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

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1324674 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 19:14:52 UTC - in response to Message 1324557.  
Last modified: 4 Jan 2013, 19:19:32 UTC

There is no established causality between CO-2 concentration and air temperature on Earth.

I guess against all science and rationality, you fall into the denialist believers staunchly clinging on as described in the series of articles on:

Climate Denial


Sorry, but Human forced climate change is not just a game of politics... There are consequences for everyone regardless of political games.

Don't believe me or the physics and reality?

See:

YouTube: Climate Change 2012 by Peter Sinclair (TED talk)

YouTube: Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2



They are a good summary of the present state of play for those following Human forced climate change and also good for denialists alike.

One interesting point: How good a fit is made to the Arctic ice extent predictions graph? Should that be a straight line graph or an exponential curve?...


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)
ID: 1324674 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1324757 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 1:37:18 UTC

A great deal has been posted in this thread about the storage of energy. As nearly as I can tell a lot of this concern is about wind farms making power when it is not needed and not having it available when demand is high. I have never seen a discussion anywhere of using the wind generated power to produce hydrogen gas. Hydrogen is totally none polluting, works in fuel cells, internal combustion engines, and could be used the same way natural gas is.
Since I have never seen this proposed there must be a problem with my thinking but I ask what is it?
ID: 1324757 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1324758 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 1:50:08 UTC - in response to Message 1324757.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2013, 1:50:24 UTC

Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce it. Unless you use green energy to produce it the caron dioxide released in producing Hydrogen would cancel the green benefits.

Hydrogen has to be stored at high pressures, which makes to containers expensive and heavy.

Hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas. So production plants would need to be built safely, presumably increasing the production costs.

But ignoring all of that Hydrogen would be a good fuel if it could be made cheaply.
ID: 1324758 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1324779 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 4:23:28 UTC - in response to Message 1324758.  

"Hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas."
Um.. Hydrogen will not stay hydrogen in the atmosphere. It will combine readily with the oxygen and make.. Water.
If you are producing it from water, that is a lovely GREEN round trip.
" So production plants would need to be built safely, presumably increasing the production costs.

"

Ballard Power had a hydrogen incident. One of the trucks delivering hydrogen backed into the loading dock and punctured the tank. A fire ensued, panic set in in the surrounding community about this spray that started dripping from the sky, not knowing what it was.

It was in fact water, and once the fire had burnt itself out, they had to put new tires on the truck and DROVE IT AWAY.

Hydrogen unlike natural gas/propane/LNG burns clean, and as we know RISES. So it does not collect on the ground and flow under other things igniting them. Flames/leak goes UP.

Producing it cleanly is of course an issue. And using it through a fuel cell is very interesting technology, especially for fixed site locations. Yet another way to "store" electricity from renewables.
Janice
ID: 1324779 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1324783 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 4:34:10 UTC - in response to Message 1324758.  

Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce it. Unless you use green energy to produce it the caron dioxide released in producing Hydrogen would cancel the green benefits.

No CO2 in producing H2 from electricity, as long as the electricity is green. As we are talking about storage of wind power for use when the wind don't blow ...

Hydrogen has to be stored at high pressures, which makes to containers expensive and heavy.

Which is why is isn't good for cars. http://reason.org/news/show/1002886.html
But for a fixed installation that isn't an issue.

Hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas. So production plants would need to be built safely, presumably increasing the production costs.

Any energy storage needs to be safe. You don't want an uncontrolled release of energy as the effect is catastrophic.

I believe you meant to say leak proof, but that comes with the territory.

But ignoring all of that Hydrogen would be a good fuel if it could be made cheaply.

I believe efficiency is the issue. A fuel cell is very efficient, but it isn't very powerful. Burning H2 to make heat for conventional uses, turbine, steam, internal combustion, ... has all the same losses that other fuels have.


Saw a neat closed loop demonstration a few years ago. Solar cell powering electrolysis and the gases sent to a fuel cell, the combustion water returned, the electricity produced powering a small motor.

ID: 1324783 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1324784 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 4:42:23 UTC - in response to Message 1324758.  

Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce it. Unless you use green energy to produce it the caron dioxide released in producing Hydrogen would cancel the green benefits.

Hydrogen has to be stored at high pressures, which makes to containers expensive and heavy.

Hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas. So production plants would need to be built safely, presumably increasing the production costs.

But ignoring all of that Hydrogen would be a good fuel if it could be made cheaply.


As for the energy to produce it, wind is very green.
Concerning safety, hydrogen is no more combustible than natural gas.
If hydrogen were used as a substitute for natural gas high greenhouse are not required.
High pressures would be needed for autos not stationary sites.
ID: 1324784 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1324786 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 4:46:50 UTC - in response to Message 1324619.  

I think its a great idea using flywheels to keep the frequency and voltage up. Power companys must know when they get the most peak loads during the day. i can see this saving them a lot of money. Not that it will be passed on to the consumer though:(

Another use would be for the home. Im sure it is not cost effective yet but a small flywheel to handle short duration brown outs or power outages befoe a home generator kicks on.

I believe the term "phase synchronization" is what they call it. In essence it is changing a cosine wave into a sine wave. Why? When a power plant starts up the frequency/phase of the generators hasn't locked on to the rest of the power grid yet. It takes a little while. If you put out of frequency/phase power on the grid, you don't get more power, you get less. It is a money and equipment saver for the power company.

ID: 1324786 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1324788 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 4:54:02 UTC
Last modified: 5 Jan 2013, 4:56:34 UTC

ID: 1324788 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1324812 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 5:59:14 UTC

As to phase syncopation the power converted must be matched to the grid, in order

for things like electric clocks to work correctly the number of cycles a power

plant puts out in a day is strictly regulated and corrected at midnight.

As to hydrogen as fuel the vary small size of the hydrogen molecule it is vary

prone to leaking, it is low density even when compressed and is energy intensive

to make.

this does not mean that it can not be used just that as a source of power it is a bust.

If you have cheap power than using hydrogen as the base for synthetic natural

gas would solve most of toughs problems.

As to power storage / flywheels all power storage has significant loss

but if it is off peak power and has a low cost so what.







ID: 1324812 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1324822 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 6:53:24 UTC - in response to Message 1324658.  

As some of you have now realised flywheels are part of no-brake power systems, just an alternative to battery UPS systems.

They are not new, and I know of one that was in use from the 60's for NATO comms, and had a catastrophic failure in the 70's. Destroyed the building it was in, along with the standby generator it was working with and several cars and a minibus. Luckily no-one was killed or injured.

You also have to factor in power required to keep flywheel spinning 24/7/365.

I was going to mention these but you beat me to it.

I can remember one of these no break sets failing in the late 1960's. The flywheel went through the wall of the building, the compound fence and 4kM of bush before it stopped. Fortunately it was not in a built up area.

A 3 ton flywheel spinning at 1500rpm has an awful lot of momentum.

T.A.
ID: 1324822 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1324973 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 16:59:03 UTC - in response to Message 1324822.  

I can remember one of these no break sets failing in the late 1960's. The flywheel went through the wall of the building, the compound fence and 4kM of bush before it stopped. Fortunately it was not in a built up area.

A 3 ton flywheel spinning at 1500rpm has an awful lot of momentum.

T.A.

Any energy storage media has that potential. The uncontrolled release of that energy becomes an issue. Civil engineering. Be it a chunk of metal hurled with the force of a 16 inch naval gun, or be it water held back by a dam, or be it chemical energy in a gas or battery released in an explosion. The effect is the same, catastrophe.

The wave my hands and make it so crowd here refuses to realize the NIMBY's are not going to allow it to be made so, and they are right. Sure you can site it away from a population, but where? In a nature preserve that has to be destroyed to build it? Never mind stringing power lines all over and the NIMBY's that will bring out.

ID: 1324973 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1325023 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 18:51:38 UTC

Hydrogen can be split from water with heat. Nuke fans rejoice. There is of
course the waste gas emitted into the atmosphere. Namely: Oxygen.

No one thinks this is a green house gas.

<< not a nuke fan.
Janice
ID: 1325023 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1325038 - Posted: 5 Jan 2013, 19:42:58 UTC - in response to Message 1324788.  

ID: 1325038 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1325480 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 10:40:51 UTC

ID: 1325480 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1325501 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 13:08:21 UTC - in response to Message 1325480.  
Last modified: 7 Jan 2013, 13:10:20 UTC

A cautionary report on Biofuels.

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Thanks for that, that's an interesting one.

However... As is too often the case, that is just one small sensationalist snippet of a wider story... Important to consider when deciding what to plant and where and how and how much, but the story as presented there is not the full story.

Growing biofuels also reduces other pollutants that are harmful to our health. They also avoid burning some of the more noxious fossil fuels and also avoid the pollution involved in digging up those fossil fuels... So overall, how many people die as a result?

A good summary surrounding that story is given in a pdf 'brochure' given by the same research group: Our recent work on urban trees and air quality is described


Yet another example of crass journalism sensationalism trash chasing any sensational angle possible and the full truth be damned.

All on our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1325501 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1325522 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 14:42:34 UTC - in response to Message 1325501.  

A cautionary report on Biofuels.

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Thanks for that, that's an interesting one.

However... As is too often the case, that is just one small sensationalist snippet of a wider story... Important to consider when deciding what to plant and where and how and how much, but the story as presented there is not the full story.

Growing biofuels also reduces other pollutants that are harmful to our health. They also avoid burning some of the more noxious fossil fuels and also avoid the pollution involved in digging up those fossil fuels... So overall, how many people die as a result?

A good summary surrounding that story is given in a pdf 'brochure' given by the same research group: Our recent work on urban trees and air quality is described


Yet another example of crass journalism sensationalism trash chasing any sensational angle possible and the full truth be damned.

Another rapid dismissal by the wave your hands and make is so crowd.
"As far as we know, no one has looked at the air quality of growing biofuel crops before," he added.

The problem is orders of magnitude larger that you can admit.

One report is for dense urban areas, the other for rural areas. Apples / Oranges.

ID: 1325522 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1325528 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 15:31:10 UTC - in response to Message 1325522.  
Last modified: 7 Jan 2013, 15:38:52 UTC

... Important to consider when deciding what to plant and where and how and how much, but the story as presented there is not the full story.

Growing biofuels also reduces other pollutants that are harmful to our health. They also avoid burning some of the more noxious fossil fuels and also avoid the pollution involved in digging up those fossil fuels... So overall, how many people die as a result?

A good summary surrounding that story is given in a pdf 'brochure' given by the same research group: Our recent work on urban trees and air quality is described


Yet another example of crass journalism sensationalism trash chasing any sensational angle possible and the full truth be damned.

Another rapid dismissal by the wave your hands and make is so crowd.

You're so rapid we can't even see your hands blur by...

"As far as we know, no one has looked at the air quality of growing biofuel crops before," he added.

The problem is orders of magnitude larger that you can admit.

Yes that has been looked at as in not specifically for biofuel crops but certainly so for the trees/plants being used for biofuel. Which is precisely why they looked further and to greater detail.

Now for your hand waving: Please quote EXACTLY your "orders of magnitude" and what those numbers actually are.

Or are you only worthless jaundiced hot air and effluent rolling along on a troll? It is very noticeable that we get nothing firmer than soft wet FUD mud from you...

One report is for dense urban areas, the other for rural areas. Apples / Oranges.

For all your dismissiveness, let's see your firm evidence and references. So far, just hot air and yet more gas from you.


Just to give you a bit of a clue: It is "well known" that forests create their own beneficial local climate that promotes rainfall and a 'smog' of aerosols for protection. Creating ozone may well be an important part of that mutual protection...

The question is in the numbers. I strongly suspect that far more people will die from the effects of the full cycle of using the equivalent fossil fuels than can die from the growing and use of biofuels. (And yes, that excludes the extremes of your expected claims of starving people to feed the power stations!)

You may well expect to see a very positive effect from people being able to enjoy being amongst the growing biofuels...


Your hard evidence and numbers please?

(Please refrain from jaundiced flippancy.)


All on our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1325528 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1325543 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 17:36:00 UTC - in response to Message 1325528.  
Last modified: 7 Jan 2013, 17:36:44 UTC

Facts which you continue to ignore:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead
As a result, by 1650 the world population had only increased to about 500 million. By 1800, though, thanks to improved agriculture and sanitation, it doubled to more than one billion. And, in 2002 when Haub last made these calculations, the planet's population had exploded, reaching 6.2 billion.

Yet you continue to claim the issue isn't how many humans there are. You can't make a linear cut to CO2 when the users of CO2 are growing exponentially and expect CO2 to go down, or do you also deny math?

As I said the problem is orders of magnitude larger than you will admit.

Cutting CO2, cutting all pollution, is good, it just isn't going to solve the problem by itself.

If you want the problem solved, then you must address all aspects of the problem, otherwise you are wasting your time and in this case consigning humanity to hell.
ID: 1325543 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1325557 - Posted: 7 Jan 2013, 18:20:58 UTC - in response to Message 1325543.  
Last modified: 7 Jan 2013, 18:26:30 UTC

Facts which you continue to ignore:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead
As a result, by 1650 the world population had only increased to about 500 million. By 1800, though, thanks to improved agriculture and sanitation, it doubled to more than one billion. And, in 2002 when Haub last made these calculations, the planet's population had exploded, reaching 6.2 billion.

Yet you continue to claim the issue isn't how many humans there are. You can't make a linear cut to CO2 when the users of CO2 are growing exponentially and expect CO2 to go down, or do you also deny math?

As I said the problem is orders of magnitude larger than you will admit.

Cutting CO2, cutting all pollution, is good, it just isn't going to solve the problem by itself.

If you want the problem solved, then you must address all aspects of the problem, otherwise you are wasting your time and in this case consigning humanity to hell.

Hallelujah!

The usual shift and dodge of topic but that's perhaps the best posting you've made all year! Well done that old man. And no mention of nukes or any such nasties other than just doom. There may be hope yet...


For the people 'problem': Politics and Education?

That's a much better 'solution' than hell and damnation in runaway climate, extreme weather, war, famine, and pestilence.


We badly need to work more on the politics, and faster.

For the education angle, we have Kerala as a good example, and likely others elsewhere. Another good example of living within the available resources, even if quite a harsh example, is the Tibetan cultural ideas (although we certainly do not need to live that harshly/frugally).


Can we do it?
And soon enough?

Can all this "Greens Enviro" stuff buy us enough time to make it work?


All on 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: 1325557 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1325691 - Posted: 8 Jan 2013, 5:41:12 UTC - in response to Message 1325557.  

I see you continue to deny the math.

Even your green sites admit the math.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckibben/obama-climate-change_b_2424447.html?utm_hp_ref=green
If we’re to slow it down, we need to be cutting emissions globally at a sensational rate, by something like 5% a year to make a real difference.

That is 5% year 1. 5% + 5% year 2. 5% + 5% + 5% year 3. ...
Exponential growth. But as the population is growing exponentially that makes sense.


One of these days you will understand the math. The day you do you will see that what is being called for is the deindustrilization of humans or a massive cut in the population of humans or some combination. Sorry but the math doesn't lie.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead
As a result, by 1650 the world population had only increased to about 500 million.

A sustainable number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
1) Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2) Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

And one not picked out of thin air.

How do you propose to get humanity down to this number? Do not forget the animalistic nature of humans. Do you think this number can be negotiated? Are you sure you actually can get enough to go along? Consider China's policy before you answer. If they don't do it, do you have a plan B? What is plan B? Are you sure that whatever you implement will hold not only a century down the road but 10 millennia? Remember if the models are right, failure is not an option, nor can we ever again allow humans to get close.

Maybe if you looked at this backwards you could see it. How much CO2 does a fully industrialized human cause to be emitted per year today? How much total CO2 can we allow to be emitted per year? What planetary population figure does that result in? Can the planet actually sustain that amount of CO2 emission per year on a long term e.g. 10 millennia basis?

You desperately want a bandaid solution. Can't blame you. Reality is hard to face.

ID: 1325691 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · Next

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


 
©2024 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.