine gas oil when in port although a judge has recently issued a stay against any compliance - but many proactive companies are doing it.

By and far, the worldwide average for ship bunkers is 2.4 to 2.7 percent sulfur heavy fuel oil.  About 95 percent of the large ship activity in the U.S. is from foreign ships using that stuff.  Foreign ships are regulated by the International Maritime Organization, and legal challenges have prevented most U.S. laws unless the ship was "flagged" or registered here.  

I hesitate to say that ship bunker fuel is "x" percent of worldwide stocks because it changes so much, for example doubling from initial studies to the more recent (and using the same data).  Is it 14 percent or as much as 30, or are those estimates way inflated?  Remember we're just talking liquid fuel oil here, not total energy.

All I can say is that there are about 30,000 large ships chugging around the world and each burns between 30 and 130 metric tons of fuel per day (at about 700 gallons per ton).  Now that's some fuel, bubba.

Onward through the fog


]]> some ship fuel thoughts

My good friend Dr. James Corbett at U-Delaware has probably published the most authoritative articles on global fuel consumption of ship bunker fuel.  See J. of Geophysical Research and others or Google his home site webpage.  I work with him quite often although not recently - and hey, he was a major driver in the analysis regard ship/whale strikes as well. Cool man.

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?jcorbett

Ship fuel is known as "heavy fuel oil" and varies between 2.7 and 1.5 percent sulfur.  This is similar to what we in the US used to call "Bunker C."  The stuff is so thick it has to be heated and run through a centrifuge before it can even be burned.  

These fuels can be blended down or hydro-treated so as to achieve sulfur limits of 0.5 percent sufur and even lower.  These grades of ship fuel are called marine distillate oil.  Cleaner than that, you're talking marine gas oil, which is very similar to diesel, which is a true distillate.  California has a regulation for ships to use marine gas oil when in port although a judge has recently issued a stay against any compliance - but many proactive companies are doing it.

By and far, the worldwide average for ship bunkers is 2.4 to 2.7 percent sulfur heavy fuel oil.  About 95 percent of the large ship activity in the U.S. is from foreign ships using that stuff.  Foreign ships are regulated by the International Maritime Organization, and legal challenges have prevented most U.S. laws unless the ship was "flagged" or registered here.  

I hesitate to say that ship bunker fuel is "x" percent of worldwide stocks because it changes so much, for example doubling from initial studies to the more recent (and using the same data).  Is it 14 percent or as much as 30, or are those estimates way inflated?  Remember we're just talking liquid fuel oil here, not total energy.

All I can say is that there are about 30,000 large ships chugging around the world and each burns between 30 and 130 metric tons of fuel per day (at about 700 gallons per ton).  Now that's some fuel, bubba.

Onward through the fog


]]> Comment #15 by Colin Wright http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:08:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/15 Can we get past the mud-slinging?

Joe,

What I'm reading from you is, "don't worry, a price on carbon, the market, a few government regulations concerning efficiency will take care of things."

Then you lump your detractors in with the Limbaugh crowd. And wash your hands, thus absolving you from taking their arguments seriously. But the main arguments aren't about what constitutes an environmentalist these days or what constitues a breakthrough technology.

The main issue as I see it is, is cap and trade (and/or a carbon tax) going to work ? It hasn't in Europe so far. You don't address S&N's contention that:
The IPCC estimates that establishing a global carbon price of $184/ton -- a figure five times higher than what legislation in the Senate would set it at -- would still only result in a reduction of global carbon emissions by 20-38 percent by 2030

If it was an argument just between you and a few rogue social scientists. that would be one thing. But S&N marshall a whole assortment of esteemed figures:
Indeed, whether it's the recommendations presented by the IPCC, the Stern Review, Scientific American, or top energy innovation experts, investment is universally seen as a central element in overcoming ecological crisis. "Funding for energy research," Scientific American said in its lead editorial in a special issue dedicated to clean energy, "must be accorded the privileged status usually reserved for health care and defense."

That's why it's important that you address the full substance of N&S's critique. Your backgrond in energy policy obviously gives you deserved credibility. But many people regard the Clinton/Gore environmental policies with deep suspicion.



]]> Can we get past the mud-slinging?

Joe,

What I'm reading from you is, "don't worry, a price on carbon, the market, a few government regulations concerning efficiency will take care of things."

Then you lump your detractors in with the Limbaugh crowd. And wash your hands, thus absolving you from taking their arguments seriously. But the main arguments aren't about what constitutes an environmentalist these days or what constitues a breakthrough technology.

The main issue as I see it is, is cap and trade (and/or a carbon tax) going to work ? It hasn't in Europe so far. You don't address S&N's contention that:
The IPCC estimates that establishing a global carbon price of $184/ton -- a figure five times higher than what legislation in the Senate would set it at -- would still only result in a reduction of global carbon emissions by 20-38 percent by 2030

If it was an argument just between you and a few rogue social scientists. that would be one thing. But S&N marshall a whole assortment of esteemed figures:
Indeed, whether it's the recommendations presented by the IPCC, the Stern Review, Scientific American, or top energy innovation experts, investment is universally seen as a central element in overcoming ecological crisis. "Funding for energy research," Scientific American said in its lead editorial in a special issue dedicated to clean energy, "must be accorded the privileged status usually reserved for health care and defense."

That's why it's important that you address the full substance of N&S's critique. Your backgrond in energy policy obviously gives you deserved credibility. But many people regard the Clinton/Gore environmental policies with deep suspicion.



]]> Comment #16 by Teryn Norris http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:31:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/16 Bill McKibben on S&N -- Energy Consumption

I don't know any major environmentalist or environmental group that has promoted such a message.

Really?

Q&A with Bill McKibben: Acceptable Energy Consumption

"Your article is a nice piece of diplomacy. However, from what I've seen of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in The New Republic, they talk a double game: we have to give people a vast increase in energy consumption because they won't settle for anything else; and, they're right not to. So we have no choice but to somehow go from fifteen terawatts of consumption in 2007 to sixty in 2100. Maybe they're right about what's politically possible, but are they right about what's desirable? Is it, in your opinion, possible to have environmentally acceptable energy consumption at that level, considering what that energy is used for, and what it takes, under the most benign assumptions, to produce it? If not, shouldn't we at least not reinforce illusions while bowing to realities?"
--Willem Vanden Broek

Bill McKibben replies:

"My most recent book, Deep Economy (Times Books, 2007), tries to answer this question in great detail. Suffice it to say, it seems to me that we would be wise to start asking deeper questions about the economy than 'how can we make it larger'. Like, how can we make it more durable, and more satisfying. The answers to both, I think, point towards less energy use instead of more."

http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2007/10/questions-for-bill ...


]]> Bill McKibben on S&N -- Energy Consumption

I don't know any major environmentalist or environmental group that has promoted such a message.

Really?

Q&A with Bill McKibben: Acceptable Energy Consumption

"Your article is a nice piece of diplomacy. However, from what I've seen of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in The New Republic, they talk a double game: we have to give people a vast increase in energy consumption because they won't settle for anything else; and, they're right not to. So we have no choice but to somehow go from fifteen terawatts of consumption in 2007 to sixty in 2100. Maybe they're right about what's politically possible, but are they right about what's desirable? Is it, in your opinion, possible to have environmentally acceptable energy consumption at that level, considering what that energy is used for, and what it takes, under the most benign assumptions, to produce it? If not, shouldn't we at least not reinforce illusions while bowing to realities?"
--Willem Vanden Broek

Bill McKibben replies:

"My most recent book, Deep Economy (Times Books, 2007), tries to answer this question in great detail. Suffice it to say, it seems to me that we would be wise to start asking deeper questions about the economy than 'how can we make it larger'. Like, how can we make it more durable, and more satisfying. The answers to both, I think, point towards less energy use instead of more."

http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2007/10/questions-for-bill ...


]]> Comment #17 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:50:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/17 low carbon shipping

There are at least two companies selling sail systems to the modern shipping industry.

]]> low carbon shipping

There are at least two companies selling sail systems to the modern shipping industry.

]]> Comment #18 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:07:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/18 Sails and Fuel Cells

Thanks, Green Engineer.  The sails look like a great way to reduce power demand, which is a cubic function (Propeller Law).  I am also aware of an experimental fuel cell ship that used electric motors for propulsion - I'd have to look that one up.  So far, the shipping industry seems to like hybrid power plants and diesel-electric have been around for decades.  Most all cruise liners (gasp) are diesel-electric now.  P.S. many new cruise liners were built with turbines (jet engines) for boost power but are rarely or never used because they use to much fuel.  /sam

Onward through the fog

]]> Sails and Fuel Cells

Thanks, Green Engineer.  The sails look like a great way to reduce power demand, which is a cubic function (Propeller Law).  I am also aware of an experimental fuel cell ship that used electric motors for propulsion - I'd have to look that one up.  So far, the shipping industry seems to like hybrid power plants and diesel-electric have been around for decades.  Most all cruise liners (gasp) are diesel-electric now.  P.S. many new cruise liners were built with turbines (jet engines) for boost power but are rarely or never used because they use to much fuel.  /sam

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #19 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:53:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/19 Sam, thanks for ship info

]]> Sam, thanks for ship info

]]> Comment #20 by Erik Hoffner http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/ Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:17:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-iv/20 kites

Some data on kites and cargo ships here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/12/113159/502

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more


]]> kites

Some data on kites and cargo ships here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/12/113159/502

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more


]]>