Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 7945
Credit: 4,011,345
RAC: 872
United Kingdom
Message 1313158 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 17:18:03 UTC - in response to Message 1313128.
Last modified: 9 Dec 2012, 17:22:34 UTC

Is coal seam gas really the saviour of the planet or just more "green" hype ?

An interesting article from the Australian ABC website with links to further stories on the subject.

Not a savior at all...


... Coal seam gas is mostly methane - a powerful greenhouse gas that has a relatively short life span.

This means that over a 20-year time frame, coal seam gas has a much higher global warming impact than if it is measured over 100 years.

Professor Hultman said he was concerned about climate change "tipping points", but wanted to emphasise the situation over 100 years because of concern about the impact of "gases that go up there and stay up there", like carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.

"I worry that we are going to paint ourselves into a corner and get to a point where there is a lot of climate gases up there and we can't get them out very fast," he said.

Fugitive emissions

Professor Hultman's paper was cited by the oil and gas lobby group APPEA in their submission to the Federal Government's review into the way in which fugitive emissions from coal seam gas are measured.

APPEA has consistently said coal seam gas is 70 per cent cleaner than coal.

But in September the Government released a report which found that the absence of published information about fugitive emissions - greenhouse gases that leak into the atmosphere during the extraction process - was a matter of "public policy concern". ...



That's more of an accounting trick to extract further life from worked-out coal mines. Very interesting how it is the coal industry that is pushing that as being cleaner than coal! Very cynical of them to claim there is no immediate problem by implying not to worry for a hundred years...


There's a number of points to all that and to the gas fracking that is exploding across the USA:

Electricity is generated from coal very inefficiently. Most coal fired power plants still get less than 40% efficiency. Less still when all the infrastructure overheads are included, likely bringing that figure down to more like about 1/3rd efficiency or less/worse. So, lots of CO2 and sulfur and other pollution from that.

Electricity can be generated from a modern combined cycle gas turbine much more efficiently at up to 60% efficiency. So, less CO2 than from coal.

Burning coal for electricity generation typically produces 3 times the CO2 than using a gas fueled gas turbine.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so we may as well burn it rather than leave it as methane to escape to the atmosphere.

However, how much extra methane will be lost to be the atmosphere due to mining/drilling/fracking operations? As compared to burning less coal?


And how close are we to whatever significant climate tipping points?...

We look to have hit the tipping point for an ice-free Arctic. What next?


All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1313168 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 17:46:39 UTC - in response to Message 1313158.

Not a savior at all...

Flip
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so we may as well burn it rather than leave it as methane to escape to the atmosphere.

Flop

FUD

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 7945
Credit: 4,011,345
RAC: 872
United Kingdom
Message 1313398 - Posted: 10 Dec 2012, 2:35:38 UTC - in response to Message 1313168.
Last modified: 10 Dec 2012, 2:36:32 UTC

FUD

So that's the best you can do... Scream it ain't happening and that it ain't you.

No useful discussion there then.


And still we burn fossil fuels. Still the CO2 rises.


All on our only one world,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1313409 - Posted: 10 Dec 2012, 3:45:54 UTC - in response to Message 1313398.

And still we burn fossil fuels. Still the CO2 rises.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so we may as well burn it rather than leave it as methane to escape to the atmosphere.

So why do you encourage burning more fossil fuels, or do you deny your own words?

Do you know which is worse? A ton or methane released or a ton of methane burned? Better define worse. 1 year, 10 year, 25 year, 100 year, 500 year and 1000 year points might be a start. [1]

FUD. It is all you seem capable of. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

When are you going to engage on a real workable here and now and still working 10,000 years in the future solution? Or, do you really want to go past the point of no return? I'm beginning to think you want to go past it, it only to point nah nah nah and say I told you so in a condescending tone like a kindergartener in a playground fight.

If you can't or won't talk about solutions, real ones that keep working no matter what some idiot government does in the future then it is obvious you don't think there is an issue that needs fixing.

10,000 years isn't being unrealistic. If we have to keep nuclear waste safe for 10,000 years, why not CO2 levels? Especially if nuclear is going to be part of keeping the CO2 down!



[1] If you had to go look it up, you know your own intellectual dishonesty with your burn it words.

____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,216,480
RAC: 183
United States
Message 1313414 - Posted: 10 Dec 2012, 4:37:08 UTC


Burning more fossil fuels.. is so traditional.
____________

Janice

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29530
Credit: 8,962,205
RAC: 26,697
United Kingdom
Message 1313482 - Posted: 10 Dec 2012, 11:40:54 UTC

However, methane in the atmosphere is oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. Methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years, meaning that if a tonne of methane were emitted today, 500 kilograms would have broken down to carbon dioxide and water after seven years.

Its all about reducing carbon footprints.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,803,140
RAC: 11,855
United Kingdom
Message 1315078 - Posted: 14 Dec 2012, 12:50:26 UTC

This years drought, the worst in 50 years, has caused the water level in the Mississippi to drop so far that shipping may have to be stopped.

Mississippi river faces shipping freeze as water levels drop

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,803,140
RAC: 11,855
United Kingdom
Message 1315202 - Posted: 14 Dec 2012, 19:03:26 UTC
Last modified: 14 Dec 2012, 19:29:31 UTC

From the news pages at Berkeley.
Let there be clean light: Kerosene lamps spew black carbon, should be replaced, study says

BERKELEY — The primary source of light for more than a billion people in developing nations is also churning out black carbon at levels previously overlooked in climate warming estimates, according to a new study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois.


edit] And what might be a good idea for those without constant electricity

Use Gravity

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,803,140
RAC: 11,855
United Kingdom
Message 1315511 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 10:13:20 UTC

Alec Rawls, a Republican blogger in the United States who signed himself up as an expert IPCC reviewer, decided to leak the panel’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the grounds that it is a taxpayer-funded document.

Mr Rawls claimed the report suggests that the IPCC has finally come round to the idea that solar activity – sunspots – is partly responsible for the observed global temperatures rise seen over the past half century.


However, climate scientists pointed out that Mr Rawls has selectively quoted from the draft report and has ignored other parts of the document stating that solar activity and cosmic rays cannot explain the increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century, as sceptics have repeatedly claimed.

The AR5 draft report states that although there is “some evidence” that solar activity combined with cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds, and therefore temperatures, but the phenomenon is “too weak” to influence the climate in any significant way.

The other major problem with the sunspots idea is that solar activity has largely flat-lined over the past 50 years, whereas average global temperatures have continued to rise, the IPCC report says.

Bid to heap blame on sunspots for climate change has backfired

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 7945
Credit: 4,011,345
RAC: 872
United Kingdom
Message 1316483 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 18:56:32 UTC - in response to Message 1315511.
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012, 18:58:43 UTC

Alec Rawls, a Republican blogger in the United States who signed himself up as an expert IPCC reviewer, decided to leak the panel’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)...

... However, climate scientists pointed out that Mr Rawls has selectively quoted from the draft report and has ignored other parts...

... whereas average global temperatures have continued to rise, the IPCC report says.

Bid to heap blame on sunspots for climate change has backfired

Incredible. I find the depths of denial of reality by the denialists to be unfathomable. Are they really so desperate to cling onto any random unconnected word or phrase to religiously deny the reality all around them?!

The full leaked draft and Alec Rawls preamble/claims are on:

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission...


The draft report makes sobering and condemning reading. Are we all really so stupid to be allowing this to happen?


AR4 concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. New observations, longer data sets, and more paleoclimate information give further support for this conclusion. Confidence is stronger that many changes, that are observed consistently across components of the climate system, are significant, unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to many hundreds of thousands of years.

Note that such report language is extremely conservative and non-sensationalistic. Note also that the "time scales of decades" includes the collapse of Arctic summertime sea ice within the next 4 years (and the upheaval in weather patterns that can be expected from that)... "Nothing much then eh?..."


Are we really all so stupid to allow the pollution corruption to continue unrestricted and unabated?


All on our only world,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 7945
Credit: 4,011,345
RAC: 872
United Kingdom
Message 1316487 - Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 19:02:44 UTC - in response to Message 1316483.

Are we really all so stupid to allow the pollution corruption to continue unrestricted and unabated?


Just one small example of that ongoing corruption:


Equatorial Guinea: Obiang's future capital, Oyala

The people of Equatorial Guinea ought to be among the world's wealthiest - but somehow the country's income from oil and timber doesn't reach them. ...

... Equatorial Guinea is the third biggest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa. In terms of per capita national income it is - on paper - one of the world's richest countries. But most of the population lives on little more than $1 a day. Average life expectancy barely reaches 55.

A youth in his twenties - another who must remain nameless - allows his anger to overcome his caution. "The president and his family are nothing but thieves," he says. "Yes, people are frightened, but one day there will be an explosion here."

For now, President Obiang, his family and his ruling party appear to be in complete control. In the last presidential election he won 97% of the vote. ...




All on our only world,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1316897 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 22:37:30 UTC

Es99 wrote:

It can't be that simple, can it? Just have more pirates? :)


____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 7945
Credit: 4,011,345
RAC: 872
United Kingdom
Message 1316905 - Posted: 18 Dec 2012, 23:08:51 UTC - in response to Message 1316897.
Last modified: 18 Dec 2012, 23:12:46 UTC

It can't be that simple, can it? Just have more pirates? :)

Please start your own thread if you wish to continue with your childish flippant trashing.

We all know you pathetic stance. You have no answers. Please take your useless pollution to your own world.

Thank you (not at all).


All on our only world for everyone... (Even the can't-care-a-shit types...)
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2349
Credit: 1,160,997
RAC: 185
United States
Message 1316942 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 1:45:01 UTC

Record high levels of pack ice at the poles this year.

Them Polar Bears wont drown this year
!



Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1316980 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 4:11:28 UTC - in response to Message 1316905.

You have no answers.

You didn't like them, even though they are correct from an engineering point and technically possible. I must assume you want massive increasing CO2 emissions then.

____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 29530
Credit: 8,962,205
RAC: 26,697
United Kingdom
Message 1317072 - Posted: 19 Dec 2012, 12:27:42 UTC

Martin,

That was a rather strong reply to Gary, I don't think he really deserved that level of response. Now, c'mon, in the spirit of Christmas, just agree to disagree.

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1318661 - Posted: 22 Dec 2012, 6:12:01 UTC - in response to Message 1312759.

Charging and discharging batteries is at best only 70% efficient in both directions.

That's better than the internal combustion engine's theoretical maximum of 50%, and batteries are much, much better in practice than the internal combustion engine's actual efficiency. :^D
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1318674 - Posted: 22 Dec 2012, 6:44:09 UTC - in response to Message 1318661.

Charging and discharging batteries is at best only 70% efficient in both directions.

That's better than the internal combustion engine's theoretical maximum of 50%, and batteries are much, much better in practice than the internal combustion engine's actual efficiency. :^D

Are you proposing to run the world on AA batteries? Or have you forgotten it takes an engine to charge a battery?

____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 7903
Credit: 26,792,715
RAC: 29,562
United States
Message 1318688 - Posted: 22 Dec 2012, 7:17:41 UTC

You two beating each other up isnt solving anything. How about some ideas instaed of bashing each others belife about global warming.

Do you both think that we need to get off fossil fuels in the long run?

Here are my ideas. Where there is an abundance of water use hydro electric. There is a tide twice a day. start using that tide to generate power, It seems the Thames river would be ideal for that. You have those storm gates, Why not upstream use something similar to use the tide for electricty, Same for any coastal city that has tides.

Where its is windy use wind farms. Where it is sunny solar power generation.

And we need safe cheap nuclear power. What soured the US on nuke power was every stinking plant was its own design plus the fact that every dfay design changes were mandated which pushed back completeion times.

Dont forget that you have the NIMBY types who dont want it where they live.


There are some what I call sci fi solutions. Such as Solar colectors in orbit beaming back power as microwaves, And the big mirror hitting a collector and using it for steam power. And the fusion reactor which I think is a pipe dream.

Feel free to debate these ides on there own merits, Not beacuse you call each other PHUDS
____________

Message 1318691 - Posted: 22 Dec 2012, 7:24:43 UTC

Dont forget that you have the NIMBY types who dont want it where they live.


Watch The Documentary WINDFALL and you Will Not want a Wind Turbine anywhere near you.

Watch The Documentary GASLAND and you Will Not want Fracking anywhere near you.

DEMON...Windy, Gassy and HOT
____________


Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California