<< U.N.? D.N.! ~ MAIN ~ TRAPPED FOREVER >>

FEAR OF STEAM

A letter in this week’s Bulletin:

Why are articles on global warming-pollution-the end of the world so often illustrated with a picture of cooling towers? While the spectacle of a giant tower belching out white smoke may alarm, the stuff coming out the top is nothing more than water or, more precisely, water vapour, and probably the only thing it may do is increase the possibility of rain.
Tony Reed, Dalmeny, NSW

It won’t happen again, Mr Reed. At least not in The Bulletin; I can’t speak for the BBC. J.F. Beck has more on the story at that link, and Terry McCrann notes standard behaviour from the usual suspects: “The executive director of Greenpeace International, Gerd Liepold, has been wandering around Australia receiving reverential treatment from adoring acolytes on the ABC.”

Posted by Tim B. on 06/22/2005 at 08:34 AM
  1. Cooling towers are iconic for all kinds of reasons. Here in the US, they were the telltale signature of the 1979? Three Mile Island incident—of course nuclear power is the type of non-fossil power that Greens love to hate. Yet, as your Bulletin letter writer points out, what is being emitted is water vapor, which as we all know, is the biggest greenhouse gas. Pretty confusing.

    Posted by Forbes on 2005 06 22 at 09:50 AM • permalink

  2. Looks like Bob Brown won’t be exiting the planet any time soon, godammit.

    Posted by C.L. on 2005 06 22 at 10:19 AM • permalink

  3. Maybe this may be why:

    Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds)...

    But then that begs the question: why do Greenies have an orgasm or two whenever hear “hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars”? Afterall, hydrogen fuel cells produces water vapour.

    Posted by Rajan R on 2005 06 22 at 10:20 AM • permalink

  4. Because…. BECAUSE…. ARGHJLBJGBSJLGYSH JGN!111

    That said I think we now have the solution to global warming. Simply cover the oceans with plastic and stop all that nasty evaporation.

    Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 22 at 10:44 AM • permalink

  5. Aging Gamer - send your idea to Christof (I think that’s his name, or close).  Suggest it as his latest “art” project.  ;-p

    Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2005 06 22 at 11:44 AM • permalink

  6. Yes, even seal the edges and we’ll have a giant water bed! Symbolising the ocean!

    Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 22 at 12:03 PM • permalink

  7. Many years ago, G. Harry Stine pointed out that global warming could be controlled by increasing the radiation of heat into space.  He suggested that painting Texas with aluminum paint (or an equivalent acreage) would do the job nicely.  Maybe a larger portion of Siberia?  Western China?  All of France?  The job would certainly take care of that nasty unemployment problem in France.

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 06 22 at 12:04 PM • permalink

  8. In the name of sunlight and EU solidarity I suggest redirecting Frances’ sunlight onto the UK with a giant space mirror.

    Instead of using Plastic as the ocean covering, why not just use Crude oil?  We could mandate that tankers have to spill a bit as they travel to eliminate sea water evapuration.  Could Exxon Valdez be seen as the first Anti-climate change measure?

    Posted by Rob Read on 2005 06 22 at 01:09 PM • permalink

  9. Coz Cooling Towers ARE SSCCAAAARRRRRYYYY!!

    Posted by murph on 2005 06 22 at 06:03 PM • permalink

  10. Actually, what comes out of cooling towers is water and heat. Water is the medium; heat is the message.
    Bigotry is no substitute for fact, on either side of the discussion.

    Posted by Paul on 2005 06 22 at 07:44 PM • permalink

  11. “......while cold weather, was blamed for a rise in the use of fossil fuels to heat homes and offices.” BBC Article.

    Boy!!!!!!!!!!! Am I getting confused. And I thought it was about global warming.

    Posted by LaVallette on 2005 06 22 at 08:47 PM • permalink

  12. Why? WHY??!!  Because it LOOKS GOOD, that’s why!  Just like those shots of icebergs breaking up and crashing into the water!  Yeah, sure, it’s been happening for millennia, but run a bit of scary music under it, and a doomy voice-over, and you’ve got a panic!  And don’t forget the 30-year-old file footage of oil-slicked seabirds.

    Posted by cuckoo on 2005 06 22 at 09:58 PM • permalink

  13. You picked a bad picture (at the BBC site) to illustrate your point Tim. The large stack belching gas is not a cooling tower, and it’s not merely issuing steam. Cooling towers are short, squat, and provide a large surface area to transmit as much heat as possible to the environment:

    for example

    Nevertheless I agree with your general point.

    Posted by wombatas on 2005 06 22 at 11:20 PM • permalink

  14. Killer article from McCrann:

    I have a certain bridge in Sydney to sell, real cheap, to anyone who trusts any statistic from Greenpeace

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 06 23 at 12:12 AM • permalink

  15. Terry McCrann’s article states that 450 nuclear reactors currently supply 17% of the world’s nuclear power but that it would take between 10,000 and 20,000 reactors to increase this up to 60%. By my admittedly shaky maths, these figures suggest only 2,600 would be required to supply the lot. Do conservationists have an alternative mathematics system?

    Posted by Fred C. Dobbs on 2005 06 23 at 12:39 AM • permalink

  16. Do I get to be the first to say it?

    nukenukenukenukenukenukenukenukenukeNUKE!

    Posted by Achillea on 2005 06 23 at 02:23 PM • permalink

  17. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.