And I'm Anti-Science?
Would all those folks who so revel in calling folks like me "anti-science" (Dr. Michael Mann being foremost among them) please stop using cooling tower steam plumes as an illustration of CO2 production? Not only is steam not pollution (though it sortof kindof can be made to look like it if you photoshop it right), but the cooling towers so often featured in these shots are not even emitting combustion products at all.
Don:
It's the message, not the facts, that are important.
October 16, 2014, 8:38 amOnlooker from Troy:
Yes! It's burns my @ss every time I see one of those propaganda pictures next to the latest alarmist tripe article.
October 16, 2014, 9:14 amjdgalt:
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and I'm sure if the Chicken Littles ever control CO2, they'll find a way to demonize that steam, just to have something to scream about.
October 16, 2014, 3:21 pmdmk:
In fact cooling towers are very good at scrubbing particulates from the air. That mixture of air and water vapor is very clean. Of course those particulates end up in the tower's circulating water.
October 16, 2014, 4:57 pmMatthew Slyfield:
"though it sortof kindof can be made to look like it if you photoshop it right"
I am a serious amateur photographer. Photoshop or other post-process work isn't necessary to achieve this affect. All it takes is the patience to wait for just the right lighting.
October 16, 2014, 6:03 pmFelineCannonball:
Figure you burn a ton of coal in a power plant (producing 2.8 tons of CO2). Assume 7 million kcal per ton and steam losses accounting for 12% of the total energy. That gives you about 1.4 tons of steam.
So for every ton of steam you see condense above the cooling tower you get something like two tons CO2 into the atmosphere.
The math might vary a bit from day to day, but for graphical purposes it seems like steam production is a decent indicator and proxy for CO2 emissions. If anything it's graphically misleading in being an underestimate of CO2 emissions.
October 16, 2014, 9:05 pmJKB:
Well, steam did make the bulk of the industrial revolution possible. But it also permitted industry to move away from the river bank and water power.
October 16, 2014, 9:35 pmMNHawk:
Photographing steam against a setting sun backdrop, on a cold day, scares the bejeebers out of me.
October 17, 2014, 5:22 amRuss R.:
And how does the math work on nuclear power plants?
October 17, 2014, 6:27 amCraig Loehle:
In the old days at the Savannah River Plant nuclear site, they just sent some of the hot water down the stream to cool off (since no one live there and it was the old days). This killed trees. An anti-nuc group got a picture looking upstream through dead trees at the plant -- implication was that the trees were killed by radiation. Again, if your cause is virtuous, the facts don't matter.
October 17, 2014, 7:01 amalanstorm:
Ah, yes, the old "fake but accurate" routine.
Try again.
October 17, 2014, 7:39 ammarque2:
We also have the assumption that CO2 is somehow bad, when that hasn't even been determined.
October 17, 2014, 8:30 ammarque2:
What about the lazy photographers who just want to get a shot for publicity and then get the heck out, rather than wait all day for the perfect lighting moment?
October 17, 2014, 8:31 amFelineCannonball:
If Mann showed a picture of a nuclear plant as an example of a CO2 production, that would be a problem.
If he shows a picture of a coal-powered power plant to illustrates anthropogenic CO2 production I don't see the problem.
It's like you guys would get upset with a picture of a bent trees to illustrate the wind. "Not only is a tree not wind, but the trees featured in these shots are not made of air at all." WTF?
October 17, 2014, 9:09 amFelineCannonball:
You don't even have to get into any math. Just demonstrating that there is non-trivial relationship between the picture and the concept.
A picture of a house plant can illustrate CO2 assimilation. A picture of a squirrel can illustrate CO2 production. A static picture of a car on the road can illustrate speed.
October 17, 2014, 9:34 amMatthew Slyfield:
I never said it couldn't be done through post process work, just that with a little patience it wasn't necessary.
October 17, 2014, 11:56 amMe too:
How do you get 3.8 tons of CO2 out of 1 ton of coal? And they got a lot of heat out of that same ton too. Coal is the miracle stone. Burn it and it gains mass.
October 18, 2014, 12:56 pmFelineCannonball:
2.8
The oxygen in CO2 comes from air and accounts for ~73% of the mass. Not really a miracle. Just chemistry. http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
October 18, 2014, 1:07 pmMe too:
Well shit. You learn something new everyday. So as it burns it combines with O2 from the air.
October 18, 2014, 1:12 pmFelineCannonball:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
October 19, 2014, 9:59 am