Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Detritus » Say Goodbye to Global Warming Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Responsible Practices   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Detritus   » Test Forum

Pages:  1  ..  6    8
Author: Subject: Say Goodbye to Global Warming
GreenD
International Hazard

Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

Again;

You burn fuel -> heat, CO2.
You raise cattle -> Methane.

Tahdah, you will see a significant effect on the climate if a population of 6 billion begins to burn oil accross the globe, at the same time removes that which sequesters CO2 (deforestation), as well as disturb pH and toxicity levels in the ocean (algae / coral growth).

To deny this is not in the realm of scientific logic or rationality, it is in the realm of stigmas, bias, and ignorance.
bquirky
National Hazard

Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Today Kalgoorlie mine tailings from last century (quite toxic due to the refining methods of the time ) are being gleefully reprocessed to get at the remaining gold deposits that weren't extracted the last time.

Im quite willing to bet that in a century's time our 'radioactive-waste legacy' will be considered quite valuable

as for the question of where to store it. I would have no problem storing it next door. In fact there is a ongoing project to setup a storage facility in Australia I think its a great idea. Make money digging the stuff out of the ground make more money putting it back then in a hundred years time make money digging it up again

Endimion17
International Hazard

Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline

Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second

 Quote: Originally posted by bquirky One mans trash is another mans treasure. Today Kalgoorlie mine tailings from last century (quite toxic due to the refining methods of the time ) are being gleefully reprocessed to get at the remaining gold deposits that weren't extracted the last time. Im quite willing to bet that in a century's time our 'radioactive-waste legacy' will be considered quite valuable as for the question of where to store it. I would have no problem storing it next door. In fact there is a ongoing project to setup a storage facility in Australia I think its a great idea. Make money digging the stuff out of the ground make more money putting it back then in a hundred years time make money digging it up again

That's why radioactive waste from fission reactors isn't waste per se. It's one of the wastes with the best potential as only a fraction of energy is extracted from it.
Not to mention a plethora of various elements inside.
When prices of uranium jump too high, it's time for breeder fission reactors... if economically viable nuclear fusion doesn't kick in in the meantime.

Pulverulescent
International Hazard

Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

 Quote: That's why radioactive waste from fission reactors isn't waste per se. .

That is sooo true, and then, of course, ionising radiation, if you get enough of it, will free you of all of your worries in almost no time . . . ()

P

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

A Einstein
Endimion17
International Hazard

Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline

Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent
 Quote: That's why radioactive waste from fission reactors isn't waste per se. .

That is sooo true, and then, of course, ionising radiation, if you get enough of it, will free you of all of your worries in almost no time . . . ()

P

That's what shields are used for. Do you have any idea how heavily shielded those things are? Have you ever seen highly radioactive waste (HLW) being spread around? Of course not.
My country owns one pressurized water reactor and every single bit of HLW is still in the cooling pool, since the first day in early eighties. Thirty years of power production and everything is still in the pool. It will last for few decades more, and the free space in the pool is enough. That's how much volume of it is produced.
Low level and intermediate level waste is secured in other facilities and does not pose a problem.

I don't really get the whole fear of HLW.
"It will leak after 50 thousand years, and the half time of decay is billions of years, eeeek!" - who the fuck cares?
Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck what will happen after ten thousand years, let alone fifty.
Society will evolve, or perish. If we evolve, you can bet we will find the way to destroy it (we do even now, but it's not economically viable).
If we perish... who cares? It will leak, very slowly, and will present a new evolution pressure for an amount of time. It won't destroy the biosphere nor the planet.
Honestly, who the fuck cares?

watson.fawkes
International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by IrC At least I have facts.
Oh, you meant to say the following, I assume:
 Quote: At least I have fringe science.
Fixed that for you.

Please explain how your piddly bits of inconsistency you keep trotting about as "evidence" countermand the huge body of scholarship that has gone into climate change research. Just to be specific, tell us all how the following document is entirely wrong and can't be trusted on the authority a few web links you've posted: Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Annex II of this report has the full list of contributors, complete with affiliations. Almost all are at universities and research institutions. There are more than 500 of them. I'll take their well-considered scientific judgment over your ranting about political influence any day at all.
Rosco Bodine
Banned

Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

This "debate" about practical implementation of global warming intervention schemes which is really the crux and point of argument is like a litmus test for good faith or bad faith, a litmus test which has exposed the matter of dispute as being more of a political and philosophical and legal argument than any scientific debate.
What we see exposed also by the pseudo debate of issues collateral to global warming is a psychosis revealed as the affliction of GW fanatics ....no matter whether the cause of GW is man or the sun or whatever combination of other factors. GW is simply being used as a false pretense for the assertions of "control freaks" and tyrants to lord over, dictate, and govern every aspect of the human life on earth with the false pretense of environmental stewardship and environmental protectionism being a subset of the worn out and generally lame justification for every imposition on man "in the interest of public safety"..... for what reasonable man could oppose anything which serves the greater good ?

The answer is that every reasonable man must always vigilantly question exactly what is it that serves the greater good or only more precisely serves the selfish ambitions of control freaks who want to regulate every aspect of everyones lives so that they live only within what are the boundaries established for their
"sheep pen" by those who would shepherd other men.

Bad faith is evident on the part of the GW fanatics and interventionists, who are basically anti-industry and anti-production and anti-employment and anti-supply side economics ......actually they seem to be a bunch of lunatics who are anti fill in the blank "anything and everything that may be good". And what things are they for is revealing also .....big government oppressively micromanaging everything under the sun.

Stipulate that AGW is real just like they say and offer bona fide engineering solutions to address their unrealistic fears ......and it isn't good enough because another entire set of unrealistic fears then becomes applied to the proposed solutions. The AGW fanatics are doomsayers who are afflicted with a messianic complex where only following their orders whatever those orders may be is equal to a valid and acceptable solution to the perceived "threat" to the world for
which the "false messiahs" are the only saviors .......yet no scientifically valid solutions are offered by the most vocal because abatement of the "crisis" which provides them empowerment as rabble rousers of mass hysteria would eliminate the basis for what makes themselves feel empowered as false messiahs.

No master lion hunter is any longer essential as watchman once the maneater which has been stalking and terrifying the villagers is killed and skinned ....the threat is abated .....so the "policeman" no longer has job security.

So has it been with nuclear power and with natural gas and synthetic fuels
and so has it been for the power hungry enterprise of all industry which supports a modern lifestyle .......whatever practical solutions are proposed are necessarily opposed by those who profit from the green energy scam that is the daughter scam of the AGW scam ......and the lifeblood of the entire beast is bad faith ....duplicitous deception to make people fearful followers of false messiahs come to rescue them from the "world ender" which simply doesn't exist,
selling them on solutions that will prevent the end of the world which would
not have ended absent any of their oversold solutions anyway. It isn't science that the AGW fanatics are selling .......
it is old fashioned snake oil.
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator

Posts: 1863
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination!

I think that climate change is underway but it is too late to do much about it and it is unlikely that we will cut carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to stop it changing the climate more.
Pumping carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere is only part of the problem.
Humans have gone from being a peripheral species to complete global dominance.
We are extracting and processing huge amounts of materials and more every year.
For example we are extracting a lot more than the sustainable amount of fish from the world's oceans. Some key food species are already extinct or are critically endangered while others are under very heavy fishing pressure.
Some of this is hidden from us by the fact that fish finding and catching technology is increasing so catches can be sustained from a diminishing stock.
Eventually we will reach a situation like the collapse of the Grand Banks cod fishery. It will cease to be practical to fish on a commercial basis.
We are using huge amounts of nonrenewable resources and recycliing very little. We may be able to continue in this way for some time but inevitably we will come to a limit.
Is 9 billion people with increased living standards sustainable?
I doubt it is!

[Edited on 12-2-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]
Rosco Bodine
Banned

Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

It is an entirely debatable issue whether anything can be done that would be effective as an intervention for GW, but it is not debatable whatsoever that nuclear power generation on a massive scale would rationally be worth trying as a first step abatement of CO2 emission if the GW is AGW. There is no debate about it that nuclear power generation really is the only effective means of realizing in the near future any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions. Therefore it becomes quite immediately and conclusively a no brainer that if nuclear power generation is not prioritized, then all of the rest of the AGW complaints which are the mantra of the doomsayers is nothing else but disingenuous and deceitful bullcrap because obviously they actually perceive no real CO2 emissions problem which urgently needs to be addressed. Unless nuclear power generation on a huge scale is embraced by the AGW doomsayers, then their entire argument is on its face discredited. At once they are reduced to being nothing but alarmists saying we are all going to die as a result of poor environmental consciousness that they credit to a scientific ignorance which is plainly their own deficiency for rejecting the only techology that offers a solution for their #1 complaint which is CO2 emissions. The AGW fanatics are a sort of incarnation of hypocrisy by reciting the science they like for describing a problem and rejecting the science they don't like which is the only real solution for the problem. It is the worn out old cliche of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
The AGW fanatics want to "pull the plug" on a world that isn't the world they would wish to have, yet they are obstructionists of the very industry and technology which could evolve the world towards the very thing they say they desire. These are like the idiots who "demand" to board an environmentally friendly train for a journey by train to some divine destination, but they absolutely refuse to travel by rail since railroads are somehow bad.
White Yeti
International Hazard

Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

 Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine The facts support undeniably my position so plainly that denial then becomes an irrational compulsion of the oppositional defiant disorder type which is more usual for adolescents than for being known as an afflcition of grown men. I am being practical and pragmatic .....but my rational analysis and proposals are falling on deaf ears.

Your position is reasonable as well, but global warming is a manifestation of many factors combined, the irresponsible use of energy resources being one of them. I am a supporter of nuclear power as well, but (again from a pragmatic perspective), we cannot have the entire world to run off of nuclear, simply because nuclear power plants cannot handle peak power loads.

There is no silver bullet solution to the energy problem, we just have to harness energy wherever it is available and as efficiently as possible. Here are some things to do to make the world a better place:
-We use fossil fuels from Venezuela to drive our existing machinery,
-but also harness solar power in the Sahara desert to desalinate water for drinking.
-Cut down massive stretches of forest for lumber, making sure to reforest the land right afterwards; thereby keeping forests young.
-Harness wind power off the coast and harness the immense energy source right under our feet.
-Use solar, geothermal and nuclear energy for process heating.
-Stay away from biofuels and coal, develop battery technology instead.
-Develop smart grid technology to use energy more effectively.
-Improve insulation in existing housing.
-Develop plasma gasification technology to process and recycle garbage.

"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
Mr. Wizard
International Hazard

Posts: 1040
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by GreenD Rosco, please argue this fact for me, we're (probably) all chemists here: 1.We burn Oil -> We get heat (energy) and CO2. 2.We deforest the earth -> lower reuptake of CO2 and cause increase in methane (as decomposition, rather than fertilizer to plants 3.We populate the earth with cattle -> Increased methane for a more inefficient means of nutrients, as well as a whole extra step in food processing/shipping/packaging. 4. We are incredibly wasteful with energy -> Leaving lights, heat, and electricity on in abondoned buildings. We all have 200Watt TV's, we jet skii our kids around on lakes for fun (something your 8th generation ago didn't do). How does 1, in the addition of 2, not completely tell you that we are going to warm the planet? I've made this argument 5 times and so far the only person to dispute it has said "methane has a half-life of 7 years". You still have a billion cattle's worth of methane on top of the increasing amount of degredation from deforestation. How does #3 not have any impact on the planet? How does #4, to you, not seem "wasteful"? Did you know that if all of the indicator LED's in the united states alone were disabled we could shut down 13 power plants (ideally, of course). That ALONE should tell you how much energy we use that is not necessary. How can you possibly form any kind of rational argument if you believe that the combination of 1,2,3 and 4 have absolutley NO EFFECT on the planet's ecosystem? You sir, are a fanatic, a blind religious fanatic, and your religion in materialism.

Maybe some of us have varying amounts of knowledge of chemistry, but I doubt we are all chemists. I'm not. Fact number one is not a fact.

We burn oil and get heat and energy and CO2. True enough, but most of the CO2 come from burning coal and natural gas. I don't have figures for the whole world but the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Admittedly these figures reference the US in 2006. May I assume you are talking about the US when you list humanity's sins? I can't say your are completely right about Fact 1, by omission.

We deforest the Earth. Here in the US we grow more trees than we cut down. We grow 10% of the world's forests, harvest less than 8% of the world's wood and fiber, and produce 25% of the world's wood products.

Take the test at the link. I agree the monoculture of plants used for wood products isn't ideal, but as far as CO2 consumption it is irrelevant. I have driven across the US many times, and I am amazed at the amount of corn, alfalfa, wheat, and hay that is grown. The amount of CO2 they use should count. The original forest or plants don't sequester carbon indefinitely either unless they form coal or peat. I didn't notice any peat or coal when I last walked through the ancient redwoods. Most dead trees and plants in nature break down to methane or CO2 even if they spend some time as mulch or humus. No doubt some organics are carried away in rivers and end up in ocean sediment. The main source of oxygen in the world is marine algae which provide about 75% of the oxygen produced. I'll speculate it uses CO2 to do this. Fact #2 is in doubt. I wanted to quote the percentage of CO2 removed by the Himalayan watershed but couldn't locate it. I will just mention the ‘Urey reaction’ and a link stating all the CO2 in the atmosphere could be removed in 5000 years forming a layer of limestone only 5 mm thick.

Raising cattle and animals for food is a very good way to obtain food from land that would otherwise be unable to sustain humans. Can you eat grass, sagebrush or hay? I can't. The area I live in is very dry (desert southwest US). I have explored remote areas around here with 4wheel drive vehicles, and have been amazed at the number of cows, steers, horses, donkeys, and other wildlife in the open range desert. This is all made possible by men who drill small wells to provide water at certain points. In some areas of the world growing grain or rice makes sense, but in other areas only plants that cattle can eat are feasible. These plants allow food to be grown. The marketplace will determine if it's an extra step'.

Do we waste energy? Yes we do. I doubt we would all like to go back to the rigorous and righteous 'sustainable' conditions of the middle ages. Cost of energy will dictate and lead to less waste. I am not talking about government induced causes , taxes, but honest market costs. The availability of energy to dispose of as you want is a great way to determine your standard of living. Waste is not good, but no choice is the worst. I don't want Al Gore lecturing me on my carbon footprint.
Leaving the lights on in an abandoned building means its not abandoned. Perhaps you meant closed for the night? Often there are reasons for leaving the lights on, such as security or maintenance crews or low level heating to prevent freezing. The owner is paying the bills, and must see the value in it. What's wrong with jet skis? I don't have any, but who is to say what we should spend our money and energy on? Eight generations ago we didn't sit around video monitors deciding the fate of mankind either. We could let all the people who want to shut off their electricity do so, and we could shut down a few power plants too. Whoops, no takers. The truth is the biggest waster of electricity is the power company and the losses (7%) they incur while transmitting electricity from where its made to where its used.

Rather than accuse other people of being fanatical, religious, and materialistic; take a deep breath and consider Robert Burns' observation in his "To A Louse":

To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/552.htm
Polverone
Now celebrating 18 years of madness

Posts: 3163
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: Waiting for spring

On pointing fingers at the right targets

To keep atmospheric CO2 constant, biological and geological sinks must be in rough proportion with sources. For at least several decades global sources have been outgrowing global sinks. There are two major challenges: 1) to bring global sources in line with sinks, or vice versa (e.g. via afforestation efforts) and 2) to allocate the effort of amelioration in line with national CO2 debits or credits.

To a zeroth order approximation, we can consider a nation's geographical area as a proxy for its capacity to absorb CO2 through biological and geological sinks. Total CO2 emissions are a product of two things: emissions per individual and number of individuals. Net CO2 emissions are total emissions minus the work of biological and geological CO2 sinks in a nation's territory. The lower the population density of a nation, the more each individual can emit before overwhelming the nation's carbon sinks.

China has about 1/3 the per-capita emissions of the United States, but 4 times the population density -- it's actually outstripping its national carbon sink capacity worse than the US. Likewise Germany: though it has only about half the emissions per capita as the United States, it has nearly 7 times the population density. The CO2 challenge would be much harder if the whole world had the emissions per capita and population density as Germany, as opposed to the emissions per capita and population density as the United States. Canadians can feel justifiably smug on this metric: they have nearly the same emissions per capita as the United States, but a population density only 11% as great. The whole world could comfortably drive pickups, live in detached houses, and eat steak for dinner if the world population density equaled the Canadian population density.

On the long term
Homo sapiens sapiens may have existed for 150000 to 200000 years. If we're planning to be around as long as the average mammalian species, that's at least another 800000 years to go. Fossil fuels are the tiniest, most quickly consumed drop of energy on these time scales. Even our most abundant fossil fuel, coal, has no more than a few centuries of estimated reserves at current consumption rates. You can try making the argument that people should not have to give up fossil fuels, but nature is stubborn and disinclined to listen. Saying that fossil fuels should be used to exhaustion, despite their side effects long outliving their availability, is rather like choosing to play 10 minutes today in exchange for 10 hours of chores next week instead of playing 5 minutes today and doing 1 hour of chores today.

In the 1945 edition of Shreveport's Chemical Process Industries, there is a very interesting section on fuels and power. The most striking point: electricity is priced at 5 cents per kilowatt hour and fuel oil at 5 cents per gallon. Had both these commodities tracked inflation in general, today a kilowatt hour of electricity and a gallon of fuel oil would both cost 62 cents. But heating oil futures for April are over $3.00 per gallon at present, and the retail price of electricity (averaged over all sectors, entire United States) is only 10 cents per kilowatt hour. What of the nightmarish green hippie scenario, where we have to use photovoltaic electric power? Solarbuzz places costs of battery-backed rooftop residential PV at 29 cents per kilowatt hour in a sunny climate, 64 cents in cloudy. If PV technology never gets any better, in real terms it's already cheaper than industrial electricity in 1945. [Edited on 2-14-2012 by Polverone] PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address White Yeti International Hazard Posts: 816 Registered: 20-7-2011 Location: Asperger's spectrum Member Is Offline Mood: delocalized Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti -We use fossil fuels from Venezuela to drive our existing machinery, Sure, but you have to have an underlying message that fossil fuel-cars need to be slowly reduced in number & production, or extremely efficient. That message is already there, and cars have the potential of becoming much more efficient with natural advances in materials technology, there is no need quit using fossil fuels cold turkey. Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti -but also harness solar power in the Sahara desert to desalinate water for drinking. Who pays for it? Grow up in a capitalist society, nobody will want to pay for someone else's water unless they can profit. There will come a time in the near future where it will be down right necessary to secure sources of drinking water (even in the western world), not for profit, but for survival. Think of all the water we use in agriculture and industry, one day we will have to pay the price. And it's not getting any better as time goes on. Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti -Cut down massive stretches of forest for lumber, making sure to reforest the land right afterwards; thereby keeping forests young. Sounds like a foolish statement. Apparently lumber usage is reducing quickly, as reforestation rises (except brazil). We're close to an equilibrium. However, old-growth forests contain very important diversity. Which, in my opinion, is a haven for medicinal novelty - amongst the appreciation of an evolved ecosystem. I can't disagree with that, but when I see more and more packaging that is made from plastic rather than cardboard and paper, I wish we would just cut down trees to make packaging rather than make plastic that doesn't disappear from the environment for the following million years, and perhaps longer, unless we make the digestive enzyme ourselves.  Quote: Originally posted by GreenD Consumption of meat... That isn't going to please anyone but if you eat corn fed meat, you use 6000 gallons of water for every 10-12oz of red meat. An insane number. Yep, that's why I don't eat beef and I eat chicken occasionally, but not daily. I agree that people should eat less meat, because quite frankly people eat too much of it. I know people who eat meat at every meal, that kind of diet makes me sick for so many reasons. Also, eat sardines instead of tuna, what applies to beef also applies to fish.  Quote: Originally posted by GreenD Efficient irrgation systems (spendy) can reduce water use up to 70%. The problem is water is so cheap that 70% savings still don't benefit the farmer versus implementation cost. I was actually going to add that to the list, but deleted it, as it is extremely vaguely related to energy use.  Quote: Originally posted by GreenD I hate to say tax stuff, but right now, we need a carbon & water tax. I agree with a water tax, after all the only way to make a point and have an impact is through people's wallets; you have to hit wasteful people where it hurts. edit: gotta get my homework done, see you guys tomorrow. [Edited on 2-14-2012 by White Yeti] "Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi GreenD International Hazard Posts: 615 Registered: 30-3-2011 Member Is Offline Mood: Totally f***ing high, man! First, thank you Wizard for taking the time to respond. I am fully capable of taking criticism and evaluating it. Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard Maybe some of us have varying amounts of knowledge of chemistry, but I doubt we are all chemists. I'm not. Fact number one is not a fact. [/rquote] [/rquote]Well yes it isI could have used Coal or Natural gas in place of oil, but this does not remove oil from the equation. I was not implying that all our CO2 comes from oil, although I was having a one-track mind when I wrote that, obviously.  Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard We burn oil and get heat and energy and CO2. True enough, but most of the CO2 come from burning coal and natural gas. I don't have figures for the whole world but the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html Admittedly these figures reference the US in 2006. May I assume you are talking about the US when you list humanity's sins? I can't say your are completely right about Fact 1, by omission. Yes, it is a well known fact that the US uses 3x more energy (maybe it is gas) per person than I believe any other country on average.  Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard We deforest the Earth. Here in the US we grow more trees than we cut down. We grow 10% of the world's forests, harvest less than 8% of the world's wood and fiber, and produce 25% of the world's wood products. Yes, we have reached an equilibrium in the US, but that does not mean that we are back to neutral carbon levels with respect to deforestation - remember 5% of the US is covered in tar, and who knows how much more is unairable land that cannot grow forest anymore. Point being; even if NOW we are finally at good forestation practices, we still have severely scarred the land, and the pavement is not uptaking any CO2. See what I am saying? We are one of the (ironically) leaders in reforestation, and it seems other countries are strongly going the opposite direction.  Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard http://forestry.about.com/od/forestresources/l/aa071502.htm Take the test at the link. I agree the monoculture of plants used for wood products isn't ideal, but as far as CO2 consumption it is irrelevant. I have driven across the US many times, and I am amazed at the amount of corn, alfalfa, wheat, and hay that is grown. The amount of CO2 they use should count. The original forest or plants don't sequester carbon indefinitely either unless they form coal or peat. I didn't notice any peat or coal when I last walked through the ancient redwoods. Most dead trees and plants in nature break down to methane or CO2 even if they spend some time as mulch or humus. No doubt some organics are carried away in rivers and end up in ocean sediment. The main source of oxygen in the world is marine algae which provide about 75% of the oxygen produced. I'll speculate it uses CO2 to do this. Fact #2 is in doubt. I wanted to quote the percentage of CO2 removed by the Himalayan watershed but couldn't locate it. I will just mention the ‘Urey reaction’ and a link stating all the CO2 in the atmosphere could be removed in 5000 years forming a layer of limestone only 5 mm thick. I could say the inverse and a 5mm thick limestone layer on the earth's surface burned off in 100 years will bring on global climate change. That fact is clever, but more so shows the surface area of limestone on earth.  Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard Raising cattle and animals for food is a very good way to obtain food from land that would otherwise be unable to sustain humans. Can you eat grass, sagebrush or hay? I can't. The area I live in is very dry (desert southwest US). I have explored remote areas around here with 4wheel drive vehicles, and have been amazed at the number of cows, steers, horses, donkeys, and other wildlife in the open range desert. This is all made possible by men who drill small wells to provide water at certain points. In some areas of the world growing grain or rice makes sense, but in other areas only plants that cattle can eat are feasible. These plants allow food to be grown. The marketplace will determine if it's an extra step'. I'm all for grass fed beef. But if you read closely I said corn fed beef. And in all honesty - you're probably not eating those cows that you've seen out in pasture if you shop in any well known supermarket. You're getting this: (In all probability)  Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard Do we waste energy? Yes we do. I doubt we would all like to go back to the rigorous and righteous 'sustainable' conditions of the middle ages. Cost of energy will dictate and lead to less waste. I am not talking about government induced causes , taxes, but honest market costs. The availability of energy to dispose of as you want is a great way to determine your standard of living. Waste is not good, but no choice is the worst. I don't want Al Gore lecturing me on my carbon footprint. Leaving the lights on in an abandoned building means its not abandoned. Perhaps you meant closed for the night? Often there are reasons for leaving the lights on, such as security or maintenance crews or low level heating to prevent freezing. The owner is paying the bills, and must see the value in it. What's wrong with jet skis? I don't have any, but who is to say what we should spend our money and energy on? Eight generations ago we didn't sit around video monitors deciding the fate of mankind either. We could let all the people who want to shut off their electricity do so, and we could shut down a few power plants too. Whoops, no takers. The truth is the biggest waster of electricity is the power company and the losses (7%) they incur while transmitting electricity from where its made to where its used. So you see the problem is not our energy use, but the combination of that, combined with our population. I have seen plenty of "For sale" buildings with their lights on, and the security reasons are bogus. But that is another issue. I have no right to say what you can and cannot do, but I have an inherent need to spread the education of your actions and reactions. The Earth is a beautiful place - I don't need to tell anyone that. I'd like to keep it that way. If you can't see eye to eye on that, then this entire discussion is irrelevant. But having a jet ski, you have to realize has a greater environmental impact that growing a pea plant. Some more contemporary poetry; It's something special when you've gone too far, Neuronal muscles raising the bar. Sky's the limit, but where's the blue? In the distance you sense the hue. ... It's a way of life to live and thrive, All of us bustling and running the hive, But to stop and stare with love-filled glare, Its something special when you've gone too far. A quick walk in the park to calm the blood, Been cooking and rising - ready to flood Now slow and steady, and beat to match, Like a lazy river and some Z's to catch. Let the eyes be open when you look out there, The world you see is exceptionally rare, The beauty, the flowers, the trees, so fair, Just pop open the eye lids, and hold a long stare. [Edited on 14-2-2012 by GreenD] Rosco Bodine Banned Posts: 6370 Registered: 29-9-2004 Member Is Offline Mood: analytical To what end is further lowering the standard of living for millions of people who already have no jobs and no hope of finding jobs because of the onerous regulations which caused their plight in the first place being still professed by some as "necessary"? What is more necessary ...indulging the impractical and economically disastrous theories of ideologues and regulators empowered wrongly by legislators who really do not any longer legitimately represent "the people", or taking care of the millions who have become their homeless victims? Maybe the tax collectors and regulators are well satisfied with their endeavors as being a service to humanity, but what of the human rights of those on whom the taxes and regulations along with all the attendant consequences of such laws is only a cruel punishment for no real "crime" which they have ever committed, except for having invested misplaced trust in incompetent and dishonest leaders? What brighter future do those victims have awaiting but to become wards and dependants of the State which created their pitiful condition. How do you think it makes a working man feel to lose job and home and have to apply for food stamps so his family can eat? Go sell that man on your advocacy of the high energy costs and regulations which you think guarantee a brighter future for your grandchildren yet to be born while his children living right now must rely upon charity to eat and have a pair of shoes. I get the clear picture that in many ways I am talking to a brick wall ......there's just no getting through to the kind of mind that is already responsible for basically putting millions of people in todays equivalent of soup lines. All those people who think industry and fuel usage is a bad thing for the United States but is just great for China, Russia, and anywhere else but America are simply crazy. The United States is being made the whipping boy for energy usage beyond what may be usual per capita in other countries, where the comparison is apples and oranges due to the commute distances and population density differences. The United States is spread out over a vast geographical area and transportation takes energy. An industrialized society also requires more energy. People in the future may live in styrofoam igloos covered with solar cells and eat all their own homegrown food from hydroponic greenhouses and ride around on segways while the interstate highway system becomes a place where weeds are growing up through the cracks of abandoned pavement. However in the present a different type of world has been built that is not yet obsoleted by the ideology and fanaticism of a movement of fringe lunatics ....and their political influence is going to be pulled like a rotten tooth, not left to gangrenously afflict and bring death to the entire body of society. Next election is going to be a good time to get rid of the cancer of big government on the economy that has been a disease for the country in more ways than it has been its servant. What kind of joke is a government that presumes to operate for more than three years without even an approved budget? That's not a rational or lawful or legitimate government ....it is an encounter group of crime cartel members scamming a nation. Suppose just for a purely hypothetical scenario that energy costs in the United States were reducible to 2 cents per kilowatt hour for the power grid energy, and synthetic fuel and or LNG for internal combustion uses was 10 cents a gallon. Suppose the guaranteed valuation of a dollar was set and fixed as 50 kWHr or 10 gallons of synfuel or LNG equals the bearer bond redeemable value for a dollar. That would immediately go a very long way towards a new industrial revolution in the United States, putting millions of people back to work and making available the industrial complex necessary for retooling and infrastructure for all the AGW fanatics most glorious imagined shangrila sort of futureworld the construction of which must begin of course in the present world. If Arizona is to be paved with hundreds of square miles of solar panels then energy will be required and factories will be required for their manufacture. [Edited on 15-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine] Mr. Wizard International Hazard Posts: 1040 Registered: 30-3-2003 Member Is Offline Mood: No Mood GreenD.. You didn't say corn fed in the post I quoted; I did read it closely. Are you a farmer? I'm not either but I understand they are fed open range for a while, fed silage, and then to make the meat better, are fed grain near market time. Farmers and cattlemen are very well aware of the best procedures to bring the most meat to market, at the best price. Your point about the US deforesting is moot. We grow more than we use. I have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make. The information about 5% of the US covered in tar is without any kind of verification. My figures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States for the contiguous US area is 3,717,873 miles squared, and the paved portion from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719230638AA... of 61,000 Sq miles give a percentage of 1.6%, which is less than the 5% you mention. You seem to value your opinions as though they were facts. You do seem to have a need to spread education, as you said. Nobody likes to argue with facts that can't be nailed down, or changed as the discussion evolves. dann2 International Hazard Posts: 1523 Registered: 31-1-2007 Member Is Offline Mood: No Mood The Chinese lust to own two (or ten) cars, some boats, large (much too big) house(s), eat far too much etc etc etc. They are equally as pig headed and will help eat the planet away. They are not up at the figure of per capita consumption as there is in the US etc. When they are (along with India) we are all fucked. Most of what is consumed in the west creates alot of filth which is exported abroad directly or indirectly more and more. Thank god lots of those jobs are not being done this side of the world. They are just too dirty for our nice green natural country (LOL). Dann2 Bot0nist International Hazard Posts: 1559 Registered: 15-2-2011 Location: Right behind you. Member Is Offline Mood: Streching my cotyledons. Agree fully. Windmills and solar are great, but we need those power plants. Nuclear energy, if done right, is a great resource for mankind to exploit. U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism! Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow. Rosco Bodine Banned Posts: 6370 Registered: 29-9-2004 Member Is Offline Mood: analytical We have an extensive power grid and we need to fully light it up with cheap kilowatt hours to the tune of terrawatt millenia. Make too cheap to meter become a reality. Show the rest of the world how it's done. bquirky National Hazard Posts: 316 Registered: 22-10-2008 Location: Perth Western Australia Member Is Offline Mood: No Mood An electric motor is >90% efficient, while an internal combustion is <35%. I love electric cars ive actually built two. but sadly this 90 vs 35 % idea isnt true what is true is at present where I live electricity is cheaper per km than petrol you have to include the efficacy of each step in the coal -> tires process each of the following costs some percentage of total efficancy the motor controller battery discharge efficancy battery self discharge battery charge efficancy the battery charger The electrical distribution system <-- this is the big one the efficancy of the power generation station if you include all the costs of refining and transporting the oil it probably still works out in the electric cars favor but its not a slam dunk [Edited on 17-2-2012 by bquirky] Endimion17 International Hazard Posts: 1468 Registered: 17-7-2011 Location: shores of a solar sea Member Is Offline Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second  Quote: Originally posted by GreenD IrC - "Hypocrites all" is quite a statement. Have you met all of them? I also highly doubt that an electric car is less environmentally friendly than a fossil fuel produced one. . . An electric motor is >90% efficient, while an internal combustion is <35%. I'm a "greeny" but I'm not one of those fadsters who picked up on it for the style, reputation. I have a solar panel in my back yard, and I'd have plenty more but I rent - I do not own, and further installment would be a very foolish thing to do. I ride my bike to the store, simply 'cause I don't have to drive the car. I fanatically turn off power strips, lights, tvs, monitors, and other electronics when not in use - simply because they don't need to be on. I heavily consider all of my options when I purchase food or clothing, simply because some are more wasteful then others. I'd rather spend a little more money on some healthier food with better practices that aren't breeding grounds for super-bugs/viruses, nurseries for invasive species, or detrimental to the environment as a whole. Plus, usually more expensive food is less processed (not always common sense) and healthier for you. Its food for god sake - you're made out of it - why not pay a little more for some quality? I don't have an electric car, cause it doesn't make any sense for me at the moment as well as my funds being that of a student. I am going to absolutely purchase this when I land a job that fulfills the monetary requirements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GywMHb_3hK4&feature=relat... (30,000$ ) maybe I'll wait for the 5thh generation.

The problem with electric cars is that their carbon footprint (and other footprints) depends on the source of electricity used for their construction and the source for powering them.
If everyone in USA would all of the sudden start using electric cars, that would be an environmental disaster because that country is mainly powered by fossil fuels.
I can not believe you're focusing on engine efficiency alone. Dude, you have to take into account its whole cost-benefit analysis of the whole live cycle.
The cost of producing the materials for electric cars is huge, compared to regular cars. Not only the energy is an issue, but matter, too. It takes a lot of neodymium, which is extracted, purified and reduced in China (where they don't give a fuck about a whole lot of people, let alone environment). That's an economical problem, too. For instance, USA has some neodymium, but the whole infrastructure for getting it on the table in a metallic form is laughably poor compared to China's.

You can't look at electric cars from a engine efficiency standpoint only. FYI, things that seem to be economically efficient at the local level can be money black holes, promoted by corruption only. There are tons of problems with that.
I'd like an electric car, too, but not if my country burps carbon and sulphur into the atmosphere, and the cars are made in a totally environmentally unfriendly way.

 Quote: I don't, personally, need a nuclear plant. I'm pretty sure with around the price of an SUV I could power more than just my house with wind and solar, especially in a warmer climate. People who set their A/C at 65 and heat at 75 will have trouble with this, though. If you want to buy an SUV and then rely on someone else's power - thats up to you. If you'd rather live where you work, take public transport or be in biking distance with a purchase of renewable energy, that is also up to you! My only problem with nuclear energy is where are the breeder reactors. Without them - you still have waste, and that waste, if mobile, isn't something you want around your house.

Yes, you can't power your house with a small windmill and few PV panels, but you'll have to spit some hard cash and you'll never have the same amount of kilowatts. Your quality of life would suffer considerably, and by suffer I don't mean "get worse than the luxurious life you're having right now".

There are tons of things to consider. Wind and sunshine can not be the bases of power systems. Ask anyone who works on power grids, ask any professor at mechanical engineering faculty that works with power and power grids.
Wind and sunshine are unreliable, not energy dense enough and too expensive per kwh of electricity produced. They can be an addition to the existing power grid only.

Anyone who says these two can be the bases of a modern power grid obviously knows shit about power grids. I don't know much about them, but I know some basics.

Check out this diagram I made.

It's simplified, but it works as a model. The red part are the basic power needs. They fluctuate slowly through the year, and follow seasonal demands. The base is obviously the thickest part of the graph surface.
The green part is intermediate demand and comprises everything that's not the base and not peak demand.
The blue part are the daily or even hourly fluctuations. Very edgy and sometimes far from regular.

Can you supply the red part with wind and sun? NO. Impossible to do, and if you try to increase the amount of sun/wind power in this sector beyond a certain point, power grid failures occur.

The blue part is interesting. For example, my country is in the process of solving those demands by investing in small hydroelectric power plants which are famous for the speed of going online and offline from the power grid. You can't turn nuclear/coal on and off quickly enough - in order to cover everything they'd have to work all the time and lots of energy would be wasted.
(additional info: almost all hydroelectric potential is utilized in Croatia, and is a part of the base demand; those small PPs are being built on smaller rivers and are a cause of great discomfort to true eco-friendly people because they wreck havoc with the local environment)

Natural gas thermal power plants are pretty quick, yet still slower than hydroelectric power plants, so they can to be incorporated into the green part.

Regarding the unreliability of wind/sun, wind doesn't blow all the time with the same power. Those fluctuations in the power system give headaches to the technitians and can cause power failures (happened already). Efficient sunshine is available through one part of the day. When wind is gone, when sun is gone, natural gas thermal power plants kick in. No batteries (ROFL!), natural gas and that's it.

Do you see now how complicated this gets? It's not "I'm gonna put some panels on my roof and fuck you America!".
Power grids are demanding. It's not just technology, it's an art, too. All power sources need to be economically and energetically during the whole life cycle, and need to be implemented at places and in times when it's appropriate.

[Edited on 17-2-2012 by Endimion17]

Polverone
Now celebrating 18 years of madness
17-2-2012 at 17:30
watson.fawkes
International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17 There are tons of things to consider. Wind and sunshine can not be the bases of power systems. [...] Wind and sunshine are unreliable, not energy dense enough and too expensive per kwh of electricity produced. They can be an addition to the existing power grid only.
The issue you are raising is one of base load power vs. peak load power. Both solar and wind are indeed candidate for base load power generation.

Solar concentrators can use thermal energy storage to smooth out the output power. One technique is to molten salt to gather heat during the day and discharge it at night. One of these, the Solana Generating Station, is scheduled for completion next year.

Compressed air energy storage is similar for wind power. Wind turbines generate energy that pumps air into underground geologic formations. The combination eliminates intermittency problems with wind storage. There's been a utility scale plant in Huntorf, Germany using this principle that's been in operation since 1978. In this case it's been converting base load power to peak load power, but the same technology is available for wind. I don't know of a wind plant using this technology yet.
Rosco Bodine
Banned

Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti
 Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine The facts support undeniably my position so plainly that denial then becomes an irrational compulsion of the oppositional defiant disorder type which is more usual for adolescents than for being known as an afflcition of grown men. I am being practical and pragmatic .....but my rational analysis and proposals are falling on deaf ears.

Your position is reasonable as well, but global warming is a manifestation of many factors combined, the irresponsible use of energy resources being one of them.

The "irresponsible use of energy" is true mainly with respect to excessive use of "security lighting" which should be curtailed particularly in areas where the electricity sourcing such security lighting is generated by combustion fired boilers. However it is not irresponsible use or waste of energy which represents most use of energy, which is generally utilized properly for performing tasks requiring that energy. Because energy is too costly already, waste is only a small fraction of the total energy consumption, nearly all of which is used in a reasonable and efficient manner.
 Quote: I am a supporter of nuclear power as well, but (again from a pragmatic perspective), we cannot have the entire world to run off of nuclear, simply because nuclear power plants cannot handle peak power loads.

Actually that is not true. Global nuclear power is possible.
 Quote: There is no silver bullet solution to the energy problem,

That is "energy werewolf propaganda" for indeed there is
a "silver bullet" available in the applied science "problem solutions" technology portfolio. The problem resides with a lack of "reader comprehension" for the ones who browse that technology portfolio, who cannot make up their mind what is needed to be ordered from the catalog.
 Quote: we just have to harness energy wherever it is available and as efficiently as possible.
No, there is no necessity to "harness energy" wherever it is available as efficiently as possible. That represents an incorrect idea that the energy which is there "unharnessed" is somehow not serving any other useful function in nature as if nature itself was a useless consumer and waster of energy, as if nature must be "corrected" from such error by intervention of mans engineering. Every breeze that blows is not "wasted energy" if it is not being harnessed to drive a wind turbine.
Even the wind and even sunlight have a purpose in nature.
And so do the tides of the ocean and the flow of rivers have a purpose. Some may feel it is no environmental sin to
cover a prairie with windmills or to cover a desert with solar panels, or to build dams and hydroelectric plants.......
yet a nuclear reactor which has a much smaller footprint
environmentally is not so politically acceptable due to the containment breach hazard. That is really the issue along with waste disposal concerns. If those concerns are made non-issues, then nuclear actually becomes in all ways superior to every other method with respect to environmental friendliness, and then a different sensitivity
will become evident about doing things like building windfarms for blenderizing every bird of the air in the region
and filling the air with industrial noise, not to mention the unsightliness of so much ceaseless mechanization.
 Quote: Here are some things to do to make the world a better place: -We use fossil fuels from Venezuela to drive our existing machinery, -but also harness solar power in the Sahara desert to desalinate water for drinking. -Cut down massive stretches of forest for lumber, making sure to reforest the land right afterwards; thereby keeping forests young. -Harness wind power off the coast and harness the immense energy source right under our feet. -Use solar, geothermal and nuclear energy for process heating. -Stay away from biofuels and coal, develop battery technology instead. -Develop smart grid technology to use energy more effectively. -Improve insulation in existing housing. -Develop plasma gasification technology to process and recycle garbage. If there is anything to add to this list, please comment.

[1] Buy all the oil available from a friendly trade balanced and friendly neighboring state like Canada as a preferred trading partner, accepting delivery through the Keystone pipeline

[2] The United States should focus on making the United States a better place *first* before it can prioritize the expeditionary mission of making anywhere else in the world a better place. The United States should mind its own business and stick to its charter which is its own constitution as a first order of business, and clean up its own messes in its own backyard before sticking its nose in anybody elses business. Put that at the top of the list as a priority and get that done first, then worry about the rest of the things believed to be issues of some global dimensions in some rationally prioritized order. How can the United States better retreat from the audacity and arrogance of behaving as if it was the worlds self-appointed policeman than by demonstrating a sudden and verifiably complete abandonment of excessively oppressing, taxing, regulating, and policing its own citizens and industries? What happened to freedom? What happened to the freedom spoken of in the Declaration and in the Constitution? Why the swift, stealthy reestablishment of so much "English law" and abuses following a revolution to purge such evils and do something better? Did the crown ever chain so many poor or magnify so many rich as this monstrous, duplicitous fraud? A Lancaster says no. The gestapoesque mentality of a tyrant police state and despot is not welcome either domestically or abroad, except by wild men who seek and need a master to rule over them or ignorant sheep who seek and need to be led. All the rest simply resent the imposition of authority which has no valid premise.

[3] Get every person out of government who thinks they are a public master instead of a public servant.

[Edited on 18-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]
franklyn
International Hazard

Posts: 3027
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

Seems reasonable given this is the principle by which cloud chambers visualize
charged particles ( radioactivity ) from a disintegrating atomic nucleus.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/scientific-experiment-t...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature1...

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel...

Global warming advocates also cannot explain how it is that
the supposed mean temperature increase results in decreased
precipitation which depletes glaciers of replenishing snowfall.
As a result the glacier's surface becomes dirtier without a
white cover of new snow , accelerating the surface warming
from sunlight and resulting melt..The glacier recedes up the
valley because there is less weight of recurring snow fall to
push it down hill.

A reasoned analysis of " climate change ".
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-it-so-cold-should-big-f...

.
Endimion17
International Hazard

Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline

Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second

 Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes The issue you are raising is one of base load power vs. peak load power. Both solar and wind are indeed candidate for base load power generation. Solar concentrators can use thermal energy storage to smooth out the output power. One technique is to molten salt to gather heat during the day and discharge it at night. One of these, the Solana Generating Station, is scheduled for completion next year. Compressed air energy storage is similar for wind power. Wind turbines generate energy that pumps air into underground geologic formations. The combination eliminates intermittency problems with wind storage. There's been a utility scale plant in Huntorf, Germany using this principle that's been in operation since 1978. In this case it's been converting base load power to peak load power, but the same technology is available for wind. I don't know of a wind plant using this technology yet.

Yeah, I know there are systems that can store energy. I've got a nice hydroelectric example less than 50 km from my place. Big ass tube going more than half kilometre down, been there as a kid several times. The complete efficiency is the problem, not to mention the fact that this only delays the problem of not having proper wind or sunshine for extended periods of time. That's why wind and sun can't be the ultimate base. You can't depend on them. They're unreliable. Sunshine has the exception for some hot, arid regions with extremely high insolation, though not many live there.

I could totally see a molten salt with heat tank working in cities like Dubai. They've got the money for such expensive power sources, although I don't think they'd care about it, with all that oil underneath. They might build it just to amaze stupid Westerners, though, like when they were talking about making a "green city". It's a fucking desert. It wasn't supposed to be green nor can it be "green".

My point was to emphasize the various issues around different power sources. People usually think it's all about the amount of power produced, and it's far from that. At least people at SM should know better than that.

Pages:  1  ..  6    8

 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Detritus » Say Goodbye to Global Warming Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Responsible Practices   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Detritus   » Test Forum