Nice ploy. Crane offers an un-claimable prize to an impossible contest, in order to provide political cover for his nuclear power plants. Same ploy Richard Branson used last year with his prize for solving global warming to cover the Virgin Airlines fleet chewing up the stratosphere.

When you burn C, you either get deadly toxic CO or CO2. I'd much rather breath CO2 than CO, or have UF6 in my water supply thanks.

How about this for a headline?
"Sierra Club Now Inadvertently Supports Uranium Mining and Nuclear Waste Transport and Disposal"

This should give environmentalists a warm fuzzy feeling about nuclear power-

About 95% of the depleted uranium produced to date is stored as uranium hexafluoride, UF6, in steel cylinders in open air yards close to enrichment plants. Each cylinder contains up to 12.7 tonnes (or 14 US tons) of solid UF6. In the U.S. alone, 560,000 tonnes of depleted UF6 had accumulated by 1993. In 2005, 686,500 tonnes in 57,122 storage cylinders were located near Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Paducah, Kentucky.[2][3] The long-term storage of DUF6 presents environmental, health, and safety risks because of its chemical instability. When UF6 is exposed to moist air, it reacts with the water in the air to produce UO2F2 (uranyl fluoride) and HF (hydrogen fluoride) both of which are highly soluble and toxic.

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

Two items here:

1) "The centerpiece of any global warming effort has to be getting carbon out of coal,"...

I thought that that was accomplished by actually burning the coal. This guy should stick to the business aspects and leave the science to scientists.

2) ...a strong advocate of "clean coal" technology...

I thought "clean coal" was sulfur-free coal. I guess this term has now been morphed to carbonless coal. I think I shall now apply for a grant to explore for these carbonless coal deposits. I think a good place to start the exploration process is in the South Pacific.

Slightly off-topic, but of great interest, I found this little item this morning. Tucson observed 21 new record daily highs in 1986 and 23 in 1987. For 1988, the number climbed again, to 38 record highs, and it jumped to 59 the following year. Remarkably, in 1988 and 1989 all but one of these milestones were achieved on days when no other station within a thousand miles set a record of its own.

The growing pile of record daily highs from the National Weather Service (NWS) office at Tucson International Airport�and the absence of corresponding new records from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base on very similar terrain just three miles away suggested a problem with NWS monitoring equipment, specifically with a device called the HO-83 hygrothermometer, newly installed at the airport in 1986.

The article also says ...noted that by comparison with the equipment it replaced, the instrument at NWS Tucson tended to report daytime temperatures 2 to 3 degrees higher.

And even more damaging, ...Thomas Karl, current head of the USHCN’s parent organization, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and a strong proponent of the theory of human-induced climate change, authored a paper indicating replacement of older equipment with the HO-83 may have polluted the record of U.S. maximum temperature averages since the 1980s, raising them by an error of as much as 0.5 degree, Celsius.

Let the spinning begin.

UK Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'. Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

Most of the Libertarian extremists, errr, I mean free-market capitalists, support these types of things (i.e. contests, awards, etc) to involve the public in spurring innovation. It really shows you how the depth of their denial has not only caused them to lose their minds, but to lose their principles, as well.

paul- just because they expierienced record highs doesnt prove anything- there will be years with days above normal and below normal on temperatures- there are several factors such as tropical moisture which leads to an increase of cloud cover/rainfall which leasds to lower temperatures- it also depends on how often a surface high pressure system is over the area- thats what has caused the drought this year- high pressure systems provide sinking air- as in little if any rainfall

CO2 is just one problem with coal. Lets get particular about the particulates and coal.As you can see it is the worst of the fossils. My tunnel idea prevents this also.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1569408&pageindex=3

To remove the Co2 from the flue gasses exiting the stack it is going to cost the consumer more for the electricity they get. The coal units will also be be less efficient which means they have to burn more coal to make up the difference in heat rate. Coal is the worst fossil we burn. It can cause stroke, heart attacks, Lung cancer,acid rain,Ozone depletion and carbonic acid in our oceans.Need I say more? I have plenty more if you would like.

Carbonless coal!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

China has agreed to phase out the incadescent light bulb as well as reduce the number of differant types of bulbs from the current 30 to only about 5.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44633/story.htm

Now, if only they could lay off the coal plants!

John,

You need to read the article, the entire article. There is a problem with the instrument itself, ...at least a half-dozen other papers have noted HO-83 problems, with the focus on an aspiration fan intended to draw outside air into the sensor enclosure but performing poorly at the outset and deteriorating as the instrument gets dirty over time. It is common practice for records of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) to be adjusted to account for biasing factors such as differing times of recording data or changes in the location of monitoring equipment. But the USHCN records are evidently not adjusted to compensate for measurement errors introduced by the HO-83.

It was the consistent recording of record highs when a similar weather station 3 miles away did not register record temperatures that led to the investigation.

So, yes, the record highs did prove something; the instrument was malfunctioning.

"China has agreed to phase out the incandescent light bulb"

Great! As if there isn't enough mercury in the environment already...we'll poison all life on earth rather than feed it.

Andrew,

You sound very fond of the idea of technologies which will help fill up the planet with Mercury and nuclear waste.

Particularly thrilling to me is the thought of every Middle Eastern country having nuclear capabilities. Nuclear winter will stop global warming dead in it's tracks and give libs something serious to think about (for a change.)

Andrew,

"China has agreed to phase out the incadescent light bulb as well as reduce the number of differant types of bulbs from the current 30 to only about 5."

The only reason they are doing this, is to lessen the power consumption, somewhat, to give themselves a little breathing room on their power grids, to handle upcoming power requirements for planned, massive industrial projects, that will put them right back in the red again.

Try to see the big picture of how and why the world operates and who makes the rules.

Google into the thousands of new industrial projects, presently being constructed or planned for the near future around the globe. It's staggering.

Imagine the power consumption to operate these new monsters and then tell us that a few light bulbs, painting your roof white, riding your bike to work or putting up a few windmills is the beginning to making a difference.

Go buy Equador's billion barrel oil reserve to keep it in the ground and find out after that, that all you did was keep the equivalent of skimming 1/8 of an inch of oil off the top of a full 45 gallon drum, and that does not include the Arctic and Antarctic reserves.

It's like trying to stop the earth from rotating by dreaming it will stop or plugging a volcano with concrete to stop future eruptions.

Stop worrying and try to tap yourself into the environmental money out there, become a multi-millionaire and buy a nice place where you and your family can enjoy themselves for generations to come. Al Gore is doing it, with your help, so quit following and wasting your time and get some for yourself, while the gettings good.

Glad to see that Mark continues to be a positive force for productive discussion. As for the topic at hand...Hold Onto Your Wallet!! When a CEO starts to pay lip service to "fixing" global warming, it means that he has either discovered an angle to make more profits or he has been advised that his company might be inviting eventual litigation. Either way, it means that we will wind up paying the bill.

Hmmm... Replacing coal energy with nuclear energy? Oh yeah, that seems real reasonable. :/

Patrick

What makes everyone think Nukes are good. Think about it. You take a uranium fuel at ambient temperature right out of the ground then you release its energy right back into the atmosphere/ocean in the form of BTUs.They still add to the total heat budget of GODS good Earth not to mention if there is an accident.

Our fellow deniers apparently have no qualms with the mercury added to the environment from coal plants. Actually, the added energy required to power incandescents will emit far more mercury into our environment since most of our electricity comes from coal.

But let's note the irony here. The Radical Right, for years, has opposed environmental regulations which limited pollution from lead, mercury, arsenic, etc. Because, booo-hooo, it would hurt the economy. Now, all of a sudden, they're concerned about mercury from fluorescents. I guess they change their stances depending upon what argument they're having.

Besides, there isn't much mercury in CFLs, and what little there is will continually be reduced thanks to technology. Pretty soon, there will be more mercury in your tuna casserole than there will be in your CFLs. So the alarmism is misplaced.

All The effort now being put into changing business as usual is evident in the way businesses are now marketed. Even my Plummer cares; he has a slogan painted on his truck to prove his company is AGW aware, but it means nothing, he laughs at me when i ak him how its changed his daily routine.
These press releases often tell the public that the companies responsible for AGW are talking around the concern seriously, while they are all continuing to supply a growing demand in energy. This tells us that companies and even developing nations are not to blame for the outcome, we all are, which unfortunately gives us no single target to aim at so nothing will be achieved by complaining.
The end users of all this energy will gladly pay the price what ever the cost so the problem only gets greater as global populations grow.

Nuclear fuel is a way to give us more energy and more time on the planet. Its just too bad, for some, that they will get sick or die as a result of its use, but these people are so few they really don�t deserve our consideration.

Its just too bad that thousands of Chinese workers are dieing right now to produce lead based goods and life threatening toothpaste but shoppers in Wal-mart are unaware of the true costs. These bargain hunters and consumer gatherers see with their own eyes the immense benefits of windmills and solar panels that adorn the roofs of their local discount palaces. WThey are no compaining.

A nuclear power plant in someone elses backyard with an annex for storing waste is an ideal solution to the current problem of airborne pollution. In years to come technology will solve the waste storage problems just as technology has solved fossil fuel burning with this new age clean nuclear alternative.

I sell roofing materials and would like to see my range of quartz fortified reflective coatings sold to global markets.
Painting roofs white will save energy just as buying curly light bulbs switching off lights or appliances at the wall will reduce the need for more electrical generation.

My partner John D has developed an Arial spraying technique using a squadron of crop dusting hydrogen dirigibles that can paint the roofs, roads and parklands of an entire city white within a couple of days. We offer residents and city hall a bulk order discount package promising to knock off at least 2 degrees in global temperatures over the next five years as Johns team circles the globe weather permitting.

I've mentioned it before, but I have very little hope for being able to avoid whatever AGW consequences come our way. Ihope that AGW theory is all hogwash, or that AGW will proove more beneficial and less detremental than now thought, because whatever warmign is going to happen and whatever consequences it brings, will probably happen.

I have absoltely no scientific evidence to back this up, but I have a feelign that we as a technilogical civlization are already too far into the "global warming stream" to turn back now. If so, then we'd be better off just madly going forward with ecological and technological progress as is, willy-nilly, in the hope that we will soon (in relative terms, i.e. ~100 years) have significant geo-engineering capability.

Mark,

The problem with Mercury in MCL's is that it gets concentrated in landfills in populated areas which quickly gets into drinking water. MCL's are required by law to be disposed of as toxic waste, yet it is highly unlikely that most will be disposed of properly.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that incandescents will emit far more mercury into our environment?

Also, how do you propose to deal with nuclear waste and the severe environmental health effects of Uranium mining?

Anyone interested in the REAL story behind AGW have a look at this.
This article exposes the Al Gore Scheme.
It show how he has increased his personal fortune 10 thousand times by peddling this sclock and how he is likely to do it again through control of the carbon trading scams.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help

It will be a very frosty day in hell before I sink to such a level of stupid where I buy carbon credits to offset travel.

'It really shows you how the depth of their denial has not only caused them to lose their minds, but to lose their principles, as well.'

Another eye rolling moment.

'The Radical Right, for years, has opposed environmental regulations which limited pollution from lead, mercury, arsenic, etc.'

This coming from the Radical Left.

Mark: The problem is trading one poison for another. What is wrong with switching to LED lighting? They are currently more expensive, but they do not contain mercury, use less energy than CFLs and emit less heat.

You errantly categorize "deniers" as not caring about the environment, when the truth is, most of us want sound science defining the problems and solutions. Doing less could well create worse problems than those we strive to solve.

Mark,

You guys are doing a great job. Sixty eight percent of Americans are ready to sign a treaty which will force their children to stop breathing, eating or working - before the year 2050!

Sixty-two percent of respondents believe that life on earth will continue without major disruptions only if society takes immediate and drastic action to reduce global warming.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans support a new international treaty requiring the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001102343.htm