The Coming Climate Change

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Mariss Freimanis Land that is presently desert is desert because there is no water. Where pray tell would the water come from to grow these wonderful plants? The only river of significance here in the Southwest is the Colorado. Its water is already used to 100% capacity. Mariss

We are going to burn all the hydrogen that has magically appeared.

Am I being too flippant?

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof Donna; Regarding "Here is some food for thought." I am disappointed, you are cherry picking. I pulled down the Montegnegro article, started reading and thought I might pull out a few of the inconsistencies and assumptions. The list was getting a bit long but then I came across this: Incidentally in the context of your "This is doable, cost effective and probably the way to go. comment on bio-diesel from algae take notice of the first two sentences in what I copy below. Also in the case of the algae source never mind economic feasibility it has not been done on anything other than a research scale and it is very difficult to scale this type of thing up. Making biodiesel from algae is analogous to making ethanol from cellulose. Both technologies hold great promise but neither has been proven economically feasible. The following two sentences sound contradictory: Over its lifetime, pure biodiesel emits about 78 percent less CO2 than conventional diesel ... They also found that biodiesel reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 41 percent compared with fossil fuels. Also note that this is for soy biodiesel. Palm oil biodiesel is far more CO2 neutral but about 100% more destructive of biodiversity, which makes it worse from a global warming perspective because further production of palm oil will require destroying remaining carbon sinks (the destruction of which presently accounts for about 20% of all global warming). When Tier 2 emissions standards bring biodiesel up to par with gasoline and ethanol for air pollutants, biodiesel seems like it should be a no-brainer for green energy. Note also that these standards will bring cars that burn regular diesel up to par with gasoline cars. In other words, one of the biggest reasons to use biodiesel (less pollution) will be mooted. That will leave energy independence and reduced CO2 as the remaining arguments. But, since we can only replace half of a percent of our diesel (as you point out) the energy independence argument is a farce and should be tossed. That leaves one argument for its use. It produces less CO2. But, is that 78% less or 41%? But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent. These numbers make the CO2 argument rather farcical as well since we will leave 99.75% of our CO2 production from diesel untouched by using soy biodiesel. I have never used the word farcical but it is appropriate.

Hi Geof,
You said: But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent.

I'm lost, why can we only replace less than one half of a percent of our diesel?
I really thought ya'll would be easier to convince, this is proving much harder than I envisioned. Here's a plan, build a nuke plant on the west coast next to a desalinization plant. Nuke plant powers the desalinization plant and pump the water into the desert to make biodiesel out of algae. Why is it I can here Mariss laughing all the way from the west coast and I'm almost deaf? Well you could run the numbers and see how it came out, might be feasible. Might yield $5 a gal gas as well. But that would give you a baseline for figuring what it was going to cost.
Donna

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Geof, You said: But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent. I'm lost, why can we only replace less than one half of a percent of our diesel? I really thought ya'll would be easier to convince, this is proving much harder than I envisioned. Here's a plan, build a nuke plant on the west coast next to a desalinization plant. Nuke plant powers the desalinization plant and pump the water into the desert to make biodiesel out of algae. Why is it I can here Mariss laughing all the way from the west coast and I'm almost deaf? Well you could run the numbers and see how it came out, might be feasible. Might yield $5 a gal gas as well. But that would give you a baseline for figuring what it was going to cost. Donna

No I did not 'say' anything. I took a section from the article you referenced in support of your points and made it bold and italised. I was pointing out that you cherry picked numbers to support your points but the very article you used has conclusions that support the points Mariss and I make.

I have not bothered to check whether the person I quoted was correct in their analysis; you can do that if you want to dispute it, after all it is your link.

Does it not occur to you that the reason Mariss and I are hard to convince is because we do understand the technology, the energetics, the thermodynamics? I do not need to run numbers to know that using nuke power to desalinate sea water for irrigation of deserts is totally unfeasible.

[miljnor]

I think allot of greenies forget the main overriding reason you can not compete with Petroleum products is We as humans don't make it we just refine it. Thus its already stored energy from millions of years of mother natures work.

And I think allot of people on my side of the fence overrule other technologies with that as a comparison.

There are allot of unfeasible ideas out there, but some of them obviously would be a good avenue to explore, if for no other reason than, we need them to reach other planets.

Because as far as we know there isn't a huge wealth of petro on the moon or mars and we need a storage mechanism to get there... I am all for atomic fusion or fission.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof No I did not 'say' anything. I took a section from the article you referenced in support of your points and made it bold and italised. I was pointing out that you cherry picked numbers to support your points but the very article you used has conclusions that support the points Mariss and I make. I have not bothered to check whether the person I quoted was correct in their analysis; you can do that if you want to dispute it, after all it is your link. Does it not occur to you that the reason Mariss and I are hard to convince is because we do understand the technology, the energetics, the thermodynamics? I do not need to run numbers to know that using nuke power to desalinate sea water for irrigation of deserts is totally unfeasible.

Hi Geof,
I mentioned that to simply make the point that there are alternatives to fossil fuels, the cost will simply be higher. At some point the cost of making synthetic fuels will equal that of fossil fuels. Yes there are difficulties, but it's not impossible. I didn't intentionally cheery pick that article, I just read enough to see what I wanted and left the source so you could examine it. I should have read it more throughly.
Sorry,
Donna
I'll do some more research and get back to you.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Geof, I mentioned that to simply make the point that there are alternatives to fossil fuels, the cost will simply be higher. At some point the cost of making synthetic fuels will equal that of fossil fuels. Yes there are difficulties, but it's not impossible. I didn't intentionally cheery pick that article, I just read enough to see what I wanted and left the source so you could examine it. I should have read it more throughly. Sorry, Donna I'll do some more research and get back to you.

I give you credit for the statment; "I just read enough to see what I wanted". This is what a lot of people but they are not honest enough to admit it. Which makes me happy I have persisted in presenting arguments to you that explain things that maybe you 'don't want to know'. This entire discussion can have one of three outcomes; 1) we simply give up somewhere along the line with nothing resolved; 2) you look into things in greater detail, seek out cons as well as pros, develop an understanding of the underlying science, and come to the realisation that a lot of what is written and spoken about with regards to reducing CO2 emissions and developing alternate energy sources is a lot of hokum; 3) or you find enough basic sources that demonstrate unequivocally with proven technology brought to full industrial level that it will be possible to do something like cutting CO2 emissions by 50% in about twenty years without drastically altering energy consumption patterns.

You may think it is arrogant of me to say that I put the probability of the outcome being 3) very low, indeed vanishingly small. That is okay, I used to be a University and College lecturer, I am familiar with being called arrogant. it comes with that kind of position...or it is necessary to succeed in that kind of position.

[Jason812]

If we reduce CO2, then how are the plants going to live? If you want to the world to be greener then you need plants, right?

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Jason812 If we reduce CO2, then how are the plants going to live? If you want to the world to be greener then you need plants, right?

There is no hope of ever reducing atmospheric CO2 levels; it is approaching impossible to even slow down the rate of increase. There is no worry about plants not getting enough CO2.

[xyzdonna]

Ah ha, now I've found something! Get a load of this.
"While hydrogen can also be produced by high-temperature steam electrolysis,"
So my idea does have validity! This guy is doing it with high temperature (think solar concentrators) and membrane technology.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/67...scription.html
Hydrogen production by high-temperature water splitting using electron-conducting membranes
I can envision a world where natural gas is replaced by hydrogen.
to quote further: "Water disassociates into oxygen and hydrogen at high temperatures, and the disassociation increases with increasing temperature"
Yep, my thought exactly,
It's looking doable again!
Donna

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna ... "Water disassociates into oxygen and hydrogen at high temperatures, and the disassociation increases with increasing temperature" Yep, my thought exactly, It's looking doable again! Donna

No it is not. The high temperature dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen is old hat. You must have heard of coal gas? I do not know how extensively it was ever used in North America but it was widely used in the UK. You maybe also know that it was highly poisonous and this was due to the carbon monoxide content.

Coal gas is made by heating coking coal, not all coal is suitable, in an oxygen limited atmosphere. Some burns to provide the heat but there is a lot of coal unburnt and is incandescent. Water in the form of steam is injected into the hot bed of coal and is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen by the heat. Reactions take place between the oxygen but because there is a great excess of carbon over oxygen the end product is not carbon dioxide but is carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen being gases can be separated from the coal residue and they are mostly what comprise coal gas although there are some gaseous carbon compounds such methane and ethane.

But it is energetically inefficient, far more inefficient than the eletrolysis of water to get hydrogen and oxygen. Any high temperature dissociation process is energetically inefficient.

Mariss said it; there is no free lunch.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by Jason812 If we reduce CO2, then how are the plants going to live? If you want to the world to be greener then you need plants, right?

The plants will be fine because the goal is not to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (by much). The goal is to reduce human emissions of CO2 by 50%; specifically by reducing fossil fuel consumption.

When you dig deeper you'll find the goal isn't even to reduce global warming, but rather to tax and control everyone using energy.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof No it is not. The high temperature dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen is old hat. You must have heard of coal gas? I do not know how extensively it was ever used in North America but it was widely used in the UK. You maybe also know that it was highly poisonous and this was due to the carbon monoxide content. Coal gas is made by heating coking coal, not all coal is suitable, in an oxygen limited atmosphere. Some burns to provide the heat but there is a lot of coal unburnt and is incandescent. Water in the form of steam is injected into the hot bed of coal and is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen by the heat. Reactions take place between the oxygen but because there is a great excess of carbon over oxygen the end product is not carbon dioxide but is carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen being gases can be separated from the coal residue and they are mostly what comprise coal gas although there are some gaseous carbon compounds such methane and ethane. But it is energetically inefficient, far more inefficient than the eletrolysis of water to get hydrogen and oxygen. Any high temperature dissociation process is energetically inefficient. Mariss said it; there is no free lunch.

Hi Geof,
It may be inefficient but if the input energy is free CSP, then it can be done with less electrical (not free) energy. I'm just saying there are ways of doing these things that have to be analyzed on a cost benefit basis. You will admit that these things can technically be done. The question is only one of cost. You have to find a process that can be done cheaply enough to be viable. Some process out there will work. There always is, whether it's biodiesel from algae, or hydrogen from water, there will be a process found that will be cost effective. These processes that I've mentioned can be done, the question is the cost. And at some point as the price of crude continues to climb, one of these processes will prove cost effective.
Donna