The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152767 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 14:43:19 UTC - in response to Message 1152761.  

So William, are you starting to see where I am coming by saying renewables are the future?


Janice
ID: 1152767 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1152834 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 17:11:20 UTC - in response to Message 1152767.  

So William, are you starting to see where I am coming by saying renewables are the future?



It's logical that renewables form the future for a lot of what we use, consume today. This recycling has been going on for many-many years. Metals for one have gone through this recycling process now since the early 1970's and electronic components since the late 1990's. But one problem with wind power generation is that these units when constructed tend to blight the landscape. So logistics comes into play here depending on which areas of a country you reside in. I've seen these wind farms up in the middle parts of the UK and they do truly blight the landscape. Very much in the same way that coal mining slag heaps did in these regions up until the late 1960's. Because of their ugliness virtually all of these very high mounds were flattened now only to be replaced by wind towers. So in some countries wind power generation will not produce the ideal solution plus a careful study, regarding the effects that mounting many wind generators may have on the weather patterns, needs to be carried out. We don't wont to be in the old classic situation here of "jumping out of the frying pan and straight into the fire".
ID: 1152834 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1152862 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 18:57:11 UTC
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 18:58:51 UTC

I just thought I'd post this as background for "the largest/most powerful generator/tallest, etc, stats on industrial wind turbines, and very interesting.


At the other end, for individual home micro power generation the Ridgeblade looks to be a promising and have a better power density than micro-house wind turbines or PV solar, and I believe there is a strong possibility it will be cheaper to install than either (but definitely than PV solar). Apparently the pitch roof of a home acts like the aerofoil leading edge of an aircraft and increases the wind speed three fold. This means the RidgeBlade can generate useful micro-power for the home in lower wind speeds than a small wind turbine.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1152862 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1152885 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 20:57:04 UTC - in response to Message 1152767.  

Renewables may be the future but they are the far future. In the interim we will still have coal, nuclear, Natural Gas, and oil. We need to move quickly off of foreign oil but even this will take decades I am afraid. We may well see Liquified Natural Gas and Methanol and diesel made from coal as interim strategies to break the political problems with middle East oil.

None of us will live to see us totally or nearly dependent on purely renewables. The infrastructure will change ever so slowly due to the inertia of the installed base and interests as well as the economic cost of the alternatives and infrastructure replacement.
ID: 1152885 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152937 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 23:03:42 UTC - in response to Message 1152885.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 23:05:14 UTC

Renewables may be the future but they are the far future. In the interim we will still have coal, nuclear, Natural Gas, and oil. We need to move quickly off of foreign oil but even this will take decades I am afraid. We may well see Liquified Natural Gas and Methanol and diesel made from coal as interim strategies to break the political problems with middle East oil.

None of us will live to see us totally or nearly dependent on purely renewables. The infrastructure will change ever so slowly due to the inertia of the installed base and interests as well as the economic cost of the alternatives and infrastructure replacement.


We have around 4 million people ready to roll....uh 14? How big is the unemployment bloat now?
Janice
ID: 1152937 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1155597 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 11:26:21 UTC - in response to Message 1152885.  

... None of us will live to see us totally or nearly dependent on purely renewables. The infrastructure will change ever so slowly due to the inertia of the installed base and interests as well as the economic cost of the alternatives and infrastructure replacement.

I suspect that is more a question of how far and for how long we continue to subsidise the fossil fuels industry...

For one locality with favourable conditions for 'renewables' power generation, the tide may well be turning:

SSE ditches nuclear power for gas, wind and biomass

Scottish and Southern (SSE), the UK's second-biggest energy generator, has abandoned its quest to develop nuclear power in favour of producing more electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind farms and biomass plants. ...


This is the only planet we have,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1155597 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1158512 - Posted: 3 Oct 2011, 15:22:46 UTC

I'm sure this one will make for some interesting sums:


Paris launches electric car-sharing scheme

... A two-month pilot project will allow motorists to hire the battery-powered Bluecar for 30 minutes at a cost of four to eight euros. ...

... They will have a range of up to 250 km before a recharge, which will take about four hours. ...



Those are certainly a big win for moving pollution out away from the city. Who knows, under city conditions they may well be a win for energy efficiency also...


This is the only planet we have,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1158512 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1158987 - Posted: 5 Oct 2011, 9:42:58 UTC
Last modified: 5 Oct 2011, 9:43:16 UTC

Perhaps this is the most effective way to reduce emissions?

Drivers cut petrol use by 15%, AA research suggests

Drivers have cut their petrol consumption by more than 15% since the credit crunch and the recession. ...

... One result has been lower emissions of potentially damaging exhaust fumes. ...



This is the only planet we have,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1158987 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1158990 - Posted: 5 Oct 2011, 9:57:12 UTC - in response to Message 1158987.  

Perhaps this is the most effective way to reduce emissions?

Drivers cut petrol use by 15%, AA research suggests

Drivers have cut their petrol consumption by more than 15% since the credit crunch and the recession. ...

... One result has been lower emissions of potentially damaging exhaust fumes. ...


Any cut-down on fuel consumption will be good for the environment. But oh dear - oh dear - oh dear it appears that I know what's more behind this reduction in petrol than what the AA has exposed and it's nothing to do with economics? The AA actually do know why petrol consumption has truly dropped off...they told us all a couple of months back!!!


ID: 1158990 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1159008 - Posted: 5 Oct 2011, 10:54:48 UTC - in response to Message 1158990.  

Perhaps this is the most effective way to reduce emissions?

Drivers cut petrol use by 15%, AA research suggests

Drivers have cut their petrol consumption by more than 15% since the credit crunch and the recession. ...

... One result has been lower emissions of potentially damaging exhaust fumes. ...


Any cut-down on fuel consumption will be good for the environment. But oh dear - oh dear - oh dear it appears that I know what's more behind this reduction in petrol than what the AA has exposed and it's nothing to do with economics? The AA actually do know why petrol consumption has truly dropped off...they told us all a couple of months back!!!


Do tell?

Improved fuel efficiency? Improved public transport? Reduced frivolous transport of supermarket goods that exploits cheap labour? Or?

We're all on our bikes? ;-)

Or we've all moved over to using diesel?


It's the only world we have,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1159008 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1159030 - Posted: 5 Oct 2011, 12:07:59 UTC - in response to Message 1159008.  

Perhaps this is the most effective way to reduce emissions?

Drivers cut petrol use by 15%, AA research suggests

Drivers have cut their petrol consumption by more than 15% since the credit crunch and the recession. ...

... One result has been lower emissions of potentially damaging exhaust fumes. ...


Any cut-down on fuel consumption will be good for the environment. But oh dear - oh dear - oh dear it appears that I know what's more behind this reduction in petrol than what the AA has exposed and it's nothing to do with economics? The AA actually do know why petrol consumption has truly dropped off...they told us all a couple of months back!!!


Do tell?

Improved fuel efficiency? Improved public transport? Reduced frivolous transport of supermarket goods that exploits cheap labour? Or?

We're all on our bikes? ;-)

Or we've all moved over to using diesel?


It's the only world we have,
Martin



That's where the answer lays. As of 2011 the AA reported that 53% of cars on our roads now consume diesel and only 47% consuming petrol. There has been a continuous switch-over going on for quite a few years now switching from petrol to diesel. When you look at the saving in fuel consumption that a diesel car has against that of the petrol one plus extrapolate this over the period from 2008 to 2011 you can see where much of this AA 15% comes from. Any way drops in fuel consumption is good and very good for the environment too. But unfortunately the AA does not mention the increase in the hazards that increases in diesel burning has to us poor old humans. Goes along way in explaining the increase in lung cancer experienced although smoking by humans is decreasing. Burning diesel is a bigger health hazard than that coming from burning petrol. I know our British government have made an off-the-hand remark about their concerns regarding in the increase in burning diesel and to what effect this is having on peoples health. Be glad when we can all switch over to electric cars one day, this wont reduce, by a great amount, the level of Co2 we pump out for the cars batteries will still require charging and someone will have to generate this electricity in a power station somewhere. I could be wrong here but I'm sure someone knows the facts better than me.
ID: 1159030 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1159165 - Posted: 5 Oct 2011, 18:46:25 UTC - in response to Message 1159030.  

That's where the answer lays. As of 2011 the AA reported that 53% of cars on our roads now consume diesel and only 47% consuming petrol. There has been a continuous switch-over going on for quite a few years now switching from petrol to diesel. When you look at the saving in fuel consumption that a diesel car has against that of the petrol one plus extrapolate this over the period from 2008 to 2011 you can see where much of this AA 15% comes from. Any way drops in fuel consumption is good and very good for the environment too. But unfortunately the AA does not mention the increase in the hazards that increases in diesel burning has to us poor old humans. Goes along way in explaining the increase in lung cancer experienced although smoking by humans is decreasing. Burning diesel is a bigger health hazard than that coming from burning petrol. I know our British government have made an off-the-hand remark about their concerns regarding in the increase in burning diesel and to what effect this is having on peoples health. Be glad when we can all switch over to electric cars one day, this wont reduce, by a great amount, the level of Co2 we pump out for the cars batteries will still require charging and someone will have to generate this electricity in a power station somewhere. I could be wrong here but I'm sure someone knows the facts better than me.


Could not find a reference to an AA report of this finding, though I did find this (from the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association, aka ACEA), which says:

Of the 16 million passenger cars registered in Western Europe [in 2007], 53.3% were diesel powered, 6% more than in 2006. By contrast, new registrations of petrol-powered vehicles fell by 4% to 6.9 million units.
[...]
Passenger cars represent 88% (230 million) of all the vehicles on the European roads. The European car fleet is highly concentrated in five main markets (Germany, Italy, France, UK and Spain) and is characterised by a high diesel penetration (30%).


The 2011 ACEA report is available here and states that in 2009 diesel powered 35.3% of passenger cars in Europe, and accounted for 52% of vehicles registered in 2010 (though a little less than 50% of new vehicles registered in the UK).

Based on 30% in 2007, 35% in 2009, I'd imagine we're still a few years away from having the majority of cars in Europe being powered by diesel, and given the UK's somewhat lower demand for such vehicles, perhaps a few more before the UK does so. Of course, if there is an AA report indicating the UK has already done
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1159165 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1159179 - Posted: 5 Oct 2011, 19:19:33 UTC
Last modified: 5 Oct 2011, 19:21:48 UTC

ACEA have got some catching up to do then for we are almost at the end of 2011?
ID: 1159179 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1161852 - Posted: 13 Oct 2011, 12:36:41 UTC
Last modified: 13 Oct 2011, 12:37:38 UTC

I wonder how much renewables power generation this lot could fund and for how long?


BP unveils Shetlands investment programme

BP has been given the go ahead to proceed with a new £4.5bn oil project west of the Shetland Islands. ...

... BP said it and its partners were now investing almost £10bn in North Sea oil and gas work over the next five years. ...



Note: The results of that funding gets burnt over perhaps just a decade, and at the additional cost of a lot of pollution. How does that add up against renewables?


This is 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)
ID: 1161852 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1165021 - Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 13:53:29 UTC

Is this all a question over whether politics, industry, or the industrially generated climate change wins the 'race'?


Climate change: now is not the time to renege on green pledges

Charles Koch is a billionaire and a climate warming sceptic. At least, he was until last week when a study that he part-funded indicated that estimates of global temperature increases in the past century had not, after all, been artificially boosted by the "urban heat island" effect.

Sceptics such as Mr Koch had argued that data had been skewed by temperature stations being engulfed by, or moved closer to, cities. Now, a study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in California has demonstrated that "very rural" temperature stations miles from new towns or cities have recorded global warming of 0.9% since 1900. Global warming, according to believers in climate change, is directly attributable to the increasing emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Climate change urgently demands that we overcome cultural, social, political and economic barriers to act together to cushion its impact. That requires strong leadership and long-term vision. If we collectively fail to act now, then the potential result, on an international scale, could be instability, conflict and collapse as water becomes an increasingly rare resource, food production is adversely affected and energy sources become more vulnerable.

It is unfortunate that domestically, even as the climate change sceptics receive a drubbing, the coalition appears to be travelling away from the proactive and bold measures that are required. ...



This is our only one world,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1165021 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1165026 - Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 14:04:43 UTC
Last modified: 24 Oct 2011, 14:06:54 UTC

And is this some carefully considered industrially sponsored 'remediation', or a recklessly dangerous FUD/marketing inspired proposal and distraction?


Public supports geo-engineering ideas, study suggests

... The survey focused on "solar radiation management", which involves reflecting energy from the Sun away from the Earth's surface, and received support from 72% of respondents.

The internet survey was commissioned by researchers from North America. ...

... Writing in their paper, the researchers said the main focus on tackling climate change has been mitigation and adaptation, but the concept of geo-engineering had been gaining attention. ...

... The majority of respondents, the researchers added, were also inclined to say that the use of SRM technologies was an "easy way out" of continuing to burn fossil fuels and did not offer a long-term solution.

'Spicing things up'

A pioneering test, by the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project, was originally set to begin an experiment in October but was delayed for six months in order to address concerns voiced by critics. ...

... Researchers involved in the project calculates that 10 or 20 giant balloons at a 20km altitude could release enough particles into the atmosphere to reduce the global temperature by around 2C (3.6F).

But opponents, such as the EcoNexus NGO, argue that even testing could have harmful impacts, and that questions of ethics and international law need to be answered. ...



Unfortunately, I for one cannot untangle the "Marketing" from where there might be real peer-reviewed science for that one. However, I consider that the numbers used look rather suspicious and naively suspect...


All in our only one world...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1165026 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1165078 - Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 18:08:45 UTC
Last modified: 24 Oct 2011, 18:11:07 UTC

What do you think about going all-out on nuclear --given the Fukushima situation. Can it be done safely ? I am talking about hundreds of multi-reactor sites here in the USA. A trillion dollars thrown into this pot would do more for our recovery and energy independence than you might imagine. Perhaps we need a NASA style agency here to get this done within 5 years or so. Might be a good place for all the laid-off NASA engineers and those of their contractors.

The coal industry would lose, and since something over half of railroad traffic is for hauling coal, Warren Buffet who spent 34 billion to buy BNSF railroad would also lose.
ID: 1165078 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1165089 - Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 18:56:01 UTC

Keeping nuclear power generation away from known tectonic areas, like Japan, means the earth quake that destroyed the Fukushima plant is unlikely to be met. Certainly the advent of the Tsunami would not happen.

To make them safer, and not make bomb grade fuel, the Thorium option should be chosen.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1165089 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1165098 - Posted: 24 Oct 2011, 19:38:29 UTC - in response to Message 1165078.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2011, 19:41:14 UTC

What do you think about going all-out on nuclear --given the Fukushima situation. Can it be done safely ? ... Perhaps we need a NASA style agency here to get this done within 5 years or so. ...

The coal industry would lose, and since something over half of railroad traffic is for hauling coal, ...


Very good question.

Unfortunately, "commercial considerations" usually work very dangerously against "safety". Fukushima is a good reminder of the danger and the fallout and the irresponsibility of lax (or corrupt?) regulation. Fukushima also demonstrates how commercial constraints directly compromises safety (poor maintenance, overfull fuel storage, other 'cost-cutting'...)...


Perhaps a NASA campaign is indeed what is needed to turn around the energy debacle. That's an interesting and plausible idea if you can also get the political buy-in.

As for whether nuclear can be made safe and whether to go all-nuclear: I'm sure nuclear power can be made safe, but not with the current (safety compromised) designs I've seen. As an engineer, I'd always advocate for a mix of energy sources. The question would be for what proportions in that mix.


One thing I am certain of: CO2 pollution cannot be left to industry to voluntarily clean up their act. Their lobbying and procrastination will cook and starve us all out of existence...


Still 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)
ID: 1165098 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17068
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1169752 - Posted: 10 Nov 2011, 15:33:36 UTC

The sums for this scheme look to be very good:


Youtube: DESERTEC Foundation: Andasol 3 CSP plant opening in September 2011

We were recently in Spain with our film team for the opening of Andasol 3. ...

[Jump to about 1 minute in to skip the lead-in trivia.]



Wikipedia: Andasol Solar Power Station

... Each plant has a gross electricity output of 50 megawatts (MWe), producing around 180 gigawatt-hours (GW·h) per year (21 MW·yr per year). Each collector has a surface of 51 hectares (equal to 70 soccer fields); it occupies about 200 ha of land.

Andasol has a thermal storage system which absorbs part of the heat produced in the solar field during the day. ... A turbine produces electricity using this heat during the evening, or when the sky is overcast. This process almost doubles the number of operational hours at the solar thermal power plant per year...



Good numbers that are good enough to build multiple plants.


Still 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)
ID: 1169752 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.