Global warming - technical solutions

[Adebisi]

I hope there hasn't been a thread like this before.

Since there is so much talk about global warming and how greenhouse gas emissions should be cut, I think we could discuss technical solutions in this thread. That is, new technology that will lower the emissions without lowering our standard or living or giving advantages to competing nations. No new Kyoto protocol, in other words.

These are some solutions I think would work:

• Nuclear power plants could replace coal power. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions at all.
• Better waste treatment - waste burning instead of landfills. Burning produces carbon dioxide, but landfills ooze methane, which is a signicantly more powerful greenhouse gas.
• Recycling - who says it is our God-given right to throw away precious metals? Making steel out of scrap produces far less carbon dioxide and consumes less energy than steel made from ore, and is of higher quality.
• Biodiesel instead of petroleum as fuel for cars. I am a little sceptical about ethanol and hydrogen.

What do you think?

 

[Perfection]

[*]Better waste treatment - waste burning instead of landfills. Burning produces carbon dioxide, but landfills ooze methane, which is a signicantly more powerful greenhouse gas.

What about landfills with methane recapture?

 

[Narz]

• People should/might want to, get into biking.
• Businesses turn off lights when not operational
• SUV tax breaks eliminated and replaced with excess taxes
• No government subsidies on oil
• More tax breaks on alternative energy equipment (solar panels, etc.)
• People should lost weight (so they don't have to run their AC's all summer)
• Stop government subsidies on huge grain, dairy and meat businesses and instead redistribute it to small local farmers
• Force carmakers to produce at least 20% hybrids and 20% full electric cars
• Build cars that run on used plastic garbage and hydrogen power & emit only distilled bottled water for human consumption

 

[Adebisi]

Well burning methane produces carbon dioxide anyway. Besides, there hasn't been much research about wether plastics for example stay inert after the methane capture. A burning facility also produces more energy which can be used to replace fossile fuels.

This is true for what I know from Finnish plants at least. Methane recapture produces very little energy compared to burning and does not stop all decomposing to methane.

 

[Adebisi]

Narz: The reason I dont believe in hydrogen powered cars is that hydrogen isn't really a fuel, it's a carrier of energy. The energy has to come from somewhere else (nuclear power would be an option, but it would have to be built first). Same goes for "electric cars". Compressing hydrogen to its liquid form also requires lots of energy. The energy in biodiesel and ethanol comes from the sun.

 

[Perfection]

Narz: The reason I dont believe in hydrogen powered cars is that hydrogen isn't really a fuel, it's a carrier of energy. The energy has to come from somewhere else (nuclear power would be an option, but it would have to be built first). Same goes for "electric cars". Compressing hydrogen to its liquid form also requires lots of energy.

Well, the point is not to make energy but to get energy into a convenient form. If we can produce the energy for hydrogen using nuclear or alternative energy we'd be set. The question just becomes a matter of economics.

 

[Narz]

Narz: The reason I dont believe in hydrogen powered cars is that hydrogen isn't really a fuel, it's a carrier of energy. The energy has to come from somewhere else (nuclear power would be an option, but it would have to be built first).

I know, from all I've heard, hydrogen cars are a joke and a net energy loser (my last suggestion was a joke option ).

Same goes for "electric cars".

Well technically we already had electric cars but automakers decided to can them since gasoline cars were more profitable.

Compressing hydrogen to its liquid form also requires lots of energy. The energy in biodiesel and ethanol comes from the sun.

Well it all comes from the sun when you get down to it, right?

Just was reading this, seems that corn Ethanol isn't really all that cheap to produce (though still cheaper than the true cost of gas I'm sure).

Spoiler :

Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol

Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2007 Delivery
$2.49

Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol
$0.28

Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol
$0.09

Add cost of subsidies paid to blender
$0.51

Total Direct Costs per Gallon
$3.37

Added cost from waste
$0.40

Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user's engine
$0.06

Total Indirect Costs per Gallon
$0.46

Added cost of lost energy
$1.27

Added cost of food (American family of four)
$1.79

Total Social Costs
$3.06

Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend
$6.89

IMO, we (world governments, scientists, engineers, inventors, etc.) should focus 100% on researching renewable energy and improving the quality of fuel cells.

 

[Arcadian83]

*short rant re: Corn Ethanol*

I'm glad they at least specify 'corn' instead of making the huge assumtion that everyone else seems to: that all biodiesel will come from corn. Just because corn among the best food crops does not mean it is automatically the best oily fuel crop. Right now it looks like algae is better.

Yet even Consumer Reports (among many others) had a big ol' ear of corn to represent 'biodiesel'. Can't stand it....

I think we're just obsessed with the possibility of encouraging the growth of the stuff that right now we are paying farmers not to grow.

 

[brennan]

Every house should have solar panels on their roof.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are personal, local, national, and international solutions.

Nationally and internationally, all you can do is express your opinion to your government. So, I'll focus on personal.

- measure the distance-travelled of some of your food products. Local foods tend to not require as much fuel.
- losing weight is not a bad idea. Apparently the American airline industry spent $125 million extra in 2003 (in fuel costs) only because the average weight of the customer went up. As well, apparently reducing the weight of your commuting car by 100lbs saves ~$40/year in fuel costs.
- I've thought a bit about carbon sequestering. My backyard has grass in it, and I've realised that grass only buries its roots about an inch or so down. I went hunting for backyard plants that have a deeper root system, and realised that wild strawberries are a naturally-local plant and that they have one foot's worth of root systems. This means I can sequester more carbon by growing them in my backyard.

Keep in mind we need solutions for both sequestering AND reducing CO2 output.

I've also purchased a high-efficiency lightbulb for a neighbour who leaves his 60W porchlight on 24h. This will reduce that output to 15W, saving him about $3 a month (and reduce our electrical consumption an equal amount).

In general, it's our electricity consumption that's the main cause, not gasoline. Though cutting down either will help.

 

[batteryacid]

The easyest thing is switching to lighter cars:

The CO2 emissions cannot be reduced as long as a 1000 kg maschine is used to move 70 kg load- there is no physical necessity for this mismatch between load and transport vehicle.

 

[Captain Planet]

I predict that by nuking America we can actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted over a long period of time. Furthermore, I could live in a tropical paradise in Iqaluit.

 

[Captain Planet]

The easyest thing is switching to lighter cars:

The CO2 emissions cannot be reduced as long as a 1000 kg maschine is used to move 70 kg load- there is no physical necessity for this mismatch between load and transport vehicle.

Automotives have had the same MPG ratings since the 60s. Lighter vehicles won't fix that.

 

[Swedishguy]

Spray the whole athmosphere with sulphur. The PH will decrease.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

Clearly the only solution is more Pirates, as indicated in the enclosed chart

 

[Captain Planet]

Clearly the only solution is more Pirates, as indicated in the enclosed chart

I concede. Captain Pirate now.

 

[Sidhe]

Clearly the only solution is more Pirates, as indicated in the enclosed chart

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pchart.jpg/776px-Pchart.jpg[/IMG]

How dare you, clearly both pirate and ninjas are fundemental in any global warming solution. Take your pirate only based religious nonsense and go tell it to someone who cares proselytising really I expected more

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:PirateGraph.jpg

Ninjaists

“The Ninjas be a ghostly lot.”

~ Oscar Wilde on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

The Reformed Church of Alfredo, alongside several other rebel sects wisely believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster favors sleek black Ninja clothes over the more widely-accepted Piratian view. Representing a medium, members of congregation Ninja-Pirate Assembly of God are comfortable in floppy pirate boots, tricorn hat, black ninja gi with 2 swords on the back, and a nighthawk on the shoulder; a look, Oscar Wilde says, is "Yummy !"

 

[Synobun]

If we were to go on with the protect trees thing for GW, we'd need to ban cars then, rubber is made from trees.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we need some way of getting CO2 out of the air; increasing biomass seems to be a good way (which is why I think that putting plants that will grow deep and fibrous roots in our backyard is a way to help).

 

[Swedishguy]

Recycling - who says it is our God-given right to throw away precious metals? Making steel out of scrap produces far less carbon dioxide and consumes less energy than steel made from ore, and is of higher quality.

And those toxic gases the recycling plants produces are just bi-effects, I suppose.