Gobal Warming would this work to fix it?

[Freenhult]

Global warming at this stage of industrialization is bunk. Think of this...
1) How long have we been producing CO2 and other green house gases? A little over a 100 years right? Maybe close to 200.

2) How long have we been producing green house gases in large quanities that would effect the entire planet?

3) How many volcanic eruptions have happened in the past 100 years? (Krakatou? St. Helens? Mt. Etna? Hawaii???)

4) Do the Volcanoes produce more green house gases than people? (I'm sure its yes)

Even if we stopped using oil and coal...its just going to get worse, lucky at a slower pace. Plus...how much CO2 do you need to raise the global temp .1* F anyway? Plus, global warming would take decades to even become a factor. I can remember it being -20 in Michigan a few years ago. Just because it got into the 60* this winter, doesn't mean global warming is blowing up the planet.

The best solution...STOP CHOPPING ALL THE BLOODY TREES DOWN!!!... Or move all the industry to the moon.

[Nohc]

I vote we colonize Mars so that we can all move their when Earth becomes inhospitable.

[Gen. Volkov]

I second the motion Nohc.


Freen in answer to your questions:

1. Since we first discovered coal. That was in the 1700's or so.

2. Since about 1850 during the Industrial Revolution.

3 and 4. Krakatoa was during the 1800's, and anything below a 3 on the Volcanic Eruption Index does not produce more CO2 than we do in a year. Mt. St. Helens produced more than we do in a couple years. The thing about volcanoes is, they are rare, and what they produce is a temporary elevation. Plus they produce sulfur dioxide, which reflects sunlight, so their warming effect is mitigated, and in some cases reversed. Volcanoes can produce alot of CO2, but you need a special kind of volcano, and it has to produce enough CO2 that it isn't absorbed within a few years by the ocean.

Global Warming is real. The planet IS warming. The only real debate left is if we are the cause, and the evidence mounts every day that it is. The number of scientists who refute human caused global warming has shrunk to a few hardcore individuals who will never be convinced. And if you don't agree, it's still a good idea not to burn hydrocarbons, so we should stop anyway, then we can see who is right.

It is the kina weird laziness that happens any how, so why not give it a go.
besides the type of carbon you would want to remove,
would have a specific resonant frequency.
much like quarts crystals, CO2 has a crystalline structure as well it would also have a specific frequency that causes it to react.
Just because we call it a gas doesn’t mean its not also a solid, our perception of atomic structure is skewed by how little we really know.

And what exactly would this excitation of CO2 molecules produce? Because that's all your frequency would accomplish. Make them go into a higher energy state. Which would warm the atmosphere. Because heat is just the speed of the molecules in the air. And a discrete molecule of CO2 floating in the air is not the same thing as a bunch of CO2 molecules in a crystaline structure aka. dry ice. It's just not practical to trawl through the atmosphere with a fleet of ships collecting CO2. It may not even be possibly with our current tech level. So how about we let the oceans and all there wonderful phytoplankton eat the carbon, and we stop adding excess to the system. That is definitely alot simpler. And a note: one fuel cell would not run a car for 10 years. Also, water is the fuel cell's product, the combination of Hydrogen and oxygen back into water is what powers the fuel cell.

Also, you can't just put the fuel rods back into the earth. Water would corrode them and then contaminate the water supply. To store it on earth, or under it, you have to find a place that's going to be geologically stable for the next 10 thousand years, and that has a water table low enough that you won't contaminate the water supply with radioactive waste.

One last thing, plutonium is a man-made substance, I'm sure you mean that they found Uranium under his farm.

[bjornredtail]

The waste can be recycled. 90% of it can be reused. The remaining ten percent takes up alot less space and there are places to store it. Other planets for one.

But the stuff is still extremely dense. Thus, very expencive and diffacult to launch into orbit. And if the stuff breaks up on launch...

On a diffrent note, this would be diffacult to do for political reasons as well. Enriching fuel also happens to be the first step in makeing an atomic weapon, which is something we do not want various nations to be able to do.

Electrolysis is somewhat inefficient, but fission and fusion produce so much power, so cheaply, it almost doesn't matter.

Once operational, that might be true. However there is a massive capital investment into building the nuclear plants. In fact, none have been built in the US without government subsities, unlike coal, gas and geothermal plants. Even if fuel is cheap and the reactor has decant output, you are still going to have recoop these massive investment into the construction of the thing sometime in the fineite lifespan of the reactor. So, for quite a while to come it will remain cheaper to reform propane, methane and methanol rather than break water up for Hyrdogen and Oxygen.

A related question: Would it be pratical to use fuel cells as batteries, compared to todays rechargable bateries? If so, how much preformance could we expect to gain from a fuel cell/electralsys battery versus current technology?

3 and 4. Krakatoa was during the 1800's, and anything below a 3 on the Volcanic Eruption Index does not produce more CO2 than we do in a year. Mt. St. Helens produced more than we do in a couple years. The thing about volcanoes is, they are rare, and what they produce is a temporary elevation.

How about geologic output as a whole?

Plus they produce sulfur dioxide, which reflects sunlight, so their warming effect is mitigated, and in some cases reversed.

And sulfur dixoide is good for our living envrioment then? Perhaps we should stop refineing diesel to such stringant standards as to increse the output of sulfer dixoide as to reflect sunlight thereby preventing global warming ?

Global Warming is real.

And so is the threat of widespread envromental damage caused by improper disposal of spent fuel rods and nuclear meltdowns.

And if you don't agree, it's still a good idea not to burn hydrocarbons, so we should stop anyway, then we can see who is right.

Then whatever would we burn? Or for that matter, eat, since quite bit of food product is hydrocarbons (carbohydrates and sugars). I see no modern technology capable of replaceing hydrocarbons in a number of places.

Although I do not agree with thier primary goal (reduceing carbon emissions, which I find quite harmless), This technology looks intresting. And it does have some benfical side effects, such as reductions in harmful mercery, particulate and nitrious oxide emissions and perhaps an alternative means of reforming Hydrogen.

[windhound]

The waste can be recycled. 90% of it can be reused. The remaining ten percent takes up alot less space and there are places to store it. Other planets for one.

But the stuff is still extremely dense. Thus, very expencive and diffacult to launch into orbit. And if the stuff breaks up on launch...

the fact that waste /can/ be recycled doesnt mean it will
its just easier to throw everything in one bag and toss it in a dumpster than to separate newpaper, plastic, glass, and metal containers. (I do recycle though, which is good.. concidering the amount of coca cola I consume)
launching it into space presents whole new issues. possibly just take a few bundles at a time high enough and drop, letting them burn up in the atmosphere.. for us all to breath later

we have a nuclear plant near us.. Sharron Harris.. nuclear plants also need a water source, in our case man-made Harris lake.. some people fish out of it, but even if I did eat fish I sure as hell wouldnt eat anything thats been in the water thats been through that plant. they say its filtered and decently pure, but eh.

the amount of hurricanes the east coast (of the us) is getting is one sign of the changing weather patterens. they've become more common and much more intense, so much that they are pondering adding an extra step in the rating scale.

[Gen. Volkov]

But the stuff is still extremely dense. Thus, very expencive and diffacult to launch into orbit. And if the stuff breaks up on launch...

True, but it's not impossible to do, and newer systems are coming online with a heavy-lift capacity. And yes, if it breaks up on launch, it would be a nightmare, but there are ways to make sure it doesn't escape even if it falls several thousand feet. If a black box can survive a plane crash, it's within our technology to build a container for nuclear waste that can survive a rocket breaking up.

On a diffrent note, this would be diffacult to do for political reasons as well. Enriching fuel also happens to be the first step in makeing an atomic weapon, which is something we do not want various nations to be able to do.

So we have a centralized enrichment system, in countries we do trust to be able to do so safely, and then ship it around the world.

Once operational, that might be true. However there is a massive capital investment into building the nuclear plants. In fact, none have been built in the US without government subsities, unlike coal, gas and geothermal plants. Even if fuel is cheap and the reactor has decant output, you are still going to have recoop these massive investment into the construction of the thing sometime in the fineite lifespan of the reactor. So, for quite a while to come it will remain cheaper to reform propane, methane and methanol rather than break water up for Hyrdogen and Oxygen.

Not true, building a power plant of any sort is susidized by the government. A coal plant recieves just as many, if not more, subsidies than a nuclear plant does. And nuclear plants produce power so cheaply that they pay for themselves quicker than coal plants do, which require the continual massive investment of coal. And of course we are running out of oil, coal, and natural gas. Also, methanol is a hydrocarbon, but it's not in the same class as fossil fuels. Breaking it up for hydrogen is not putting anything into the air that wouldn't be released into it anyway. But you can't run a pure methanol reformation project, because it's not economical, and you just can't get enough methanol to do it. So I'm sticking with electrolysis.

A related question: Would it be pratical to use fuel cells as batteries, compared to todays rechargable bateries? If so, how much preformance could we expect to gain from a fuel cell/electralsys battery versus current technology?

Yes, it would be practical, but more expensive to use fuel cells as batteries, they've done that in the space program since Apollo. But the performance boost is not much over a Lithium Ion battery, and you'd need a constant source of Hydrogen. It does offer better performance than a lead-acid battery though.

How about geologic output as a whole?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think I'm answering your question when I say, the geologic processes of the earth sequester and eliminate a bit less carbon than they produce, but that is corrected by the massive amount of carbon plant life takes in, so the net balance is equal or slightly negative. This is why the planet can clean itself of our carbon if we just stop producing it.

And sulfur dixoide is good for our living envrioment then? Perhaps we should stop refineing diesel to such stringant standards as to increse the output of sulfer dixoide as to reflect sunlight thereby preventing global warming smile.gif?

Uh no. The difference is, volcanoes inject most of it into the stratosphere where it spreads around and is gradually cleaned out. Our sulfur dioxide is not and does not. So it makes acid rain. So no, we should keep the standards as is.

And so is the threat of widespread envromental damage caused by improper disposal of spent fuel rods and nuclear meltdowns.

Nuclear meltdowns are caused by bad maintenance and bad design, and people doing things they shouldn't be with a nuclear reactor. Contrary to popular belief, modern nuclear power plants are amazingly safe. An active coal plant produces alot more radioactive particles than an operating nuclear plant. And there is a new design of nuclear plant that is darn near impossible for a meltdown to occur in unless you try to deliberately induce one. And even then it is very VERY hard to do. And like I said, spent fuel rods can be reprocessed to recover 90% of the rod for use again. The storage for the remaining ten percent is a problem. But 10% is alot easier to store than 100%.

Then whatever would we burn? Or for that matter, eat, since quite bit of food product is hydrocarbons (carbohydrates and sugars). I see no modern technology capable of replaceing hydrocarbons in a number of places.

Sorry, I should have said fossil fuels. I have no problem with ethanol and other biofuels making up part of our energy economy, they can just never be 100% of the solution. That's just because of space issues. Even if we converted our entire corn crop into ethanol, it would still only replace about 20% of the amount of gas we use.

Although I do not agree with thier primary goal (reduceing carbon emissions, which I find quite harmless), This technology looks intresting. And it does have some benfical side effects, such as reductions in harmful mercery, particulate and nitrious oxide emissions and perhaps an alternative means of reforming Hydrogen.

See, there are other reasons to pursue a hydrogen powered economy, even if you do not agree on global warming. That's partially why I support it so strongly.

[Gen. Volkov]

the fact that waste /can/ be recycled doesnt mean it will
its just easier to throw everything in one bag and toss it in a dumpster than to separate newpaper, plastic, glass, and metal containers. (I do recycle though, which is good.. concidering the amount of coca cola I consume)
launching it into space presents whole new issues. possibly just take a few bundles at a time high enough and drop, letting them burn up in the atmosphere.. for us all to breath later

Why stop at the atmosphere? For only slightly more energy you could take it too the moon. And for just a bit more than that, the sun. The ultimate furnace.

[bjornredtail]

True, but it's not impossible to do, and newer systems are coming online with a heavy-lift capacity. And yes, if it breaks up on launch, it would be a nightmare, but there are ways to make sure it doesn't escape even if it falls several thousand feet. If a black box can survive a plane crash, it's within our technology to build a container for nuclear waste that can survive a rocket breaking up.

Breaking up isn't the only concern. A rocket contains a lot of very volatile fuel, that could explode with such force that no container developed could completely contain it. So you would still end up with a decant size area heavily contaminated with concentrated atomic waste.

Not true, building a power plant of any sort is subsidized by the government. A coal plant receives just as many, if not more, subsidies than a nuclear plant does. And nuclear plants produce power so cheaply that they pay for themselves quicker than coal plants do, which require the continual massive investment of coal. And of course we are running out of oil, coal, and natural gas.

Okay.. Very well on the Government bit.

Still, over the lifespan of the reactor, does the initial cost outweigh the lesser costs of nuclear fuel as opposed to coal? I guess we are going to have to look up some real numbers on this...

Regardless, wouldn't the prohibitive cost be enough to prevent nuclear power plants from being built in such numbers and sizes as to completely replace coal and gas power, let alone reduce the price of power so drastically as to make electrolysis more attractive than reformation from fossil fuels.

And of course we are running out of oil, coal, and natural gas.

It will still be quite a while before we run out of fossil fuels.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think I'm answering your question when I say, the geologic processes of the earth sequester and eliminate a bit less carbon than they produce, but that is corrected by the massive amount of carbon plant life takes in, so the net balance is equal or slightly negative. This is why the planet can clean itself of our carbon if we just stop producing it.

If you consider all CO₂ emitted from natural geologic sources, is it not still significantly greater than human output?

Nuclear meltdowns are caused by bad maintenance and bad design, and people doing things they shouldn't be with a nuclear reactor. Contrary to popular belief, modern nuclear power plants are amazingly safe. An active coal plant produces alot more radioactive particles than an operating nuclear plant. And there is a new design of nuclear plant that is darn near impossible for a meltdown to occur in unless you try to deliberately induce one. And even then it is very VERY hard to do. And like I said, spent fuel rods can be reprocessed to recover 90% of the rod for use again. The storage for the remaining ten percent is a problem. But 10% is alot easier to store than 100%.

First off, conservation of matter. Neither nuclear plants or coal plants produce any particles. They simply release them from existing material. In addition, there exists technology that can prevent the release of a quite a bit of the radioactive particles from coal. See that other link I posted...

Second, bad maintenance and stupid users are going to happen from time to time. Just with other sources of power you are likely just cause damage to the plant or a power outage. If you mess up with a nuclear reactor, you have just rendered a large swath of area unlivable for quite a long time and you quite possibly have killed quite a few people in the process

Sorry, I should have said fossil fuels. I have no problem with ethanol and other biofuels making up part of our energy economy, they can just never be 100% of the solution. That's just because of space issues. Even if we converted our entire corn crop into ethanol, it would still only replace about 20% of the amount of gas we use.

I thought the yield would be quite a bit higher than that... Does that include the stocks? In any case, corn may not be the best feedstock. It is far from the only one. Heck, you can make ethanol from municipal garbage. Don't expect great yield, but better than nothing from a load of trash.

See, there are other reasons to pursue a hydrogen powered economy, even if you do not agree on global warming. That's partially why I support it so strongly.

And why I support alternative fuels and engines as well. Some day there shall be no more oil left for fuel. We must be ready for that day, when it does roll around. That and a lot of these technologies are quite interesting and often easier to tinker with than the existing energy infrastructure (ie, does anyone have an oil refinery in their back yard? Yet fuel stills, solar panels, even geothermal are not all that uncommon or unpractical for an ordinary person to have in some form)

Why stop at the atmosphere? For only slightly more energy you could take it too the moon. And for just a bit more than that, the sun. The ultimate furnace.

Only a little more energy? I thought escape speed from Earth orbit was nearly twice the minimum orbit speed. Remember K (Kinetic Energy) = M (Mass) * V[sup]2[/sub] (Velocity Squared). Double the velocity, quadruple the amount of energy required.

[Gen. Volkov]

Breaking up isn't the only concern. A rocket contains a lot of very volatile fuel, that could explode with such force that no container developed could completely contain it. So you would still end up with a decant size area heavily contaminated with concentrated atomic waste.

Well, I can't say I have areal answer to this one, because while modern spacecraft are very reliable and accidents few, they do still happen. I suppose there's always the Yucca mountain solution.

Okay.. Very well on the Government bit.

Still, over the lifespan of the reactor, does the initial cost outweigh the lesser costs of nuclear fuel as opposed to coal? I guess we are going to have to look up some real numbers on this...

Regardless, wouldn't the prohibitive cost be enough to prevent nuclear power plants from being built in such numbers and sizes as to completely replace coal and gas power, let alone reduce the price of power so drastically as to make electrolysis more attractive than reformation from fossil fuels.

Yeah, we need real numbers for that bit. Too the second part.. not really, a nuclear plant isn't so much more expensive than a coal or natural gas plant that it's impractical to replace them all. And decommisioning/scrapping the coal and other plants as the nuke plants come online will help mitigate the cost. Beside, we had to build the coal plants for quite a bit of money, the only difference is the amount of time they were built in. And once about 50% of our power does come from nuclear plants, you will see a big fall in energy prices, because once operating, the power is very nearly free. Really this is just a stop gap measure until they perfect fusion. I'm not looking to permanently replace everything with fission plants, I'm looking to replace enough that it gives us time to get fusion going. Then we can convert completely to fusion. And fusion is clean, incredibly cheap, and has no radioactive byproducts.

It will still be quite a while before we run out of fossil fuels.

40-50 years for oil, 60-70 for coal. But within 30 years we'll have mined all the clean coal, and within 20 all the cleanest burning oil will be gone. From then on you have not just carbon problems but a worsening pollution problem.

If you consider all CO2 emitted from natural geologic sources, is it not still significantly greater than human output?

It's probably close, but what's your point? We are adding carbon back in in large quantities that last saw the light of day 300 million years ago. That's what the planet was producing then, and then ADDED to what the planet is producing now. That's why fossil fuels are such a problem, it's cumulative.

First off, conservation of matter. Neither nuclear plants or coal plants produce any particles. They simply release them from existing material. In addition, there exists technology that can prevent the release of a quite a bit of the radioactive particles from coal. See that other link I posted...

Well duh, of course that's not what I meant. When I say produce, I mean that it emits radioactive particles in the smoke when the coal is burned. Many times more than a nuclear plant does. In fact living right next to a nuclear plant you will recieve less radiation over several years than you recieve on one trip to the dentist to get an X-ray of your mouth. And maybe this technology does remove alot of the radioactive particles, but how much? By what factor does it reduce the amount? (I can't find your other link)

Second, bad maintenance and stupid users are going to happen from time to time. Just with other sources of power you are likely just cause damage to the plant or a power outage. If you mess up with a nuclear reactor, you have just rendered a large swath of area unlivable for quite a long time and you quite possibly have killed quite a few people in the process

Like I said, pebble bed reactors have to be messed with to melt down. And even then it's very hard too do. But with other reactor designs, you are correct, and I understand you worry, so every effort must be made to ensure that does not happen.

I thought the yield would be quite a bit higher than that... Does that include the stocks? In any case, corn may not be the best feedstock. It is far from the only one. Heck, you can make ethanol from municipal garbage. Don't expect great yield, but better than nothing from a load of trash.

Let's bump the farmer's up to maximum capacity, the American farm industry working at full bore, add in the cobs and stalks, and you still only replace MAYBE 40%. Ethanol production is just not efficient enough to do much better than that. You'd need alot more land area covered in corn to fuel all of America's cars, and then you've got the rest of the world with nothing still. Corn is 90% starch, the only source of ethanol better than corn is sugar cane, and that only grows in certain areas, and ethanol prodcution from it is still not good enough to fuel all of America's cars. And once again, this leaves the rest of the world with nothing. It would take literally the entire arable land area of Canada, Mexico, and the US all growing some crop JUST for ethanol production to power all of the cars in the US and maybe some in Canada and Mexico. Ethanol is good as a supplement, but not as a replacement.

Only a little more energy? I thought escape speed from Earth orbit was nearly twice the minimum orbit speed. Remember K (Kinetic Energy) = M (Mass) * V[sup]2[/sub] (Velocity Squared). Double the velocity, quadruple the amount of energy required

Yes, only a little more, because you've already mostly broken free of earth. In comparison the gigantic amount of energy it took to get from the ground to orbit, going from there to the moon is a rather small. The Saturn V spent like 80-90% of it's fuel just getting into orbit. The remaining 10-20% percent was used to go to the moon, brake for an orbit around the moon, and get back to the Earth.

And why I support alternative fuels and engines as well. Some day there shall be no more oil left for fuel. We must be ready for that day, when it does roll around. That and a lot of these technologies are quite interesting and often easier to tinker with than the existing energy infrastructure (ie, does anyone have an oil refinery in their back yard? Yet fuel stills, solar panels, even geothermal are not all that uncommon or unpractical for an ordinary person to have in some form)

So why exactly are we arguing then? *laughs*.

[The Beatles]

That effect isn't hard to simulate for yourself either. Passing on a highway definitely requires more power than just cruising. One's accelerating, the other's just compensating for friction.

[Tetigustas shadowson]

A million crafts capable of extracting the co2 from the atmosphere would make an effect upon one area.
The sea of co2 would slowly fill in the gap, if the vessels stopped harvesting and all landed.

These kinds of craft never have to land; we could launch mother ships to collect the harvest.
Except for repairs and such they would proly out live any one of us.

Now if the human race built millions of 'particle specific harvesters', to not only removed a set percentage of co2.
They could control a vast array of other particles; we would build an industry around the process of cleansing the planet .

I really think we could remove any particle, we can influence with magnetic polar variances or a flat out charge in a small electrical burst.
It would fly effortlessly and slowly re-charging, as it drew in the particles with an alike polarity charge, the craft would again prepare for next burst.

[Devari]

That's just silly to spend all the effort on, though. The Earth, like Volkov said, is self-healing. The only problem is, we're pumping so much trash into the air, it doesn't have time to regenerate. It is much better to spend the time developing truly clean power (forgetting meltdowns, which are the result of poor management, Nuclear power still produces persistent toxic waste and is hardly clean) and reducing emissions to the point where the Earth can start to self-heal. Humans always want a technological fix for something, and want to keep on going along the same path. The fact is, Global Warming is not the only environmental problem we face - we're pouring tons of crud into the very air we breathe! That's why I refer to it as a lazy solution, if it actually worked - it doesn't actually fix anything, just prevents Global Warming. If we re-engineer our technology and our Western lifestyle, we can fix a lot more. For some reason, people want to keep living like pigs and not actually do anything about the real problem - pollution.

[windhound]

what yall are not mentioning is cost and effort
society as a whole is cheap and lazy

hydrid cars are avilible that get 2-3x the gas milage, but cost more.
if you only spend an extra 500 a year on gas for a standard car, and it costs (?) 5000 more for the hybrid, it doesnt make economic sence for most people

as mentioned, nuclear plants are rather expensive to setup, and then have a fixxed life. after that what do you do with an old nuclear site? and what do you do with the waste? keep hollowing out mountains?

it really is simpler to not recycle as well. bag it all and throw it away

factories could put much better filters on their smokestacks, but mostly dont because of cost (whats it hurting them?)

this is also the reason for the amount of obsese children in the us. lazyness. parents dont want to cook, so they go pickup mcdonalds, kfc, burgerking.

its all well and good to discuss how we could make things better, but unless its put into law, thus forcing people to comply, nothing will change

[Devari]

The point is, though, developing the proposed technollogy would tale a lot of scientific effort anyway. Why not direct that to a more positive outlet?

And if we want to survive, we have to drop the laziness anyway. Of course, no one really sees beyond their own generation, so nothing ever gets done.

[The Beatles]

Well, some few people do, and they get things done. Fortunately for humanity.