Global warming - technical solutions

[Gogf]

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

I would think that's rather difficult.

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

I am not an economist, but I'm also not a fan of farm subsidies. However, I can't see what use there would be to subsidizing small, local agriculture.

I also question whether industrialized agriculture is really a bad thing. Should everyone have to grow their own food? We used to have a society like that before the industrial revolution, and it wasn't very productive.

Wouldn't a better solution just be to have stricter governmental regulation on what can be used as a fertilizer and what can't?

Ok, your idea works too.

Good, because I suspect that's how it will happen.

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

Yup, but I doubt it's possible .

That was a joke.

"Narz Spring Water"

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think you may have heard of the $25 million dollar prize for anyone who can pioneer a method for capturing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Do you guys have any ideas?

 

[Gothmog]

There are basically two mainstream ideas currently circulating.

Sequestration: this is being applied in europe but mostly directly from factories. Distributed sources are problematic. Best implimentation I know of involves using a low pH solution in a sort of waterfall, then filtering out solid carbonates that precipitate.

Sulfur: we know that sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere will increase global albedo (i.e. reflect some solar energy). So in theory we could inject sulfur into the stratosphere in an amound calculated to have an opposing effect on global warming (i.e. match up the W/m2 forcings).

 

[El_Machinae]

I've seen this thing where we introduce new factors to cancel out other pollutants before ... it rarely works out. We're usually best off getting rid of the original pollution.

 

[History_Buff]

I would think that's rather difficult.

It's actually rather easy, though not as much in an urban environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_heating

Since the sun traces pretty much the same path for every annual cycle, you can use that to site your windows, allowing maximum exposure in the Winter, and minimum in the Summer. To add to that, you can have solar operating convection cooling as well. The house also has to be very insulated.

 

[Elrohir]

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.

Hydrogen powered cars are an unrealistic dream, and a joke. To carry enough hydrogen to make it efficient, you'd have to carry bottles of it under extremely high pressure - get in a car wreck and have it explode, and you could take out 50 cars. I applaud everyone's desire to "save the world" and all that, but hydrogen cars aren't the way to go.

 

[Gothmog]

@El Machinae - yeah. I don't think it's a very good idea either. Part of the problem being that it will actually hurt some people (including some who are being helped by global warming - crop land opening up, fresh water cycles changing, etc.). But I think we should study it, we may get to a point where some action must be taken.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Hydrogen powered cars are an unrealistic dream, and a joke. To carry enough hydrogen to make it efficient, you'd have to carry bottles of it under extremely high pressure - get in a car wreck and have it explode, and you could take out 50 cars. I applaud everyone's desire to "save the world" and all that, but hydrogen cars aren't the way to go.

Remember that cars today have tanks full of a volatile substance called gasoline.

The real problem with hydrogen powered cars is that you have to expend energy to get the hydrogen in the first place. If this can be done more efficiently than a gasoline engine then all is well, if not, then it is useless.

 

[Narz]

I would think that's rather difficult.

I think these guys have classes in green building. Just a few months ago I remember someone posted a link about some $200K or $300K zero-energy house. I don't imagine it would be much harder to build a efficient house than an inefficent one.

I am not an economist, but I'm also not a fan of farm subsidies. However, I can't see what use there would be to subsidizing small, local agriculture.

I can but I don't think it would be necessary. How about no agricultural subsidies for anyone, let the consumer decide. Eliminate kickbacks for industrial agriculture and the little guy (local farmers) will automatically get more share of the market.

I also question whether industrialized agriculture is really a bad thing. Should everyone have to grow their own food? We used to have a society like that before the industrial revolution, and it wasn't very productive.

Not everyone grew their own food (though many did have food gardens in their back yard). There was a higher perecentage of farmers certainly but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Wouldn't a better solution just be to have stricter governmental regulation on what can be used as a fertilizer and what can't?

Tighter regulations in that area would be good. People will naturally go back to organic methods though as the price of petroluem based pesticides goes up.

Good, because I suspect that's how it will happen.

Probably. California already issued a mandate forcing auto-makers to produce a certain percentage of zero-emmission vechiles and the automakers lobbied against it until it was dropped.

Yup, but I doubt it's possible .

Neither do I.

"Narz Spring Water"

Catchy. I can see it now. Little yellow smilieys with crowns all along the outside of the bottles. Kids will be drinking it as a fashion statement. When you peel the (biodegradable) sticker off the outside it will have all sorts of cool environmental, politcal, social and philosophical commentary on the inside.

 

[Arcadian83]

Hi Narz. Sorry to argue with you about essentially the same things over multiple threads, but a couple of thing here hurt my head.

I think these guys have classes in green building. Just a few months ago I remember someone posted a link about some $200K or $300K zero-energy house. I don't imagine it would be much harder to build a efficient house than an inefficent one.

That I must say is pretty cool. Proper insulation and heat absorbtion/reflection are great for efficiency and are quite underrated.

Not everyone grew their own food (though many did have food gardens in their back yard). There was a higher perecentage of farmers certainly but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Yes, it is a bad thing! It is a decrease in productivity, which means more work for less gain! In medieval times one person in the countryside could grow enough food to feed themselves and one person in the city. That's 1:2 ratio of producers to consumers. Today it's over 1:100. In the U.S. we have oh so few and dwindling farmers, but we export food! The more food an individual can produce, the better a living they can make while maintaining low food prices. Everyone wins. Specialization and automation (modern farming machines) allow the rest of us to do other things with our time, like research and entertainment, instead of being stuck in the fields.

Probably. California already issued a mandate forcing auto-makers to produce a certain percentage of zero-emmission vechiles and the automakers lobbied against it until it was dropped.

I briefly looked it up, and the idea of a zero-emissions vehicle is absurd. They burn stuff. Burning intakes oxygen. Things must emit as much as they intake (or grow ). Calling electric cars zero-emission is a shell-game, especially if the power plant which produced the electricity is coal-burning. Bicycles technically make the rider emit more, but whatever , bikes are great!

 

[El_Machinae]

A lot of people don't have much 'productivity' outside of their job (which is sad), so if these people were to convert more of their living space into resource-producing assets (backyard garden, etc.) then we'd have an increase in efficiency. If two people are going to the factory each day, then the family that gardens in the evening is superior (for the economy) than the family that watches TV (assuming that the gardening is being done efficiently and without ecological drawbacks).

We work on making our backyard into a food-producing resource: this not only is an activity that's fun, but also reduces the 'pollution per calorie' of our diet - and this is a net benefit.

 

[Narz]

Hi Narz. Sorry to argue with you about essentially the same things over multiple threads, but a couple of thing here hurt my head.

No problem.

That I must say is pretty cool. Proper insulation and heat absorbtion/reflection are great for efficiency and are quite underrated.

I agree, I can't imagine why anyone (especially the wealthy) would just build a regular cookie-cutter home when they could build something intelligent & unique.

Yes, it is a bad thing! It is a decrease in productivity, which means more work for less gain! In medieval times one person in the countryside could grow enough food to feed themselves and one person in the city. That's 1:2 ratio of producers to consumers. Today it's over 1:100. In the U.S. we have oh so few and dwindling farmers, but we export food! The more food an individual can produce, the better a living they can make while maintaining low food prices. Everyone wins. Specialization and automation (modern farming machines) allow the rest of us to do other things with our time, like research and entertainment, instead of being stuck in the fields.

But our farming system is dependent on oil based pesticides, fertilizers and equipment. Organic farming may be slightly more labor intensive (though with planning it doesn't have to be as bad as in medieval times) but when you factor in the environmental costs it's clearly better.

I briefly looked it up, and the idea of a zero-emissions vehicle is absurd. They burn stuff. Burning intakes oxygen. Things must emit as much as they intake (or grow ). Calling electric cars zero-emission is a shell-game, especially if the power plant which produced the electricity is coal-burning. Bicycles technically make the rider emit more, but whatever , bikes are great!

I understand electricity "burns stuff" and that over half (AFAIK) plants in the US burn coal but even with that in mind the electric vehicles were (and then seized and destoried by the automakers who made them) less polluting than gasoline powered ones.

I'm a bit confused about how bikes aren't zero-emission. The rider may have to eat a bit more but if the excersise helps lower their resting heart rate (therefore making the body more efficient and "burning" less while resting) it almost evens out.

 

[BasketCase]

Y'all realize that we could make a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, RIGHT NOW, by getting the hell off this web site and shutting down our PC's so we're not burning 300 watts of electricity each??

(Okay, I confess--I'm doing 450 watts. I'm evil.)

Curious. I don't see any of us logging off.

I'm not just making a funny here, either. Truth is, while most of us probably do want to help, most of us are not willing to compromise our comfort level in the process.....

 

[Thorgalaeg]

CPU+normal LCD Monitor Consumption is around 70 W at normal use.

And BTW, which is your point?

 

[Murky]

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?

Nuclear power is risky but may be the only viable option for the near future. A better solution is a mix of nuclear and renewable like solar/wind/geo.

Recycling should be mandatory just like waste removal. There should be collection services for it.

What really is needed is a new project for energy not unlike the Manhattan project. Once we have a clean/renewable source of energy we can decrease the use of fossil fuels and eventually eliminate it.

Solving the global warming crisis is a bigger issue. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today there would still be a problem. The best way to reduce it would probably be to halt deforestation and implement a radical reforestation program using fast growing trees. Attempting to remove Co2 from the atmosphere by artificial means would probably would require more energy than we can currently produce.

 

[Narz]

Y'all realize that we could make a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, RIGHT NOW, by getting the hell off this web site and shutting down our PC's so we're not burning 300 watts of electricity each??

(Okay, I confess--I'm doing 450 watts. I'm evil.)

Curious. I don't see any of us logging off.

I'm not just making a funny here, either. Truth is, while most of us probably do want to help, most of us are not willing to compromise our comfort level in the process.....

I use a laptop which uses (I think) only about 100 or 150 watts.

I spend a lot of time reading books (zero energy except for manufacture and shipping) and biking (zero energy after purchas except for labor), I give myself leeway to use computers, flurosant lighting (and use of my wind-up LED flashlight when my GF is asleep) and the Internet. In my grandious thinking mind I enough good online to justify the cost.

 

[Arcadian83]

@El_Machinae
I meant productivity as in utility/labor. Chances are you are more productive at your day-job than in your garden, considering professionals mass-produce vegies. It is still good since you get gratification out of it, however.

But our farming system is dependent on oil based pesticides, fertilizers and equipment. Organic farming may be slightly more labor intensive (though with planning it doesn't have to be as bad as in medieval times) but when you factor in the environmental costs it's clearly better.

I think one can farm with modern technology and be ecologically sound. Also, I would think that the oil that goes into physical products would be miniscule compared to the amount of oil that is burned as fuel, especially since plastics/etc can be re-used and recycled.

Anyways, my intention is not to argue about organic farming, so suffice to say that I disagree about it.

(and then seized and destoried by the automakers who made them)

Yeah, that really was a shame. They made them in reaction to a subsidy, and when the subsidy left, so did they, and they took their ball home with them.

I'm a bit confused about how bikes aren't zero-emission...

*hand wavy* Human emissions are negligible, added metabolism (ala excrcise) is good for people and worth breathing for. Bikes are good.

My silly nitpicky point was that calling a bicycle zero-emissions is misleading, since it causes its rider to make additional emissions (by breathing to power muscles). I was trying to say that there is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle, those which claim to be such are just passing the emissions buck to someone else.

 

[El_Machinae]

@El_Machinae
I meant productivity as in utility/labor. Chances are you are more productive at your day-job than in your garden, considering professionals mass-produce vegies. It is still good since you get gratification out of it, however.

I think we're on the same wavelength. This is why I distinguished between 'leisure gardening' and full-time gardening. People's leisure gardening (as long as it's not more expensive than the food they produce) is essentially added productivity if they're doing it after work.

 

[Adebisi]

Bio-diesel is diesel that normal unmodified diesel engines can run on, therefore it is such a good option. Small amounts of ethanol can also be mixed into gasoline. We'll hardly ever be able to grow enough corn (for ethanol) or rapeseed (for bio-diesel) to replace fossile fuels but they can still significantly lower CO2 emissions. Some people have mentioned in this thread that growing crops for energy will raise food prices and thus not be efficient, but this seems like an odd reasoning to me - the price of product is determined by supply and demand, but our living standard will hardly be lowered by increasing demand for one product that happens to be produced from the same raw material as another product.

Nuclear power is risky but may be the only viable option for the near future. A better solution is a mix of nuclear and renewable like solar/wind/geo.

Recycling should be mandatory just like waste removal. There should be collection services for it.

What really is needed is a new project for energy not unlike the Manhattan project. Once we have a clean/renewable source of energy we can decrease the use of fossil fuels and eventually eliminate it.

Solving the global warming crisis is a bigger issue. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today there would still be a problem. The best way to reduce it would probably be to halt deforestation and implement a radical reforestation program using fast growing trees. Attempting to remove Co2 from the atmosphere by artificial means would probably would require more energy than we can currently produce.

It seems like we agree then. It surprises me that so few people support nuclear power, even though it has close to zero gashouse emissions. Modern reactors, such as the 1600MW reactor being built in Olkiluoto, Finland right now, are extremely safe. Even in the case of a meltdown, which is extremely unlikely, radiation can be contained well. Compared to the threat of climate change these risks are entirely negligable. All new power plants can withstand the impact of a hijacked airplane. We dont seem to be running out of uranium either.

The problem with deforestation is that it occurs in the third world and is difficult to control. There is forest growth in the developed world (source).

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

Actually yes, since waste has a high energy content and can replace fossile fuels, and since waste will decompose anyway, to methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Harmful substances are also incinerated and organic halides that are formed can be filtered out fairly well. Waste is burned in several European big cities, right were people live.

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.

If you read carefully I actually pointed out that in my original post.

 

[History_Buff]

Bio-diesel is diesel that normal unmodified diesel engines can run on, therefore it is such a good option. Small amounts of ethanol can also be mixed into gasoline. We'll hardly ever be able to grow enough corn (for ethanol) or rapeseed (for bio-diesel) to replace fossile fuels but they can still significantly lower CO2 emissions.

No, it won't. Bio-diesel and Ethanol will in fact increase CO2 output, because it requires so much energy to refine them. The only advantage they have is that it's a domestic source.