Ok, lets do some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations.
They won't be totally accurate, but they will demonstrate the magnitude of the problem.

Global CO2 emitted in 2010 from fossil-fuel combustion, gas flaring, and cement production:

9167 million metric tons of carbon or
33615.4 million metric tons of CO2.

1.33 metric tons carbon per capita = 4.877 metric tons CO2 per capita

Source:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

World population in 2010:

6916183000

Source:
http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

Now, for how long CO2 lasts in the atmosphere... This is the hard part of the problem:

University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, "The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this"

"The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the least well understood part of the global warming issue," says paleoclimatologist Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. "And it's not because it isn't well documented in the IPCC report. It is, but it is buried under a lot of other material."

It doesn't help, though, that past reports from the UN panel of climate experts have made misleading statements about the lifetime of CO2, argue Archer, Caldeira and colleagues. The first assessment report, in 1990, said that CO2's lifetime is 50 to 200 years. The reports in 1995 and 2001 revised this down to 5 to 200 years. Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere's CO2 levels elevated for millennia. Even as CO2 levels drop, temperatures take longer to fall, according to recent studies.

Source:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

So, pending a better understanding of the problem (and a more exact value), keeping in mind the range of between a couple of centuries and millennia/forever...
For ease of calculation I am going to use a value of 1000 years for the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere... pending a more exact value from future research.


Ok...

There is currently about 3000 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere (this value is trivial to determine, so I won't bore you all with it but its a combination of the average atmospheric pressure at sea level, the surface area of the earth, the mass of CO2 vs. 'air', and the by-volume concentration of CO2). A removal time-frame of 1000 years means that 0.1% is removed each year.
So that is 3000 Billion metric tons * 0.001 = 3 Billion metric tons is removed per year.

To hold CO2 concentration in the atmosphere steady, we must emit no more than 3 Billion metric tons per year (From ALL sources), and that is just to hold it steady.
Since many feel that the current concentration is about 33% too high (400ppm vs. 300ppm), then we must emit less per year to allow it to fall over time. Let us use the figure 10% less, so that leaves 2.7 billion metric tons per year. Since the world population in 2010 was 6916183000 people, this yields a figure of 0.390 metric tons of CO2 emissions ALLOWED per capita, per year.

0.390 metric tons of CO2 per year, per capita... 0.390 metric tons...

To quote Jim Lovell from Apollo 13

Houston, we have a problem.

Let us put this into some perspective:

0.390 metric tons = about 860 pounds

1 gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2. (Or, for those on the more enlightened metric system, 1 liter of gasoline produces about 2.4 kg of CO2.)

If ALL of the yearly CO2 per capita allowance was produced by burning gasoline, that is about 43 gallons of gasoline... per year. 2 or 3 tanks of gasoline... for a whole year...


1.22 pounds of CO2 (on average) are emitted per kWh in producing electricity from natural gas (coal and oil produce MORE CO2 per kWh, natural gas is the cleanest on CO2).

If ALL of the yearly CO2 per capita allowance was produced by electric generation with natural gas, that is about 860 / 1.22 = 705 kWh of electricity... per year... the ENTIRE year.

Just running a new, highly efficient refrigerator will take 500 to 700 kWh per year. That does not leave much electricity out of your allotment for ANYTHING else.


Remember, this is not 43 gallons of gasoline AND running one refrigerator, it is either the gasoline OR running the refrigerator... And this is only 2 examples.

And it isn't just the one person's personal use. All up and down the economic chain, energy is required. From producing the manufactured good or food item to bringing it home from the market. It is all just mind-boggling to the average person in the West just how MUCH energy it takes to support their lifestyle.

0.390 metric tons of CO2 per year per capita... This puts the target 'CO2 Footprint' standard of living back quite a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Lets see... 0.390... that puts our target 'CO2' standard of living for the entire world down around...

178. Bangladesh.

through

186. Sudan.

(using the 2007 figures)

(interesting note: the USA(#12) didn't even make the top 10 on the 2009 data on that page... Even Australia(#11) beat us.)

YES, alternative energy sources(wind, solar, etc.) can HELP out. But they cannot replace 'fossil fuels'. The ONE alternative source that CAN replace fossil fuels is nuclear fission... And it is quite possibly MORE dangerous and harmful, with ITS waste products being dangerous for FAR LONGER (10000 years to 1000000 years, depending on the isotope -- rather than the 1000 year time-frame I am using for CO2).

Our economy DEPENDS on continuous availability of inexpensive energy, and none of the alternatives to fossil fuels are inexpensive, and only nuclear fission can be continuously available. The sun isn't visible all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time. Attempting to compensate for this only adds to their expense.

Yes, I know I have omitted a few factors (such as NATURAL CO2 emissions -- which will only lower the allowable per capita emission of CO2 by fossil fuel burning, etc.) and I have made a reasonable assumption on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere (range is from a few centuries to a few millennia -- I chose a value of 1000 years, right in the middle of the range). Still, my numbers, while they may not be TOTALLY accurate, DO demonstrate the magnitude of the problem.

While projects such as solar and wind 'farms' are noble and laudable, they do NOT tackle the problem. ONLY a MASSIVE reduction in global fossil fuel use will solve the problem. And, if the climate scientists can be believed, it MUST be done NOW to avoid any more PERMANENT damage to the earth's climate and bio-diversity. That article I quoted from nature.com... its title is 'Carbon is Forever'.

Well, anyway, if you are a Warmist, this is the logical endpoint of your belief. This is the ONLY solution to the problem you see. Science and technology have no magic bullet to solve the problem. The scientists say it must be done NOW to minimize the damage. Are you WILLING to do so, right now? It is what you believe, isn't it?

Well, anyway, it is the ONLY solution to the problem... reduce CO2 emissions down to the point where the planet can handle it. Problem solved.

Ok, lets do some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations.
They won't be totally accurate, but they will demonstrate the magnitude of the problem.


Well, anyway, it is the ONLY solution to the problem... reduce CO2 emissions down to the point where the planet can handle it. Problem solved.

Wonderful summary/wrapup of the fundamental problems.
The True Believers won't even read through it of course.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

MIT experiment to store Solar energy.

Youtube - Harnessing the Full Potential of the Sun

MIT experiment to store Solar energy.

Youtube - Harnessing the Full Potential of the Sun

it doesn't appear to be energy storage, it appears to be a wedding of thermal and photovoltaic functions.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

... Well, anyway, it is the ONLY solution to the problem... reduce CO2 emissions down to the point where the planet can handle it. Problem solved.

Thanks for a thoughtful numerical summary of the scale of the Industrial CO2 pollution problem...

So, using 'business as usual', that indeed looks to be an impossible task to fix.

For perhaps the biggest example for the American psyche:


BIG CARS AND MASSIVE GAS GUZZLING OVER ALL THE USA AND LONG DAYS DRIVING...

From the given numbers, the petroleum gas powered USA transport kills our planet all on its own.

So... Go back to using horse and cart, Amish-style? Or use a bit of easy tech?

The easy tech is to crack the oil at source and use hydrogen fuel. All the CO2 stuff can be put back down the well at source. The end users convert the hydrogen to water to gain heat/energy.

The problem there is to quickly put the petroleum gas products out of business to encourage the new hydrogen business. That cannot happen in a Free Market where the petroleum gas pollution is rated at zero cost...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Well, anyway, it is the ONLY solution to the problem... reduce CO2 emissions down to the point where the planet can handle it. Problem solved.

Thanks for a thoughtful numerical summary of the scale of the Industrial CO2 pollution problem...

So, using 'business as usual', that indeed looks to be an impossible task to fix.

For perhaps the biggest example for the American psyche:


BIG CARS AND MASSIVE GAS GUZZLING OVER ALL THE USA AND LONG DAYS DRIVING...

From the given numbers, the petroleum gas powered USA transport kills our planet all on its own.

So... Go back to using horse and cart, Amish-style? Or use a bit of easy tech?

The easy tech is to crack the oil at source and use hydrogen fuel. All the CO2 stuff can be put back down the well at source. The end users convert the hydrogen to water to gain heat/energy.

The problem there is to quickly put the petroleum gas products out of business to encourage the new hydrogen business. That cannot happen in a Free Market where the petroleum gas pollution is rated at zero cost...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin, interesting idea, but I have a few questions for you on it.

1. What process do you propose to use to remove the H from the hydrocarbons in the Oil, then combine the C with O to make the CO2?

2. What is the power source for the process proposed to be?

3. What energy efficiency does the process have? In other words, do you have to put more energy into it than you could recover by using the hydrogen?

4. In light of the claims by fracking opponents that the liquid fracking chemicals escape the well and contaminate the local groundwater, how do you propose preventing the escape of pressurized CO2 gas from the well? Remember this is all kind of pointless if the CO2 can ever 'get out' of the well.

5. In light of the problems with storage of pressurized H2, many propose combining it with some sort of binder agent that would hold onto it until it can be burned. Carbon would be an ideal binder agent, but I would doubt you would wish to use it, since C(n)H(2n+2) is kinda what hydrocarbons (aka Oil) is. What agent do you propose, or do you propose just shipping it in a pipeline as pressurized H2 gas.

6. In light of the enormous expense of updating/building new infrastructure to support this, not to mention the expense of updating all vehicles/power generation plants/etc. to use hydrogen gas as fuel, how do you propose paying for it?

7. In light of the size and scale of both the new/updated infrastructure, as well as the conversion plants at each wellhead, how do you propose handling the inevitable complaints from environmentalists. Remember, they even complained about wind turbines killing the little birdies. Your process will be using harsh chemicals, more likely than not.

The 'easy' tech beginning to look a bit less easy?

Remember, I am not your enemy here. I fully support the development and widespread use of 'alternative' sources of energy, though doubtless for different reasons than you do.

If I may be permitted a suggestion, perhaps a better way might be to build electrolysis plants on the seacoasts, powered by a combination of solar and wind, and 'crack' the water in the ocean into O2 and H2. That process is rather simple and somewhat safe. The H2 could be then used to power transportation. Better, I might add than electric vehicles. Quicker to fill up too. And no dangerous battery chemicals either, all you need is a H2 tank instead of a gas tank.

The scientists in the IPCC and elsewhere are warning about permanent damage to the climate unless we take immediate steps. Since we are not yet to the point where we can immediately transition away from what former President George W. Bush termed our 'fossil fuel addiction' when he was pitching hydrogen power back when he was president, perhaps the more responsible thing to do would be to turn the power off and, as you say,

Go back to using horse and cart, Amish-style

... Well, anyway, it is the ONLY solution to the problem... reduce CO2 emissions down to the point where the planet can handle it. Problem solved.

Thanks for a thoughtful numerical summary of the scale of the Industrial CO2 pollution problem...

So, using 'business as usual', that indeed looks to be an impossible task to fix.

For perhaps the biggest example for the American psyche:


BIG CARS AND MASSIVE GAS GUZZLING OVER ALL THE USA AND LONG DAYS DRIVING...

From the given numbers, the petroleum gas powered USA transport kills our planet all on its own.

So... Go back to using horse and cart, Amish-style? Or use a bit of easy tech?

The easy tech is to crack the oil at source and use hydrogen fuel. All the CO2 stuff can be put back down the well at source. The end users convert the hydrogen to water to gain heat/energy.

The problem there is to quickly put the petroleum gas products out of business to encourage the new hydrogen business. That cannot happen in a Free Market where the petroleum gas pollution is rated at zero cost...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin if you lived in the US you would see that a car is the only way most folks can get to work. We have no local train service. Bus service is very limited to major routes. Most cities can only dream of the bus and train routes you have in the UK. We had them once, Before the car came along.
I live about 21 miles from my work, There is no train or bus to get me anywhere close to where I work. So I drive. And I wont buy a horse either.
Contrary to what you belive we all dont have big ass SUV's. Gas costs to much. I have a KIA Forte that gets 32 miles a gallon. I fill up once a week and its usally just half a tank when I do fill up.
Yes we need to find another way. But it needs to be affordable to the common working poor or it wont fly. Or is it your intenetion that anyone who cant afford to go totaly green should be killed off?

---

[/quote]

Old James

... For perhaps the biggest example for the American psyche:


BIG CARS AND MASSIVE GAS GUZZLING OVER ALL THE USA AND LONG DAYS DRIVING...

... The easy tech is to crack the oil at source and use hydrogen fuel. All the CO2 stuff can be put back down the well at source. The end users convert the hydrogen to water to gain heat/energy.

The problem there is to quickly put the petroleum gas products out of business...

... in the US you would see that a car is the only way most folks can get to work...

Yes we need to find another way. But it needs to be affordable to the common working poor or it wont fly. Or is it your intenetion that anyone who cant afford to go totaly green should be killed off?

(Yep, been in the states and done the long drive. Also seen the areas that seem not to see the outside world... Chose not to work there!)

There are simple industrial scale heat and catalytic conversion processes already available to efficiently disassociate the H2 from the hydrocarbons. The CO2 gas is very conveniently then at just the one source. Far far easier/cheaper/better than attempting bolt-ons recovery at the many end points of petroleum use...

Pressurized H2 tanks are already used, similar to LPG. There's better options using chelation or 'nano-surface' adsorption. There are already examples with good results. The only complication for use is to temperature control the tank to adsorb more gas (cool a little) and release gas (warm the tank a little). New tech could well do away with that to control adsorption/release by pressure alone. A LOT can be done with surface chemistry! If we care to look that is...


The beauty is that when established, all this should be much cheaper than the present dirty old dangerous petroleum gas tech we presently have been using for far far too long. Is there a monopoly at play perhaps? Why is the motor industry trying to force extra bureaucracy upon Tesla to make their electric cars more expensive than necessary for example...?


And there's lots of other good ways that combined give us a good chance to thrive... If we can burn out the old politics and old monopolies that is... All for a good clean change to go clean and honest?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And how clean and green can our big players in the Internet Cloud claim to be?


Amazon's 'dirty cloud' criticised in Greenpeace report

A Greenpeace report into the green credentials of tech firms has singled out Amazon as having the "dirtiest cloud" services.

Apple, Facebook and Google were praised for "significant improvements" in energy transparency and attempts to move to 100% renewable energy.

But Amazon Web Services (AWS), which powers many net firms, only uses 15% clean energy, according to the report...


Interesting and good to see that "green credentials" are now an important part of business and Marketing...


Is there hope yet?

All on our only on e planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Interesting and good to see that "green credentials' are now an important part of business and Marketing...

+1!!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

... For perhaps the biggest example for the American psyche:


BIG CARS AND MASSIVE GAS GUZZLING OVER ALL THE USA AND LONG DAYS DRIVING...

... The easy tech is to crack the oil at source and use hydrogen fuel. All the CO2 stuff can be put back down the well at source. The end users convert the hydrogen to water to gain heat/energy.

The problem there is to quickly put the petroleum gas products out of business...

... in the US you would see that a car is the only way most folks can get to work...

Yes we need to find another way. But it needs to be affordable to the common working poor or it wont fly. Or is it your intenetion that anyone who cant afford to go totaly green should be killed off?

(Yep, been in the states and done the long drive. Also seen the areas that seem not to see the outside world... Chose not to work there!)

There are simple industrial scale heat and catalytic conversion processes already available to efficiently disassociate the H2 from the hydrocarbons. The CO2 gas is very conveniently then at just the one source. Far far easier/cheaper/better than attempting bolt-ons recovery at the many end points of petroleum use...

Pressurized H2 tanks are already used, similar to LPG. There's better options using chelation or 'nano-surface' adsorption. There are already examples with good results. The only complication for use is to temperature control the tank to adsorb more gas (cool a little) and release gas (warm the tank a little). New tech could well do away with that to control adsorption/release by pressure alone. A LOT can be done with surface chemistry! If we care to look that is...


The beauty is that when established, all this should be much cheaper than the present dirty old dangerous petroleum gas tech we presently have been using for far far too long. Is there a monopoly at play perhaps? Why is the motor industry trying to force extra bureaucracy upon Tesla to make their electric cars more expensive than necessary for example...?


And there's lots of other good ways that combined give us a good chance to thrive... If we can burn out the old politics and old monopolies that is... All for a good clean change to go clean and honest?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is energy STORAGE.
It must be manufactured using..more energy.
It is a LOSS STEP in the energy transfer process that'll get us even less use from the oil and require more use of it.
The commercial and most economical method to make H2 is by decomposing natural gas.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

... And there's lots of other good ways that combined give us a good chance to thrive... If we can burn out the old politics and old monopolies that is... All for a good clean change to go clean and honest?

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is energy STORAGE.

H2 is a gas. You have a release of energy when it is oxidosed/burnt. You can also enjoy energy conversion from changing its pressure and temperature, as for any element.

It must be manufactured using..more energy.

I do not know of any process that 'manufactures' the element hydrogen.

Or are you thinking of the use of electric hydrolysis to split water (H2O) into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas?

It is a LOSS STEP in the energy transfer process that'll get us even less use from the oil and require more use of it.

No worse than what is done at present for refining oil into the various fractions used for fuel and industry.

The commercial and most economical method to make H2 is by decomposing natural gas.

That is another way and another good example, thanks. ("Natural gas" is similarly a hydrocarbon.)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... And there's lots of other good ways that combined give us a good chance to thrive... If we can burn out the old politics and old monopolies that is... All for a good clean change to go clean and honest?

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is energy STORAGE.

H2 is a gas. You have a release of energy when it is oxidosed/burnt. You can also enjoy energy conversion from changing its pressure and temperature, as for any element.

It must be manufactured using..more energy.

I do not know of any process that 'manufactures' the element hydrogen.

Or are you thinking of the use of electric hydrolysis to split water (H2O) into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas?

It is a LOSS STEP in the energy transfer process that'll get us even less use from the oil and require more use of it.

No worse than what is done at present for refining oil into the various fractions used for fuel and industry.

The commercial and most economical method to make H2 is by decomposing natural gas.

That is another way and another good example, thanks. ("Natural gas" is similarly a hydrocarbon.)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

LOL

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

LOL

Thus quoth the best of the troll...

No useful comment from you then.


Still all on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

LOL

Thus quoth the best of the troll...

No useful comment from you then.


Still all on our only one planet,
Martin

dude. you posted gibberish.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

dude. you posted gibberish.

Which suggests any/all [for you] of:

No Science Learnin';

Blinded by The Bible;

And/or Troll or paid shill.


Good luck!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

dude. you posted gibberish.

Which suggests any/all of:

No Science Learnin';

Blinded by The Bible;

And/or Troll or paid shill.


Good luck!
Martin

i don't know. Which of the 3 are you?

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

At least one helpful solution?

Metal that floats on oil

---

At least one helpful solution?

Metal that floats on oil

Thanks for that.

That's certainly part of the near-term story.

However, before we need to mine and recycle too much of that stuff, hopefully there will be enough development quickly enough to allow surface science chemistry and nanofabricated surfaces to move us onto much better tech.

There are other ways yet still. As mentioned by someone else earlier, this story is to pull together a much wider story of multiple tech, politics, people, and culture.

And all, hopefully, in time to give us and our planet enough breathing space to allow us to reach a non-controversial non-detructive zero population growth.


Can all that be done in time despite the desolation being wrought by the pollution and FUD and corruption of the dirty fossils?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Another and potentially a rather large part of the story:


Cities on frontline of climate change struggle

Half of the world's population now lives in cities - a proportion that's set to rise to two-thirds by 2050. Yet cities are vulnerable to the worst impacts of climate change precisely because their locations are fixed...

... cities can play [a vital role] in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This should come as no surprise, since urban centres are responsible for three quarters of global energy consumption and for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.

"In a sense, they are the carbon criminals of this world, but they also provide us with really good opportunities,"...

... [for] directed alteration of the built environment to, for example, increase its energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. ...


Interestingly, locally our council are already following one of the examples in that article. Some rather old dull street lighting are being replaced with new LED street lights. We get a multiple win all round with the same or greater light for much less energy consumed. They are also almost maintenance free for a very long operational life. The replacement will likely quickly pay for itself just in reduced running costs...

The new can be very much better than the old...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)