Sweden cleanest, S. Arabia dirtiest: climate index

That's understandable.

When our large hydro resource didn't cover all electrical needs we basically looked around; no gas, no coal, no oil, lets go nuclear.

With cheap electricity, heat pumps became popular(this is one of the reasons I think the green ideal of costly electricity to encourage efficiency is so dangerous; it also encourages people to keep burning oil and gas for heat).

We also developed fairly large scale district heating and district cooling(heat exchanger to sea water) systems with a variety of generation sources; from giant heat pumps consuming off-peak nuclear power to forrest waste/trash/heavy fuel oil burning CHP stations.

With a decent public transport system, that leaves you with 37% of primary energy comming from fossil fuels(mostly oil).

Assume that electric vehicles were economically viable today; replacing the 29% of generation that comes from oil would be a breeze since oil is only used at about 25% efficiency in a modest sized interal combustion engine, so that would only lead to a ~10% expansion being necessary for the electrical grid(not even that if people are willing to use offpeak electricity).

The problem is not generating power; that's the easy part, the problem is storage cost, storage density/range, charging duration and availability and replacing a giant vehicle fleet. I think this will be a very hard challenge.

Greens often make implicit the assumption that the difficult part is generating power and all that matters is how much energy you can produce; not whether you can match the demand profile, where the energy is needed, in what form it is needed(electricity doesn't go into a gas tank, electricity doesn't turn iron ore into steel), reliabillity, distribution/transmission, storage and a myriad of other factors. This is not true of course, since even with the well-behaved sources of electricity we have today the cost of transmission is higher than generation(without the continent wide Rube Goldberg machine of HVDC spiderwebs spanning the continent, gargantuan pumped hydro stations and vehicle-to-grid electricity storage and smart grid technology envisioned by the greens).

The price of electricity is much lower than the price of motor fuel in terms of useful work you can derive from it; if all that mattered was generating energy we'd all run our vehicles on electricity because it'd be the economically rational thing to do.

This is a very difficult problem and deserves a lot more attention than it gets.

Clean is a term usually associated with pollution limiting activities. As for greenhouse gases., most of them are colorless. The article is less than clear as to whether it concerns limitations on CO2 emissions or pollutants like SO2, particulates etc.

Clean, when applied to CO2, is both misleading and redundant. Of course CO2 is clean. It is neither a pollutant nor dirty. CO2 is essential for all life forms on our planet.

I am more interested in determining what is the least amount of atmospheric CO2 needed for survival. Limiting CO2 may be far more dangerous than allowing natural systems to operate without interference.

Clean is a term usually associated with pollution limiting activities. As for greenhouse gases., most of them are colorless. The article is less than clear as to whether it concerns limitations on CO2 emissions or pollutants like SO2, particulates etc.

Clean, when applied to CO2, is both misleading and redundant. Of course CO2 is clean. It is neither a pollutant nor dirty. CO2 is essential for all life forms on our planet.

I am more interested in determining what is the least amount of atmospheric CO2 needed for survival. Limiting CO2 may be far more dangerous than allowing natural systems to operate without interference.

Average scientific guess is about 150ppm.

Small scale experiments suggest higher, in the range of 180ppm otherwise there isn't enough to promote healthy plant growth.

So true, Vel, and also as long as water and other nutrients are available, CO2 is even more beneficial at 1000ppm.

Top 3 spaces vacant? China not in the bottom ten? This is more gimmickry, not science.

Can we have some more physics please?

Top 3 spaces vacant? China not in the bottom ten? This is more gimmickry, not science.

Can we have some more physics please?

And how exactly is Sweden the cleanest? Iceland should be number 1, they have no power generation outside of wind and geothermal. The country's carbon footprint is zero.

Vel, this is a Associate Free Press article reporting what the UN IPCC says and you expect rational behind what is said? While we're at it why are the eggs green, was the ham also green? and how exactly did horton hear a who? :)

Vel, this is a Associate Free Press article reporting what the UN IPCC says and you expect rational behind what is said? While we're at it why are the eggs green, was the ham also green? and how exactly did horton hear a who? :)

Sorry Roach, you're absolutely right.

And how exactly is Sweden the cleanest? Iceland should be number 1, they have no power generation outside of wind and geothermal. The country's carbon footprint is zero.

From article:
The Climate Change Performance Index compares 57 states that together emit more than 90 percent of the world's annual output of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas.

And Iceland carbon footprint is NOT zero, they do drive normal cars for example.

From article:
The Climate Change Performance Index compares 57 states that together emit more than 90 percent of the world's annual output of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas.

And Iceland carbon footprint is NOT zero, they do drive normal cars for example.

Ok then, let's nitpick until the argument suits your needs.

"Iceland's carbon footprint, in regards to energy production, is zero."

As for the 57 states comment, when did CO2 become the principle greenhouse gas? It isn't. It's water vapor.

So true, Vel, and also as long as water and other nutrients are available, CO2 is even more beneficial at 1000ppm.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 1000ppm would kill us all.

As for the 57 states comment, when did CO2 become the principle greenhouse gas? It isn't. It's water vapor.

The two major greenhouse gasses are carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Why? Because those are the two gasses that humans have been injecting into the atmosphere nonstop for the last hundred years. Another one to worry about is methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 and nitrous oxide, but its concentration has increased by only a small amount compared to the other two. As for water vapor, its more of a byproduct of the other three. the damage they cause includes increased water evaporation which accelerates the proccess more. We can't do much about wator vapor, but we can go for an acceptable 3/4 and reduce our emmissions of the other three greenhouse gasses.

So true, Vel, and also as long as water and other nutrients are available, CO2 is even more beneficial at 1000ppm.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 1000ppm would kill us all.

It certainly wouldn't be toxic until 70,000ppm. Unless you subscribe to the runaway heating effect, which has at least two periods in the planet's history that would be anomalous to the theory's predictions, then I fail to see how it would kill us all.

As for the 57 states comment, when did CO2 become the principle greenhouse gas? It isn't. It's water vapor.

The two major greenhouse gasses are carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Why? Because those are the two gasses that humans have been injecting into the atmosphere nonstop for the last hundred years. Another one to worry about is methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 and nitrous oxide, but its concentration has increased by only a small amount compared to the other two. As for water vapor, its more of a byproduct of the other three. the damage they cause includes increased water evaporation which accelerates the proccess more. We can't do much about wator vapor, but we can go for an acceptable 3/4 and reduce our emmissions of the other three greenhouse gasses.

That's certainly not true. We produce more water vapor than either CO2 or NO by a huge margin. That being said, water vapor also constitutes 95% of the GHGs in our atmosphere.

The reason why deserts drop below freezing at night and above 100 degrees F during the day is entirely due to the lack of water vapor. The water vapor isn't present in the desert and so the heat escapes from that region far more readily.

Just to Supliment what Vel has already said, take gasoline, Approximated at C8H18 that means 9 to 8 H2O to CO2 for natural gas that goes to 2 to 1. Reality is that H2O is much easier to make than CO2 so the ratio is even more skewed when you suptract C lost in particulates and CO. Then factor not just the small users like cars, but rather big users, power plant boilers, steam turbine generation plants, cooling towers then you compound the steam generated by the fact that the energy of the combustions is used for the evaporation of water.

That being said while it's effect is not as noticed since everyone ignores it, I have to disagree with Vel on one point, Nitrogen is a beast when it comes to atmospheric warming that stuff just won't go away. N2 is like fricken gorrila glue or some crap. Dissociates at like 3000C the stuff just sucks in energy 29 J/molK.
It's specific heat runs about 20% over CO2, and while admitedly it's only about half that of water vapor, compare quantities. Nitrogen is the greenhouse gas. With out it, night temperature would likely approach the radiation background temperature of 4K and day time surface temps would be uncomfortable.

With out it, night temperature would likely approach the radiation background temperature of 4K and day time surface temps would be uncomfortable.

Are you sure you meant N2 and not N2O or NO2?

Yep, N2, it's really common sense, but we always look at it backwards as people, the reason the surface of the earth stays so warm, and yes even 40 below is warm versus 4Kelvin, is because the atmosphere as a whole is a greenhouse holding and catching heat and keeping heat out. The moon on the other hand at approximately the same distance from the sun goes through about a 280C to 300C(from as low as -233C in some areas to 123C in the day time high) change from night to day on the soil(yes, I know it's not really soil per se), and with no atmosphere to conduct/hold radiating surface heat, above the surface you start dropping rapidly at night. N2 is the predominant gas in the atmosphere, by a huge margin, even if it was a lousy GHG and energy sink it would have the runaway advantage just based on quantity, but it's actually a decent GHG, not as strong as say H2O or CH4 or N2O or NO2, but when you factor 780,000ppm(Vel, I know you get this, but for those who missed it, 1,000,000ppm=100%), all of a we are suddenly in a different order of magnitude from all of the other gases in the atmosphere except oxygen. By the very nature of an atmosphere, all atmospheric gases are GHG.

I did exagerate a little, I guess 40K is a lot warmer than 4K... If any AGW supporters want to go check so you can prove me wrong, please do. Just jump in a tub of liquid hydrogen then jump to a tank of liquid helium and tell me if you can feel a differance. Or you can just put members of the IPCC into each and see which ones say they are colder.

Something from another blog:

(wattsupwiththat.com)Deb (19:18:16) :

"Well after doing a quick google search,
We'd start getting drowsy at a CO2 concentration of 1% (10,000 ppm) if we were trapped in an unventilated room. The gas is toxic at levels greater than 5% (50,000 ppm). That's about 130 times greater than the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere - and (using one of those nifty linear extrapolations like the pro-AGW crowd adores so much) it would take something like 30,000 years for the current level to reach toxicity.

Now if we pull out that handy graph again of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time, the greatest concentration recorded was only 7000 ppm back in the Cambrian - in other words, not toxic at all.

Hmm. I'm not spotting the impending apocalypse. It seems to me that humans could survive quite nicely on this planet at anytime during the past 600 million years and we'll continue to adapt in the future. And right now my future is snow shovelling..."

As for the 57 states comment, when did CO2 become the principle greenhouse gas? It isn't. It's water vapor.

Lol! Water vapor! Ever heard of rain?
You have no idea about climate, do you?

And how exactly is Sweden the cleanest? Iceland should be number 1, they have no power generation outside of wind and geothermal. The country's carbon footprint is zero.

Nuclear and hydro accounts for nearly all of Swedens electric generation, both of which generate negligible CO2, so Iceland doesn't have much of an advantage there.

Iceland has an advantage over Sweden on the space-heating front, where Sweden uses quite a bit of oil and forrestry waste(which is a bit oil intensive to transport and store).

Iceland is at a very large disadvantage on the transportation front; it uses a little less than twice as much oil as Sweden.

Hmm. I'm not spotting the impending apocalypse. It seems to me that humans could survive quite nicely on this planet at anytime during the past 600 million years and we'll continue to adapt in the future.

I don't think you want to resurrect the climate of the Cambrian, when mean temperature was 7 K higher even with a 3% lower solar constant.

It would necessitate abandoning all coastal cities, shuffling a few billion people around according to the new distribution of fresh water resources, abandoning most of the equatorial region, mass extinction of nearly all currently living plants and animal species. Burning every last chunk of coal out of a hatred for environmentalists is cutting your nose of to spite your face.

As for the 57 states comment, when did CO2 become the principle greenhouse gas? It isn't. It's water vapor.

Lol! Water vapor! Ever heard of rain?
You have no idea about climate, do you?

Completely brainwashed.