Controlling Carbon

The idea that we can 'force' China or Russia to reduce emissions is a joke. How many trillion dollars do we owe China? What leverage do we have over Russia?

Whether the 'cost' of reducing our emissions is 'great' compared to the cost of continuing to pump out CO2 is debatable. When you add up the likely environmental costs for carbon based fuels (loss of agricultural productivity, rising sea levels, increased health costs), the damage to our economy of spending hundreds of billions of dollars to buy to fuels from other countries, and the hundreds of billions we will spend on military adventures to try and protect our access to fuels, it is quite likely that reducing emissions (by cutting fuel use) will turn out to be a bargain.

The economies of China and India continue to gallop ahead mostly as a result of their lower wage levels. China also has huge deposits of coal that they can extract cheaply (because of their lower wages) and burn more incompletely (because their populations have even less influence on economic policy then ours and therefore don't complain as vociferously as we do). Their petroleum products are bought from the same global market as ours, at essentially the same price.

The problems for the developed world are as much social and political as they are technical (the high cost of converting to cleaner energy sources). We have known since the 70's that basing our economy on oil was a very risky idea. We could have used our enormous wealth and creativity to make the transition over a period of decades. But the oil companies (who profit from it) and their defenders have been successful in keeping us from developing any long term strategy for reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

It is a little tiresome to hear the same old "global warming is a hoax" rhetoric when the science has become so convincing (to the point of gaining George Bush junior's eventual acceptance, after years of dogmatic doubt encouraged by the oil industry lobby). Much of the opposition is due to poor understanding of the concept of one factor (man-made greenhouse gas emissions) influencing a complex system with other inputs.

Annual average temperatures are influenced by many factors, but only one of those factors explains almost all of the extraordinary spike in global average temperatures that has occurred in the last century. As a picture is worth a thousand words, the open-minded may find it enlightening to look at the following time series graph and consider the difference between the very last part and the two thousand years before, where much slower variation is found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Unfortunately there is no substitute for carbon-based fuels which can be produced cost effectively and in large enough quantity. There is no source of energy large enough to even come close that the environmental extremists will not oppose, therefore blocking all known sources of energy. I have challenged others to name one and have had no reply.

How about some concern for farmers making less because they can't grow fuel crops, people not being able to afford food because of the high cost of energy, the economic losses due to lack of energy and the difficulty of defending ourselves with less and more expensive fuel. Conservation should mean less waste, not sacrifice. Since CO2 is not a pollutant, using plant materials as fuel is at least carbon neutral for those who care about that.

The Model T Ford of 1925 got about 25 mpg and the majority of cars today can't do much better because of the power lost to emission controls. Steam cars were cleaner and got the same mpg back then, but were killed off by the Depression, auto makers lies and poor management. Reducing emissions by cutting fuel use means less driving, a sacrifice or discovering ways to increase mileage in an engine that averages about 12% efficiency. Steam can be about 25% efficient.

Both political parties have been so concerned that the opposition get no credit for anything that they have blocked everything, particularly one party. For a time we will have to increase our own drilling and supply to keep oil prices at a less than painful level. China has also purchased some coal-to-synthetic gasoline plants from Sasol so they can keep their costs below that painful level. If we can get gasoline below $3 a gal and keep it there while we develop other fuel sources and energy sources it will give us some time to adjust and the adjustment may take more than decades. The oil problems of the '70s were largely artificial, caused by OPEC, and it took 20 yrs for people to realize there might be a real problem and it took 37 years for the cost of oil to really go high. The oil companies want to stay in the energy business, so they are diversifying into other forms of energy. I see no real conspiracy to prevent us from having a comprehensive energy policy, just a bunch of wrong-headed politicians guarding their turf.

Genetically engineered fuel crops can be grown on land unsuitable for food crops, opening up more farmland to growing fuel, while keeping more in food production. Supporting all fuel crops according to the amount of fuel energy per acre, rather than bowing down to the corn lobby would be a step in the right direction. Solar panels on existing structures, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, will all help, but the main sources of electricity will remain hydroelectric, nuclear and coal-fired plants. Hydrogen has it problems as a fuel, which may limit its use for a long time. A solar, wind or geothermal-powered still can make ethanol be more cost effective as well as vegetable oil. Growing algae in big, covered ponds is another possible fuel source.

"Force" China, India, Russia to reduce emissions of toxic pollutants? How, go to war? Stop trade and have empty store shelves? You're right, that is a joke.

I am providing the reply that Taganan reports not receiving from others. The answer is solar (with wind, tidal and wave power being useful smaller contributers). There is plenty of energy available - I once did a calculation that showed that using current technology, a sizeable part of the Sahara desert would be able to supply the Earth's entire energy needs. [Yes, environmentalists would reasonably object to that, but the world has many deserts, and there is some to spare in all of them]

Of course the principle renewable energy systems produce electricity in a way which varies greatly with time and location, so storage and transport technologies are a very important part of the solution. Hydrogen is the simplest fuel to produce, and is needed for fuel cells, but technologies to produce other fuels are undoubtedly feasible. In any case, it is likely that the technologies to use hydrogen efficiently and safely will become commonplace.

If anyone doubts that the scale of development needed is impossible, remember that there is a lot of silicon and iron on the Earth. If non-photovoltaic technologies are used, pure silicon won't even be needed - glass is also easily produced from sand.

I deeply hope that this direction is taken before enough fossil fuels are burnt to leave a devastated world for future generations.

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/projects/default.asp

Check into what it takes to replace a multi-megawatt generator with any kind of solar and you will find that it takes a lot of collector area. There is a finite amount of solar energy per square meter and you can't get more than that. The size of the collectors needed to replace present methods of power generation would cover a lot of acres. Enter the environmentalist protesting the effect of the collectors on the environment. All those poor endangered desert plants and animals. Therefore solar is not the answer.

I agree that solar collectors as part of structures built for other uses can offset and replace a portion of our electric power, in the daytime. Not at all effective at night when we need lights. Next you have to come up with a cost-effective [i.e. not outrageously expensive] method of storing the electricity for later use and solve the problem of large power losses in transmission [now making the Sahara a poor site]

Sorry, Elroch, you miss the fortune cookie by not looking into all of the problem. Look at the area needed to produce 50 kw [look at those green fields]. To get a megawatt there would be no green fields for miles. At least you are thinking. The best solution would be fusion power, but we don't have that yet. Next best would be some kind of tiny, light, cheap battery to store the power from what little solar generating is practical. What do we do in the meantime? We work on ever more efficient uses of electricity, better motors, better lights, better electronics. We try to use alternatives which do not increase costs. Energy should not cost more than it does now and it would be best to lower the cost. We cannot allow ourselves to be panicked into risky schemes that will lower our standard of living. The world's climate is always changing, just look at the temperature records for the Holocene [which includes the present] and see that of the last 10,500 yrs about 7,500 were warmer than today. When the Vikings colonized Greenland they grew wheat there. Greenland is still too cold to grow wheat. From about 1200-1800 there was a Little Ice Age and in the 1600's it was so cold in winter that the Baltic Sea froze over solid and grapes would not grow north of the Alps. That is why they drink beer there more than wine. Since the 1600's the Earth has been warming naturally. People have had little effect on it.

While I do not think we should purposely make more CO2 than is needed, I also do not view CO2 as a pollutant. It is the other stuff, real pollution, that needs to be cleaned up. I look for solutions that do not cost more money, that are not imposed by laws or taxes and that are freely chosen by consumers in a free and open market.

While some people spout out of date and incorrect objections, others forge ahead with real projects. Taganan points out how difficult it would be to produce 50kW or 1MW. The most recent solar projects are approaching 1GW in size. I repeat the first link in my last post for details. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/projects/default.asp With regard to storage and transport, hydrogen is the obvious choice. Transporting large amounts of hydrogen is an engineering problem with two obvious solutions - pipelines, and tankers. Few would claim that either is beyond the ability of engineers to solve. It is worth noting that the energy density of hydrogen is almost three times that of oil.

And to refute Taganan's claim that there has merely been a gentle natural rise in temperature over the last 400 years, I repost my other link which shows the anomalous nature of the temperature change in the last 100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The effort involved in one left click can avoid the making of a poorly informed comment.

I applaud the solar power projects. There are some environmentalists who recently stopped construction of one because of possible "environmental impact", so they could do a study. If there is one endangered animal or plant near the site, they will fight it. I still say there is no one energy source large enough to replace our present coal, oil, gas, hydro electric and nuclear power that will not be opposed by some environmental group.

"Although molecular hydrogen has very high energy density on a mass basis, due in part to its low molecular weight, as a gas at ambient conditions it has very low energy density by volume. If it is to be used as fuel stored on board the vehicle, pure hydrogen gas must be pressurized or liquefied to provide sufficient driving range. Increasing gas pressure improves the energy density by volume, making for smaller, but not lighter container tanks." That is why a tank of H compressed to 10,000 psi has to be 5 times larger than a tank of gasoline to go the same distance using the same engine. H leaks through about anything making losses in transit significant. H also has some bad side effects on pressure vessels, it makes them brittle. H may not be the answer to energy storage for the night time. Technology may solve the problem in the future, but we don't have it now.

Because we cannot make a sudden changeover, we will have to continue to use all the old energy sources as well as develop the alternatives. Just don't get bent out of shape if it is not as fast as you want. Remember that you emit CO2 by breathing and if you consider CO2 a pollutant, then you become a polluter just by living. Also a study has found that plant life around the world is becoming more plentiful. Plants love CO2. I favor biofuels, not made from food plants, as another alternative. Alternative power does help, but it is not yet a complete solution.

Anyone can post to wikipedia and be politically correct by using the figures chosen and ignoring any that do not support their side. I got my figures from a study by a geological climatologist and even in the past there have been sudden drops and rises in world temperature. I still say that most of the rise is natural, man has caused very little of it, and that Greenland is still too cold to grow wheat. The readings and data used to "prove" GW are flawed and Hansen "doctored" data to prove his theory. I have done my research too.

We can disagree and still be civil. I want many of the same things you do, but I will always look for the problems that come with nifty new solutions. I do not oppose alternative energy, but I recognize its limits given today's technology. Certainly I hope the problems will be solved, and without raising our cost-of-living or lowering our standard of living.

Look in the mirror and left click, then avoid your own.

I think that your estimate of the political power wielded by the extreme fringes of the environmental movement is overly generous. Most environmentalists think that solar is a fine idea.

As to your preference that the alternatives be competitive in a 'free market', that's going to be pretty tough since the price of petroleum based fuels is artificially low due to massive federal subsidies, both direct and indirect. We are fighting a trillion dollar war in Iraq, a war that as most sensible people correctly understand, is about oil. So there is currently no 'free market' price for petroleum against which the price for the alternatives can be compared, and the entrenched real political power of the oil industry is sufficient to assure that no such 'free market' will ever exist.

"...the price of petroleum based fuels is artificially low due to massive federal subsidies." Most governments subsidize oil. I oppose all subsidies, but our subsidies allow our higher-cost oil to compete on the world market. Without them we would import even more oil and pump none of our own. 'Tis a Gordian knot no politician or businessman will attempt to loosen, here or abroad. I have no idea how to solve the problem of selling a higher cost product in anything resembling a fair market.

Governments try to balance trade by using subsidies and tariffs. In this sense there is no "free international market", it is all subject to governmental [read -political] meddling by people who have no mastery of economics beyond the next election fund-raiser.

The war in Iraq was to end the regime of a power-mad murdering dictator who threats seemed real. He was stealing the oil wealth for his own benefit. He is gone and we are in the process of turning the control of the oil back to the people of Iraq. That doesn't mean there are not some venal people from all the countries involved, trying to take advantage of Iraq, but that is not policy. No, the war was not primarily about oil, it was about many other things too.

We should ll push for either cng. or lng for fuel to power up our transportation. Natural gas should only be used as a start up or shutdown fuel in power boilers and coal can be cleaned up and carbon stripped out of exhaust if we can dredge up even a little of the ingenuity of of our elders.

The days of forcing other countries to change policies are pretty much over for the US. We definitely live in the glass house this time. If we can't do any better than we are currently, we won't have much of a future. We need to be much more aggressive at R&D and reduce energy imports. Everything can only get worse if we don't.

These countries emit far more dangerous things than carbon. CO2 is less than 4% of the atmosphere and over 90% of the comes from natural sources, such as volcanoes. CO2 is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor or methane. Plants thrive on CO2 and use it to make oxygen for us to breathe. We emit CO2 when we breathe, it is odorless and non-toxic, therefore it is not a pollutant.

China, India and Russia do produce some real pollution that is more dangerous and those are what needs to be addressed, As to forcing or encouraging them to clean up their act, forget it, they will use the cheapest methods, not the cleanest. If the U. S. and Europe go too far in controlling "pollution", then all the factories will move there because it is cheaper. [Or have they all done that already, since I can barely find anything in a store that is not made in a polluting country.] Force? You want to go to war over carbon? I think not.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

"Over the long term (millennial timescales), the ocean has the potential to take up approximately 85 percent of the anthropogenic CO₂ that is released to the atmosphere. As long as atmospheric CO₂ concentrations continue to rise, the oceans will continue to take up CO₂. However, this reaction is reversible. If atmospheric CO₂ were to decrease in the future, the oceans will start releasing the accumulated anthropogenic CO₂ back out into the atmosphere."

/step 1. Al Gores CO₂ credits

//step 2. Profit

///step 3. ?????

So within a few thousand years most of the extra CO2 will be absorbed in the ocean. But in the meantime, while you and I and our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are around to enjoy this planet, it will still circulate in the atmosphere.

Well, it actually happens faster than a few thousand years. And the oceans are not the only carbon sink. The earth is getting greener! Yay! Plants are growing faster. Fortunately, your children and grandchildren will be able to survive off the greener deserts and other places than now marginally produce crops. And Greenland may become green again!

So, my answer to the original question is NO, we should not try to get China, et al, to stop - they wont anyway. Since there is no correlation between the earth warming (spend some time to look at the charts in the United Nations report for yourself and quit believing what others tell you) and CO2 we have nothing to worry about. Of course, when this latest cycle of solar activity (which can be correlated with global warming) ends, we may wish that the CO2 had an effect.

And as far as the Bible being silent, well, God did tell Adam to subdue the earth ... just saying ... you brought it up.

solar!!!!!!!!! and if thats not the amount of power they need then learn to live with it or more solar needed or storage tell them to learn to cope so should we,all of us can do this and should.......

As far as coming up of new technologies and energy-resources is concerned...well, when there's nothing of coal and oil left, WE'LL HAVE TO SWITCH OVER and those technologies will have to be developed!! 'coz we won't have a choice left anyways!!

And as for that...encouraging won't do and forcing can't be done!!

For carbon-control, etc. this link may help:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/30232