Global warming - technical solutions

[jimbob27]

Have a murder amnesty every monday. You're allowed to kill whoever you like on a monday. That should have a big impact on the overpopulation of the world, which is the root cause of all these problems.

 

[Meister]

May seems to be a bit off-topic...But I would like to ask "When the gases are emitted to the sky,how much time will be required to see the effect on Earth?"

That means when factories emit such gases,its effect on Earth,or global warming will not be reflected immediately,but "sometimes" later(I guess),and do anyone knows how much or how long is the "sometimes"?

 

[cubsfan6506]

• 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 do you think?

• 
  
  Ya lets burn up stuff into our atmosphere thats a good idea to reduce warming.

 

[The Fjonis]

Nice thread. I'd like to pick out a few quotes and commenting on them:

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

Very important point. Many of the people who are very eager to reduce CO2 outputs from powerplants don't think about where we should put the crap once we have filtered it out. Here we need more reserach! Storing it in dried out oil wells and in other geological formations seems promising, but establishing a capacity for dealing with large quantities of CO2 is difficult and far from happening today the way I see it.

If we can produce the energy for hydrogen using nuclear or alternative energy we'd be set.

The way I see it, this is a core issue for the long term climate solution. We need

a) clean sources of energy that can be taken advantage of in large power plants (for example fusion reactors, thorium power plants, or -- in the short term -- cleansed coal-, oil- or gas powerplants)
b) an effective way of distributing this energy to mobile units (ships, cars, planes) Here, hydrogen as an energy carrier is promising. But personally I have faith in a revolution within battery technology. I myself am studying nano technology, and very promising progress has been made within this field.
c) an effective way of distributing the energy to land based units (industries, homes etc). Again, nanotech shows promise. They are looking at better energy carriers instead of copper in power lines (20% of the electrical energy in the US is lost due to resistance in the power grid)

Every house should have solar panels on their roof.

The first generation of solar panels, which are still the most common type used, are actually not energy efficient even in a life cycle perspective. The investment in terms of energy just to produce them way exceeds the benefit you can extract in its life time. Also, the economical aspect was just as poor. However, second and third generation solar panels show much more promise. Again, using nanotech, one has managed design technologies which lets us extract as much as 80% of the sunlight, compared to the 20-30% for first generation panels. Then we're talking.

 

[The Fjonis]

May seems to be a bit off-topic...But I would like to ask "When the gases are emitted to the sky,how much time will be required to see the effect on Earth?"

That means when factories emit such gases,its effect on Earth,or global warming will not be reflected immediately,but "sometimes" later(I guess),and do anyone knows how much or how long is the "sometimes"?

Good question. AFAIK nobody really knows, but we do know that there is significant delay in the system. Even if we cut our CO2 emissions completely starting today, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would still increase for some time before very slowly returning to "normal" (we're talking centuries here).

What I'd like to know is the predicted temperature change if we burn all our fossile fuels available with the current rate of increase. This is the worst (and maybe most realistic, sadly) case scenario. Getting those figures out to the public might make more people realise the dangerous game we're playing. I'm sure there are models which have calculated it, but I haven't seen the figures.

 

[El_Machinae]

Increased CO2 levels will have (at least for the initial timeframe) a compounding effect. The same reason why a blanket will warm you up quickly, but also allows you to get much warmer later at night if you keep it on. (Eventually, though, you can only get so warm).

 

[Swedishguy]

Have a murder amnesty every monday. You're allowed to kill whoever you like on a monday. That should have a big impact on the overpopulation of the world, which is the root cause of all these problems.

Eh, and how will anyone be happy about that when? Since everyone are dead/dull?

 

[Oerdin]

What about landfills with methane recapture?

It would help I'm sure though the truth is methane breaks down so quickly in the atmosphere that it really isn't that big of an issue. We're talking a residency time of a couple of days tops. CO2 is not a very good green house gas but it stays around for a very long time thus the cencern.

 

[History_Buff]

Electric Cars, and more efficient techniques of electricity generation.

By moving to Electric Cars, you can centralize the emissions within your power generation plant, where is it much easier, and cheaper, to reduce emissions. The other day a prof was going over how by using various techniques (Nuclear Power, CO2 Recapture and Sequestration, Renewable Alternatives) you could reduce US power based emissions by 50-60% over the next 30 years, in exchange for a cost of only 2c/kWh. 2 cents over 30 years is something most people would never even notice.

 

[BasketCase]

In the long term, population growth will supplant just about any solution we come up with.

Lots of people are making an effort to reduce emissions and smallify their CO2 "footprint"--but right now, the increasing number of footprints is turning out to be the deciding factor.

There's only a finite amount of space on the Earth for plants to grow, and any method of sequestration is probably finite as well.

Nuclear power seems to be the only solution that will be effective in the long term--and, of course, nuclear power has its own special brand of problem.....

 

[crabapple]

Have a murder amnesty every monday. You're allowed to kill whoever you like on a monday. That should have a big impact on the overpopulation of the world, which is the root cause of all these problems.

well having a rule that every couple would just be able to have one child would be a less drastic solution

 

[History_Buff]

Then you end up with all kinds of problems, that ironically end up helping the goal along Just look at China.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Well burning methane produces carbon dioxide anyway.

According to the US EPA, methane is about 20 times as potent a greenhouse gase as CO2, molecule for molecule. Since burning a molecule of CH4 gives only one molecule of CO2, I'd say it's a good trade.

No one's mentioned ocean seeding yet. I liked that one.

 

[emzie]

I like the idea of building a giant ring in space to block sunlight.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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).

Why does your neighbor leave his porch light on all the time? Isn't the Sun bright enough where you live to see your houses in the daytime?

I can't stand it when people leave their porch lights on for no reason. It's one thing if it's night time and people are outside. But it's wasteful in the daytime, and at night, unnecessarily-lit porch lights contribute to light pollution and make it difficult to impossible to do any astronomy!

 

[Shaihulud]

Grow trees on the street and city areas, a minimum number of trees/area. Covering Earth with sheets of aluminium in space to decrease/decrease temperature. Social engineering by genociding and birth control. Cover buildings in mosses. Encourage plankton growth by churning up all the yummy things in deep sea (atomic weapons are a must). Make every electrical appliances produce ozone, it sterilizes and kills people as well as protecting the enviroment all at the same time.

 

[Gogf]

People should lost weight (so they don't have to run their AC's all summer)

I am not overweight, but I still like to be cool during the summer.

Stop government subsidies on huge grain, dairy and meat businesses and instead redistribute it to small local farmers

How does this help to stop global warming?

Force carmakers to produce at least 20% hybrids and 20% full electric cars

What's the point of forcing car-markers to produce cars if nobody is going to buy them? Isn't it a much more viable solution to provide an incentive to build such vehicles by giving a tax break for people who buy hybrids and electric cars?

Build cars that run on used plastic garbage

How can a car "run on used plastic garbage"?

and hydrogen power & emit only distilled bottled water for human consumption

Why is capturing the water emitted by hydrogen-powered cars important?

 

[Narz]

I am not overweight, but I still like to be cool during the summer.

Ok. When you buy your own home build one that stays cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

How does this help to stop global warming?

Industrial agriculture is very polluting (especially the meat & dairy industries). There is no reason to subsidize them in a supposedly free market.

What's the point of forcing car-markers to produce cars if nobody is going to buy them? Isn't it a much more viable solution to provide an incentive to build such vehicles by giving a tax break for people who buy hybrids and electric cars?

Ok, your idea works too.

How can a car "run on used plastic garbage"?

I don't know. It would be pretty cool though, eh?

Why is capturing the water emitted by hydrogen-powered cars important?

That was a joke.

It would save alot of people from buying bottled water though.

You ask a lot of questions. That's a good thing though.

 

[El_Machinae]

According to the US EPA, methane is about 20 times as potent a greenhouse gase as CO2, molecule for molecule. Since burning a molecule of CH4 gives only one molecule of CO2, I'd say it's a good trade.

Doesn't methane have a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere? Then again, if our CH4 output from garbage will continue to rise then the half-life might not matter - but only if it's accelerating at a certain rate.

I like the idea of building a giant ring in space to block sunlight.

I was thinking that giant balloons should be lifted over Greenland, to cast enormous shadows!

Why does your neighbor leave his porch light on all the time? Isn't the Sun bright enough where you live to see your houses in the daytime?

I can't stand it when people leave their porch lights on for no reason. It's one thing if it's night time and people are outside. But it's wasteful in the daytime, and at night, unnecessarily-lit porch lights contribute to light pollution and make it difficult to impossible to do any astronomy!

I don't like it either; but I cannot control his behaviour. I hope to mention to him that flourescent bulbs don't get worn out from turning on and off like the old ones did. Anyway though, it cut down his consumption.

Luckily my backyard is very good for seeing stars, so the front light isn't such a problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

That iron seeding looks pretty useful. And, to be honest, it looks like it should be cheap enough that a philanthropist should be able to do it.