The Coming Climate Change

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Geof, It may be inefficient but if the input energy is free CSP,..... .....And at some point as the price of crude continues to climb, one of these processes will prove cost effective. Donna

Couple of comments:

First the energy is not free no matter how it is collected. The device doing the collecting cost money and incurs maintenance costs.

Second you seem to be switching track here. Now you are talking about something becoming cost effective 'eventually' as the cost of crude climbs. I thought your original focus was on replacing fossil fuels in the short term to reduce CO2 emissions.

So what really are you after?

[307startup]

Originally Posted by Geof Couple of comments: First the energy is not free no matter how it is collected. The device doing the collecting cost money and incurs maintenance costs. Second you seem to be switching track here. Now you are talking about something becoming cost effective 'eventually' as the cost of crude climbs. I thought your original focus was on replacing fossil fuels in the short term to reduce CO2 emissions. So what really are you after?

that ever elusive rush of warm fuzzies....

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof Couple of comments: First the energy is not free no matter how it is collected. The device doing the collecting cost money and incurs maintenance costs. Second you seem to be switching track here. Now you are talking about something becoming cost effective 'eventually' as the cost of crude climbs. I thought your original focus was on replacing fossil fuels in the short term to reduce CO2 emissions. So what really are you after?

Hi Geof,
Valid point, I seem to be floundering around don't I. My only excuse is I purchased a new Blackberry and was spending too much time learning how to use the stupid thing. I finally took it back and told the salesman I had read the whole manual and couldn't find where it said how to turn the thing on or off. He gave me that look but I swapped out for a simpler device.
Now, where were we. I've been doing a little more research and I'll spend a little more time looking stuff up. Check this out:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectID=10381404
They have a commercial plant in New Zealand that has biodiesel from algae in production. They are taking waste sewage for the growing medium. Mariss was wondering where the water would come from, there it is. This is early development so I don't think it would be so easy to get the numbers to do an analysis but there you have it, someone thinks it's viable. Algae gives a much higher energy yield per acre than soybeans, corn etc. And that dark green color is going to be about as close as you can get to Mariss' matte black with a living organism.
My focus is to replace fossil fuels to reduce emissions and develop cost effective synthetic fuels. Checking Wikipedia I find that Europe is the largest producer of biodiesel, I quote: "100% Biodiesel is now available at many normal service stations across Europe." As economies of scale accrue, I think this technology will prove cost effective as a short term solution until hydrogen can be perfected.
I'm not an engineer so I can't argue your contention that thermal dissociation of water isn't valid due to the inefficiencies. I can only point out that research is being done. Maybe you are right, perhaps it would be more efficient to use CSP to generate electricity for electrolysis of the water. Perhaps we'll never have cars that run on hydrogen, the problems may well prove insurmountable. I think hydrogen could, however, replace natural gas in the home for clean and relatively efficient heating. Think about it, no heat exchanger required. Just have a fan blowing across the flame and ducting the combustion products into the home. It would provide the benefit of adding humidity to the home since the product of combustion would be water vapor.
As you pointed out, there is a cost associated with all this. My thinking is the cost thing will be worked out and energy will be produced that is clean and cost effective with oil. We just have to avoid the obvious problem of political interference with the science of it. If all the mid-western farmers put pressure on Washington to go with corn ethanol then we'll have problems. I don't think the energy density will be there. The production of energy per acre will be much less than what is needed and it will drive food prices up. Nope, pond scum algae is probably the way to go.
Donna

[xyzdonna]

Here is another interesting article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us...ef=environment

I quote: "An acre of corn can produce about 20 gallons of oil per year, Dr. Ruan said, compared with a possible 15,000 gallons of oil per acre of algae.
An algae farm could be located almost anywhere. It would not require converting cropland from food production to energy production. It could use sea water and could consume pollutants from sewage and power plants."
As they point out it's going to take more research, but the outlook is promising.
Donna

[Jason812]

Originally Posted by dynosor 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.

I made the plant comment just to add some sarcasm.

I know that the only reason for most of the global warming hysteria is to make somebody rich. It’s the people that have no ties to oil that want what the oil bums have.

That being said, I have no problems with renewable energy if it is economical. I've priced converting my home to an off the grid system and at $70,000 there is no way it would be worth it unless my electric bill increased $750 a month. I can't wait until the technology drops in price to make it worth implementing. I'm tired of giving my money to "the man."

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Jason812 I made the plant comment just to add some sarcasm. I know that the only reason for most of the global warming hysteria is to make somebody rich. It’s the people that have no ties to oil that want what the oil bums have. That being said, I have no problems with renewable energy if it is economical. I've priced converting my home to an off the grid system and at $70,000 there is no way it would be worth it unless my electric bill increased $750 a month. I can't wait until the technology drops in price to make it worth implementing. I'm tired of giving my money to "the man."

Totally off grid, not the way to go.
Implementing energy conservation, doable. In new construction, you can add insulation etc. and probably use about 50% of the energy of a normal home.
Not exactly sure of the numbers but I can look them up.
Donna

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna ...I think hydrogen could, however, replace natural gas in the home for clean and relatively efficient heating. Think about it, no heat exchanger required. Just have a fan blowing across the flame and ducting the combustion products into the home. It would provide the benefit of adding humidity to the home since the product of combustion would be water vapor....

For your information the product of natural gas combustion is mostly water with a bit of CO2; natural gas is CH4. You can burn it safely inside using a catalytic heater and you get far too much moisture inside with resulting mould problems where the moisture condenses on cooler walls.

But anyway using hydrogen in place of natural gas is not sensible: As I mentioned much earlier there are currently in use two sources for hydrogen; natural gas and electricity. Either of these can be used for home heating with better overall efficiency.

Many of the ideas, suggestions, etc to combat global warming are no more sensible and no more logical than this.

P.S. Dig up a chemist friend that you trust, maybe also a physicist; both of whom have no vested interest in making money from global warming or conning you into investing in their wonderful ideas. And ask them about the energetics of generating hydrogen. You display the same attitude of many people do who do not have a good education or understanding in science and technology. They believe the people who tell them the message they want to hear and do not believe the ones who, correctly, say it will not work.

[Geof]

Here is an opinion piece from a person who states they do believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. And who also thinks Lomborg is on the correct track. So there is at least one AGW disciple who has his head screwed on tight and facing the correct way.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/wor...html?id=142441

[Mariss Freimanis]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna I quote: "An acre of corn can produce about 20 gallons of oil per year, Dr. Ruan said, compared with a possible 15,000 gallons of oil per acre of algae. An algae farm could be located almost anywhere. It would not require converting cropland from food production to energy production. It could use sea water and could consume pollutants from sewage and power plants." As they point out it's going to take more research, but the outlook is promising. Donna

Sorry Donna. The "15,000 gallons" is a totally ridiculous number. Try 820 gallons as a realistic number.

I guess I didn't get my point across; solar energy is feeble and all "alternate energy" is solar.

Sun energy falling on the US in 1 year: 1 X 10^23 Joules.
Total US energy consumption in 1 year: 1 X 10^20 Joules.
US land area: 1 X 10^7 Km^2.

If you could convert 100% solar to fuel, then an absolute minimum of 0.1% of the US must be covered with solar collector area (solar cells, farmland or algae swamps). That is 10,000 square kilometers or 3,900 square miles. That is more than Delaware and Rhode Island put together.

But wait, it gets far worse. Algae Oil yields 2.4 X 10^13 Joules per square kilometer per year so 4.2 million square kilometers would be needed to meet US energy needs. That is 1.6 million square miles or 42% of the entire US land area covered by a slime swamp! An absolutely Jurassic vision.

Mariss

P.S. Even using your "15,000 gallon" number means covering Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and you would still be 4,000 sq miles short.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof For your information the product of natural gas combustion is mostly water with a bit of CO2; natural gas is CH4. You can burn it safely inside using a catalytic heater and you get far too much moisture inside with resulting mould problems where the moisture condenses on cooler walls. But anyway using hydrogen in place of natural gas is not sensible: As I mentioned much earlier there are currently in use two sources for hydrogen; natural gas and electricity. Either of these can be used for home heating with better overall efficiency. Many of the ideas, suggestions, etc to combat global warming are no more sensible and no more logical than this. P.S. Dig up a chemist friend that you trust, maybe also a physicist; both of whom have no vested interest in making money from global warming or conning you into investing in their wonderful ideas. And ask them about the energetics of generating hydrogen. You display the same attitude of many people do who do not have a good education or understanding in science and technology. They believe the people who tell them the message they want to hear and do not believe the ones who, correctly, say it will not work.

Hi Geof,
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I take no offence at all to your saying that I don't have a good education or understanding of science. You don't know me so you couldn't know my background. I don't profess to have your understanding of chemistry or Mariss' knowledge of electronics. I have taken college level chemistry and physics however. I've also studied electronics. So I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to things scientific. I think to assume that everyone who is doing research in this field is only out to garner research grants is a stretch.
I did a little more research and came up with this:
"The results from this analysis show that the price of hydrogen from a 50,000 kg/day wind-hydrogen system can range from $5.69 per kilogram of hydrogen in the near term to $2.12 per kilogram of hydrogen in the long term."
They are talking about producing hydrogen from a wind turbine conventional electrolysis system.
It goes on to say:
"In the previous explanation, the amount of energy needed to produce one kilogram of hydrogen was presented for a reason. Typically, when discussing hydrogen for transportation fueling needs, a kilogram of hydrogen is the unit used. This is because a kilogram of hydrogen is roughly equivalent in energy to a gallon of gasoline. A gallon of gasoline has roughly 108,000 – 123,500 British Thermal Units (BTU) per gallon, while hydrogen falls between those two values at 116,000 BTU per kilogram."
So the upshot is that hydrogen would currently cost about $5.69 to produce the energy equivalent of a gal of gas, not too good. But the calculations are that in the future the price could come down considerably and probably here there is some speculation.
The source: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38210.pdf
So it just may be that hydrogen will prove viable, you can't discount it entirely. Again, I went in and did a rather cursory take on the article, cheery picked as you say. Just to let you know.
Donna

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna ..."The results from this analysis show that the price of hydrogen from a 50,000 kg/day wind-hydrogen system can range from $5.69 per kilogram of hydrogen in the near term to $2.12 per kilogram of hydrogen in the long term." .... But the calculations are that in the future the price could come down considerably and probably here there is some speculation.....

The whole thing is speculation, the facility does not exist.

Let's go back a little bit to the start of this whole discussion because it definitely has drifted into alternate energy sources but actually started out on the topic of reducing CO2 emissions. And most of these references you are coming up with have the "in the future" component. What is important right now, as important as cost, is timeliness.

I am repeating myself somewhat but I will reprise the issues raised by the IPCC people.

Global Warming is occurring.

Human activity is to blame.

Something must be done.

If nothing is done quickly we will pass 'tipping points' and go into irreversible warming.

The time deadline for one of the tipping points is 20 years away or something like that.

CO2 emissions must be halved by the year 2050.

This can be done without destroying the world's economy.

This is not a complete list but I think it is correct as far as it goes.

My contention is that nothing can be done without destroying the global economy simply because energy consumption and economic activity are inseparably linked. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and fossil fuels are the major source of energy. There are two options that are inescapable; simply reduce energy use drastically or find alternate energy sources that can substitute for fossil fuels.

There are no viable substitutes never mind cost; cost is a minor problem compared to the quantity of energy required. The only alternate energy source that could potentially deliver the magnitude of energy required is nuclear and this would take years to bring on stream and would create an immense upfront surge in CO2 emissions. For at least ten years, more realistically in my view at least twenty years, CO2 emissions would be climbing and by then we are past the 'tipping point'. And anyone who thinks that consideration of the design and construction of literally hundreds of nuclear plants worldwide is going to be entertained is certainly dreaming.

It is simply not possible to find substitute energy. Conservation could reduce consumption by a few percent but again it is necessary to be careful of up front costs. If everyone ran out and bought a hybrid car, quite apart from the fact that a lot of raw materials for the electrical/electronic side would be in short supply, the manufacture of these would creat a near term surge in emissions. The same thing applies to many other conservation/efficiency improvements and the only thing that could reduce emissions in the near term without an initial surge are the simple ones like turning the thermostat down or up depending on whether you are heating or cooling, and driving less. Going deeper you could start consuming less; did you read my post about 3 days out of 20 which describes lowering energy consumption by 15% simply by doing literally nothing for the 3 days. What I describe would work, energy consumption would go down. But if everyone consumed 15% less in general that would trigger a world wide recession to beat everything.

There is no fix we have to adapt to the change. Consumption certainly has to decline but it has to do so incrementally and slowly to avoid creating a situation which would make the Great Depression seem like a picnic.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by Geof So what really are you after?

Geof, you asked this of XYZDonna. I believe that Donna is employing the strategy espoused in this documant on
"telling the GW story better":

From: http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

"Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the
argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.

The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra
2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being
treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered."

Donna wants a reduction in CO2 emissions. You and others explain that CO2 does not seem to be the proven cause of GW, and even if it was, reducing CO2 significantly won't have much of an effect, even if it could be done, which is highly unlikely. Donna says yes and seems to get the point; then immediately goes back to "CO2 can be reduced", "will be reduced", "must be reduced".

Donna and alexccmeister are cut from the same cloth. See their responses to Mariss's post #80 at http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showth...935#post369935

I have seen post by people like Donna on the Democratic Underground "Guns" Forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com...pics&forum=118

They contend that the number of guns in the hands of private citizens should be reduced. A number of people patiently explain that disarming law-abiding citizens does not reduce crime and tends to make life easier for crooks. These arguments are backed up by FBI crime stats and logic. The "Donna-types" follow by stating that they concede the point, but would still like to see a reduction in the number of guns in circulation. Except in Donna's case, read "CO2" in place of "guns".

I think Donna should start emitting less CO2 by not quoting entire posts when this is not pertinent to the discussion. All of those bits add up and it takes electrical power to push them through the system. Most of that power is generated from coal. So please Donna, you need to do your bit to conserve energy and cut pollution otherwise no one can take you seriously...