Comments by Jim Baird Subscribe

On Canada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil

If the prospect of five Katrinas a decade isn’t motivation enough, maybe I should give up. Then again blocking events may bring the bulk of them ashore north of the Mason-Dixon Line and then things actually might start happening.

On Canada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil

Canadians have spoken, Majority (61%) Disagrees Harper Government Doing a Good Job Protecting Canada’s Environment, Ipso, December 29, 2012

Regardless of whether the US is a petro state, they have dearth of water.

We have a surplus.

They are not the only country suffering this malady. Some with scarcity also are awash in cash.

On Solutions to the World Water Crisis Requires International Cooperation

Wilmot and Tom, in a postCanada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil that serendipitously appeared on World Water Day themed “cooperation.”, I suggest Canada has more than its fair share of water and  that cooperatively leveling out this imbalance on this continent would not only be beneficial for the Canadian economy it would be a boon for sea level rise.

On Climate Attribution Alchemy

Research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase in frequency (of extreme storms like Katrina) if the climate becomes two degrees Celcius warmer.

Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble 1.4–3 K by 2050.

Consequently look for a Katrina every two years.

Or convert ocean heat to another form of energy.

On Canada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil

Pierre, we have less than half of 1% of the population of the planet and 20% of the fresh water. How can we possibly need all of our water? Especially considering most of the renewable resource is simply running back into the Arctic and the Hudsons Bay. This waste is simply adding to sea level rise, which is the most significant issue with climate change. You say that a trench to the Great Lakes is essentially an environmental blight. Myself, I consider the Suez and Panama Canals as well as the Roman Aqueducts engineering marvels. The North is a frozen desert but not for long and the melting of the permafrost will be an environmental disaster. The solution to my mind is ocean thermal energy conversion to reduce sea surface temperatures that causes the storms that move heat towards the poles. As to your declaration we are fighting climate change, I think much of the rest of the world and many in this country will not agree. All efforts from this end to advance different solutions over the years have simply fallen on deaf ears. Including the state-of-the-art solution to the nuclear waste problem which could have saved Canadian taxpayers their $20 billion investment in the CANDU.

Here's a little poll I would love to see Sustainable Development Technology Canada put to the Canadian public. Canada has 20 percent of the world's supply of a renewable resource that is vital to all living things and 13 percent of a non-renewable resource, the buring of which contributes to global warming, which would you prefer to sell?

On Arctic Ice Loss Amplified Superstorm Sandy

Negative feedback in action. Storms move heat to poles. Poles melt, storms amplify.

Ad nauseum - heat that drives storms powers OTEC systems.

The more energy produced the less heat available to power storms.

On Insurance Industry Ill-Prepared for Climate Change Risks and Impacts

Robin, risk-aversion seems to be endemic to big business.

As an innovator, I am acutely aware this is stultifying and has a way of backfiring. To wit the Fukushima disaster where the cause could have as easily been, and had been offered 20 years earlier as the same, the solution to the waste problem. NIMBY in British Columbia resounded in the province becoming the first to recieve Fukushima's fallout. Although this was not derived from spent fuel, that remains a signifanct source of risk.

Every day we delay in addressing the climate issue the consequences increase.

On Insurance Industry Ill-Prepared for Climate Change Risks and Impacts

The problem is the accumulation of ocean heat.

Deal with it or be prepared to deal with the consequences.

On Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

Robert probably not the best metaphor

You are of course right, things can and likely will get worse. My interest however is in reversing the 75 feet and preventing getting us to 600 ppm. The approaches I offer would make a significant dent in this over the hundreds of years it will take to get to 75 feet SLR and would provide all of the carbon free energy we need in the meantime thus halting the erosion.

Current estimates are conventional OTEC could provide as much as 25 terawatts/year as opposed to the 16 consumed currently. With patent pending counter-current heat transfer system this would be the lower limit.

I also live in British Columbia where in places we get over 10 feet of rain/year thanks to Nature's own desalination efforts. Unfortunately most of this runs right back into the ocean whereas it could be providing relief and restocking aquifers south of us. See Canada and the US: Sea-Level Rise vs. Keystone XL

This is the kind of low hanging fruit that can start us addressing the SLR problem.

On Offshore Wind Energy Grows in Great Lakes, But Not in Ontario

Can any energy development really protect the environment?

Yes!

The more OTEC energy produced, the more the oceans are cooled. A closed cycle using a heatpipe and counter-current heat recovery overcomes the environmental issues associated with the conventional approach.

On Secretary of Energy for a Leaner DOE?

John, the Subductive Waste Disposal Method was considered the state-of-the-art and most viable reponse to the nuclear waste problem. Had it not been buried in the bulldozing effort to push through Yucca Mountain, nuclear power might well be a lot further ahead.

On Secretary of Energy for a Leaner DOE?

"Losses of up to 9% show need for broader data on US gas industry’s environmental impact."

Geoff, NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory lends credence to Howarth.