Economics and Politics of Global Warming

It's all just politics. It does not mean much for the engineer.

However, I must say that you seem to believe that the engineers should be driving the game. Once in a while engineers do get to wear a marketing hat, but marketing is really outside of the scope of our discipline.

A company will be the most successful when it listens closely to what the people want and delivers a product that meets or exceeds those expectations.

The job of the engineer is to enable the company to build what the company wants built. In other words, we deal with the hows and not the whats.

I really don't know if all of those "belated" efforts are really a good thing for the world. Some maybe good, but probably not all. If the consumer ends up paying a higher price for a product or service just to be "green" when it does not need to be, well, that's a bad thing. It is also stupid.

"If the consumer ends up paying a higher price for a product or service just to be 'green' when it does not need to be, well, that's a bad thing. It is also stupid."

I agree. But when even the Scientific World is divided of the issue of Global Warming, who determines "when it does not need to be"? This Warning Bell has been interpreted by the Politicians, the Economists, the Moralists - Why have the Engineers kept their mouth shut? Are they so busy with their Minds and Hands - and leaving up the issue of Global Warmnig for Others to decide upon?

Far from the Politics, Economics, Ethics of Global Warming, fortunately somehow, the Internet has brought together a multi-national multi-discipline group of scientific-minded well-meaning do-gooders to address the complicated concerns of Man-of-Today with the simple solutions of Man-of-Yesterday. The evolving APIX Network is indeed a living example of Man-helping-Man however and wherever one is situated.

To know more about the APIX Network read the many Discussion Threads in this Sustainable Engineering Forum.

"I agree. But when even the Scientific World is divided of the issue of Global Warming, who determines "when it does not need to be"? This Warning Bell has been interpreted by the Politicians, the Economists, the Moralists - Why have the Engineers kept their mouth shut? Are they so busy with their Minds and Hands - and leaving up the issue of Global Warmnig for Others to decide upon?"

Well, I'll try to answer those questions as I see them.

First, who determines when it does not need to be? That's easy for those of us who live in a democracy to answer. It is the people that make that determination. In a free society no group has the authority to rise up and tell everyone else what to do (unless empowered by the people) or impose their will on the population.

As far as the warning bell goes, I feel that there is no way to really tell what is really happening. Once politics got its foot in the door, truth went out the back door.

Why have the engineers been silent? Well, what is the role of the engineer here? The original poster eluded that the engineer should tell the people what they want to buy and what is good for them.

Well, the free market does not work that way and the vast number of companies don't work that way either. My point in my earlier post I spoke to was that a company having various experts must work together as a team. This includes marketing, administrative, executive, engineering, technicians, etc. All have their areas of expertise and a good company will function as a team under the direction of their leadership. Think of a company as a group of rowers in a boat. If any one rower fails to work with the others, the result will be a boat that does not perform well or worse, sails into chaos.

If, as an engineer, you feel that the leadership in your workplace is not sailing in the right direction, it is good to respectively speak your mind. If the leadership rejects your ideas and you feel strongly about them, quit and get a new job working for someone that shares your vision. Or, quit and start your own company.

"I agree. But when even the Scientific World is divided of the issue of Global Warming, who determines "when it does not need to be"? This Warning Bell has been interpreted by the Politicians, the Economists, the Moralists - Why have the Engineers kept their mouth shut? Are they so busy with their Minds and Hands - and leaving up the issue of Global Warmnig for Others to decide upon?"

Engineering requires a basis of tangibility which is of grave lack in the global warming argument.

First, who determines when it does not need to be? In a free society no group has the authority to rise up and tell everyone else what to do (unless empowered by the people) or impose their will on the population.

No one is actually telling us what to do they are basically rocking the boat in a very abrupt and determined manner designed to create a feeling of insecurity in the global populace.

What caused the abrupt about face of the scientific community from warning of a coming ice age during the '70's to global warming???

pvhramani,

I'm not an engineer but I've been around it all my life and as a mechanic have had to deal with it whether good or bad. That said I'll put in my two cents worth.

Necessity truly is the mother of invention. The engineer is called on when the necessity arises. If it isn't truly broke don't fix it. The science of global warming is not proven. Climatic changes happen on such a broad scale and take so many years to see that there just isn't the data to support the claims. Right now on the 20th of April I am writing this while looking outside at a snowstorm that is probably going to deposit 6 inches tonight and the forecast is for up to a week of the same. Using thier methodology I might be looking at the beginning of an ice age.

The amazing thing to me is that if it all proves out to be a hoax these same politicians will just smoothly change thier position, put the blame on the scientists and get elected to another term. Why would any sane engineer want to get in the middle of that?

I couldnt agree with you more. Right on. No one has ever bothered to listen to engineers in the past until they are up to their arse in problems, so why make major efforts to solve a phantom problem that may not (and probably doesnt) even exist and then get beaten up over why we as engineers caused a major dilemma.

Before anyone jumps in with the northern ice is melting too fast as proof, please not that volcanic activity on the eastern Asian/Russian basin is at a very high rate and the ash drift is north. Ask yourself what happens to snow and ice when a liberal amount of black sot is sprinkled on it? Well it melts faster! So what do we do next stop plate tectonics?

As Global citizens, we should research the issue and act as we see fit.

As engineers, we should continue to solve the engineering problems given to us to improve efficency reduce waste, minimze required energy an material reuired for the application and improve the safety of our projects.

The celebrities can pose and have their photos taken next to our works, or emerging from them. (Some of my materials and My clients products are on the boeing and airbus aircraft... as well as some really fine cars and motorcycles.

But don't listen to celebrities for "education sake"

Only for mindless entertainment.

You may continue to assert that CO2 and GHG reductions "definitely is a good thing."

But it is not an engineering axiom.

It is amatter of politico/sociofaith supported by a newly emerging and imperfect science being practiced by a small number of people who have jealously prevented any outside their immediate cabal from evaluating their data or models in any detail.

It may be popular opinion. but it is not settled science.

Refutations of the commonly held symptoms (cause discovered for Frog mutations, increased solar activity, ice build up in southern hemisphere ) of global warming continue to arise.

Engineers should engineer, and remain open to evidence rather than search for validation of what the popular celebrities would like the answer to be.

I remember when I wanted Pi to be an even number...

milo

As engineers, we should continue to solve the engineering problems given to us to improve efficency reduce waste, minimze required energy an material reuired for the application and improve the safety of our projects.

In my mind, one does not get any "greener" than this. Increased efficiency, reduced waste, minimize consumption. This is the role of the engineer (I like to use the phrase, "optimize the cost of ownership or the return on investment" to express the same things). Engineers are inherently green, if they are doing their best for their customers...

good evening pvhramani

you picked so very clrear targets to home in on when you used the term heads of state but i would like to ask if you intened to include some of the persons attached to or speaking as representaives of NGO's?

if you can obtain a transcript of the interview between the late Barbra Frum of CBC and one paul watson the then spokesperson for Greepeace and now apparently in the same capacity for the Sea Shepherd Society i think you may ask yourself if persons such as him may be eligible for inclusion in the list of persons who may be indirectly contributing to global warming.

that short interview presents to me a image that there is no truth to the claims of seals being a endangered marine mammal but what the heck i as a member / spokeman of greenpeace will use whatever methods i can or will create situations scenes to support my claims that they are.

check it out, maybe my view is off base.

'da ber

"In sum, we need to understand that the so-called "global Warming" is but an effect of this indiscriminate consumption, resulting in wastage, pollution, conflicts, environmental degradation and unprecedented human sufferings. That there are more than 3 billion people who do not earn even US $1 per day is the net result."

On the contrary, The fact that everyone on the world isn't earning less than US $1 per day is the result of man's material progress, as a result of the efficiencies created by our science and engineering created technologies, And our ability to widely disseminate knowledge, rather than huddle together in caves ignorant and starving.

The fact that the "measure" is not against starvation, but against success of the western technology proves this point.

"Global warming" MAY BE an effect of population and our current state of technology and consumption, or it MAY be the result of fluctuations in SOLAR FLUX or it may be just the thermal cycling (oscillation) of our non steady state planet. To claim to know the slope of a line when we have only one point is stupidity, to claim that our 10 years of "crappy and imprecise data" is somehow a suitable measure over thousands and millions of years is intellectual fraud on its face and malfeasance at best. (Ask for the assumptions and error factors in the climate models, and the size of the areas (discrimination) in their calculations. The pronouncements are on the order of BLunt instrument, not even up to flint edged tools for sharpness.) 10 years/25 years in hundreds of thousands of years is barely a single point... worthless as a basis for understanding the overall trend.

Especially when the "experts" won't allow their "algorithms" to be subject to scrutiny by the broad scientific community.

To "do something" without truly understanding the real root cause leads to suboptimization of resource use thus exacerbating the poverty and misery in the world. We can grow all the food we need, but diverting food to make fuel is the idiotic result of "doing something to remediate Global Warming" with out understanding the energy balance and susatiainability cycle.

In 1970 the first earth day, Everyone was championiong MALTHUS as our short term fate. Our problem isn't food production, its distribution and local availability, and these are politico social problems not technology. We have engineered how we can get the mass from A to B . We have the technology.

You may be a true believer, but I would urge you to work as an engineer to optimizing efficiencies and minimizing inputs in your work, as the most responsible way to solve whatever it is in your mind when you use the words "global warming."

Peace.

milo

Think I'll watch the movie documentary "Expelled" with Ben Stein and see if there is a balancing act to follow...

Milo;

It might be, key word here is might, true that all this noise about global warming is an error of scientific thinking and that we are not harming our environment at all, however, to say:

"Especially when the "experts" won't allow their "algorithms" to be subject to scrutiny by the broad scientific community."

is as far from the truth as one can make it. It is clear to me, at any rate, that you do not follow the mainstream of science at all. I suggest you subscribe to some of the important scientific journals and keep up with the mainstream. A good journal to begin with would be Nature. If you want to keep abreast with today, you might also consider online journals such as ScienceDaily or even NASA's science reports. Also, a very good collection of all the studies are summarized by the USA's EPA and DOE.

"To "do something" without truly understanding the real root cause leads to suboptimization of resource use thus exacerbating the poverty and misery in the world. We can grow all the food we need, but diverting food to make fuel is the idiotic result of "doing something to remediate Global Warming" with out understanding the energy balance and susatiainability cycle."

As far is this statement is concerned is waaaaay beyond reason. If you have looked at the mainstream proposals, I am sure you would see that all of the responsible science and engineering has been toward not disrupting our food chains, and in fact, has been geared toward enhancing the food chain to reach out to the poor and undernourished.

You are respected on this forum, please do not tell us that our science is flawed, we are working hard to understand and correct the problems that face our earth. Please do nat tell us that we do not submit our findings and conclusions to full "scrutiny by the broad scientific community" where you, like all the rest of us have the right to dispute all of the data.

respectfully,

chtank

Hi chtank. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I agree with your "might" it seems we are at the same place, just facing the opposite directions.

AS for the mainstream science, I thought that this was mainstream when I read it in December:

ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

I have similar toned articles out of, all places, the NY times science section, which alas, I'm not finding right this second.

Here is a link to a number of scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming: http://tinyurl.com/2jw4b4

(Disagreement with conclusions- not skeptics!)

Finally, Freeman Dyson makes some cogent comments . Please Note I'm including his agreement on CO2 's role, and am not hiding it under a rug.

Dyson agrees with the general theory of anthropogenic global warming, and has written

However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends.

He has also argued against the ostracisation of scientists who oppose the consensus, stating that heretics have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress.

You can find these by looking up Freeman Dyson on Wikipedia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

The point that I tried to make, better stated by dyson, was : existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends.

In the interest of honoring the scientific method, we should continue to evaluate , without prejudice, all data and all possible explanations, not merely those that serve the politicians and the media.

Thanks for the professionalism in your comments.

This is a great forum, and the give and take of these open discussions force us all to be better critical thinkers.

milo

Actually, the United Nations report is available on line, and the report itself is very clear on some of the limitations of the models used, and the variations between models. I personally am concerned about the fact that the sections on paleoclimate do not carry the weight they should, especially the longer term issues.

Reasonable conclusions:

1. The climate is warming.

2. It is likely that human activities contribute to this phenomenon, although the scale of this contribution is perhaps questionable, when put into a long-term perspective. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that human activity has had an impact on climate significantly predating the use of fossil fuels (specifically, the deforestation associated with large-scale agriculture in Eurasia 5,000 to 8,000 years ago).

3. Climate is a chaotic phenomenon. Predicting the trajectory, assuming one knows exactly the starting conditions, is impossible beyond a very limited time scale.

4. Do you trust politicians to tweak the system without a full understanding of the impact on the system? Any engineer can tell you, don't tweak the system if you don't understand the underlying drivers- you can do more damage than good.

5. A warmer world is far more desirable than a new ice age (OK, that is a personal opinion, not a conclusion). The climate WILL change, no matter what we do. Which means it will either get colder or it will get warmer. Most likely, it will stay within certain limits due to the interaction with the extraterrestrial environment.

This is not to say that we should not be planting trees and using more efficient light bulbs. There are far more significant reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels than the spectre of global warming- such as we are running out of petroleum, and we are making cities very unhealthy places to live with the air polution.

It is likely that human activities contribute to this phenomenon, although the scale of this contribution is perhaps questionable, when put into a long-term perspective. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that human activity has had an impact on climate significantly predating the use of fossil fuels (specifically, the deforestation associated with large-scale agriculture in Eurasia 5,000 to 8

Any engineer can tell you, don't tweak the system if you don't understand the underlying drivers- you can do more damage than good.,000 years ago).

The only clear evidence I'm aware of which indicates a man made influence upon climatic changes occurring due atmospheric disruption following and a point of attrition of continuing (atom splitting) nuclear testing; air and or surface bursts. These noted effects which I have delineated but are readily available bear upon our planets upper atmosphere and of conditions within the uppers layers having been permanently altered with respect to functionality. Yes this is fairly vague and for good reason as some will well note; however these culminate the total of measurable effects of man kind upon his environment as a whole.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct in the use of the term "clear". If one reads the UN climate report, one finds that the models, and thus the conclusions drawn, are based on limited historical data, potentially biased interpretations, and models that do not fully map the appropriated cause and effect relationships at all scales. Furthermore, the models appear valid only when one limits the time scale, ignoring significant paleoclimatic "evidence". We have incomplete knowledge. Something can be learned from the exercise conducted by the UN, but it must be put into perspective. The most important conclusion to be drawn from the study is that we know far too little about the drivers to start tweaking the system...

"ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

I have similar toned articles out of, all places, the NY times science section, which alas, I'm not finding right this second."

It seems to me that this study is in disagreement with the modeling method, not the data nor the overall scientific conclusions. And, taken from ScienceDaily ignore the many other arguments to the contrary that have been presented in that publication. I recommend that our reader go to the whole of both the earth and climate and the Matter and energy sections before making up their minds as to which arguments to accept. Note that this is in agreement with your argument, too. My argument is that it is clear that our climate, be it at the surface or the upper atmosphere is changing for the warmer as an unprecedented rate and the change, for now, can be traced directly to a more than historic rapid increase in carbon dioxide.

Also, please observe that the level of methane in the atmosphere has been ignore by the models, however, as the oceans warm, the danger of the release of Methane hydrate is eminent, a gas which is 20 times more of a greenhouse gas than either water or carbon dioxide. If you recall, the release of sub-sea methane was the cause of some ship disappearances that resulted in the "Bermuda Triangle" scare of a few years back.

I might add, there is some discussion of harvesting the methane hydrate as our land based fossil fuel supplies dwindle. Also, keep in mind that an estimated 9 trillion barrels of oil is still trapped in the shale oil and oil sands of the US and Canada. It is simply more costly to extract than that we now get from teh ground. Also, coal can be converted into liquids and refined just as crude oil. It costs more and does present pollution problems which are also costly to solve. I would venture to say that we will need, in due time, all of the energy sources and we will need, in due time, to provide for all of earth's ever increasing human population. Likely we will need to be serious about the colonization of space - in due time.

Good answer. I am not sure of the spelling but, Namasta my friend.
Dragon

Hello Friend "Dragonsfarm"

Thank you for your sentiment, and my NAMSTE' to you too

"Namaste' .." is spelt commonly as is done here, but pronounced as in reading "namasthey" ... the "th" to be pronounced as you pronounce THICK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste

The expression is combined with the gesture:

This has been taken from the "wikipedia" link above

Thank you again

pvhramani

It would I believe suffice to clean up the result of incomplete Roman engineering:

www.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche?id=51166 is a good example of the result.

I don't however believe we as a species will have any affirmative effect upon the deliverance of our planet. I believe we have neither the combined intelligence nor the will to fulfill such endeavors. It is foolish to think we are in any type of control of our planet.

bwire, consider this, we are on earth to learn and our reward after life it based on how and what we learn. God gave us the intelligence to learn, so why not use it for learning, WHat better way to KNow God than to study his works, i.e., science.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~chtank/education.html

http://www.chtank.org/

1. Every living species of which I am aware, from microbe to primate, extracts resources from the environment and excretes waste into the environment. This is a basic feature of this thing we call life.

2. Any population of any species left unmolested by predation, disease or other external forcing is going to expand to the limit of the environment to support it. Either the population will strip the available environment of the required resources, or will poison the environment with waste.

There is nothing whatsoever unnatural about the human condition. We are either going to starve to death due to overpopulation, or poison our environment to the point where it is uninhabitable. One would hope that human intelligence would be sufficient to avert this natural fate, but that assumes that one's leaders are also intelligent...

There is a third fate, somewhere in between. But (and especially in those regions where folks think of themselves as least vulnerable), it's going to require a significant bit of regression...in effect, turning back the clock; this even while "innovation" plods along, attempting not to turn back the clock. The upside is that history, our own histories and that of our forebears, is replete with examples of (with ready-made lessons from) times when Earth's peoples faced "society shaking" population and resource based crises—we can and must be open to learning from these and, yes, willing to accept the possibility, nay the likelihood, that innovation (without major societal changes) will be inadequate to keep us going along the present course of what we have too long mistakenly thought of of as "progress." The world has already reached the tipping point at which there will be no going back...without some going back.

UG

Intelligent politicians! An oxymoron.

Friends

This discussions has been initiated in the light of a few other related Energy based Techno-commercial interactions:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/20153/Aternative-Energy-AE-Solutions-for-Philippine-Factories-Which-is-ideal

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19792/What-makes-an-Ideal-Design-for-a-rural-based-Philippine-Industrial-Plant

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/5572/APIX-SEP-for-Agro-Biogenic-Energy-system

We are, infact taking up the challenge of Optimum Energy solution to the problems posed by manilaman.

It is suggested that personalities such as Milo and others who have expressed strongly on various matters here, do help US to come up with appropriate PRACTICAL ENGINEERING answers to the various related concepts: CARBON CREDITS, CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS, CERTIFIED EMISSION REDUCTIONS etc in the Projects that we have proposed. Chtank, garthh and a few others are working hard on the project. It may also be of interest to the different members who have strongly commented here that APIX-SEP is an OPEN SOURCE Design project for Sustainability Engineering in Energy and Materials Engineering.

We call upon members to freely join the Group toward arriving at Creative solutions to Engineered solutions to Sustainable Development, which we term as SUSTAINABILITY ENGINEERING. And finally, may we request that we be helped in arriving at defined systems that help us optimize for ZERO-WASTE-ZERO-CARBON Business Model?

pvhramani

Hi pvhramani.

I just looked at your profile.

I think that your approach is right on target.

"Lift yourself up by your own bootstraps" is a phrase that conveys this.

One of the tragedies of modern life is that societies that had achieved a "local equilibrium" for their local conditions- tropical africa, regions in India, etc traded in their Local optimum (often at the point of a gun) for an imported alien lifestyle.

WHat works in the west isn't necessarily optimum for everywhere else. And that goes for institutions, as well as flora, fauna, crops, and trade...

But the high quality of life perceptions make it seem a "more desireable" system and so peeople move to cities, which are then incubators for disease outbreaks due to population concentration and exceeding local carrying capacity (to use a term i was taught in my ecology classes back in 1974). (See Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel for a wonderful discussion of the perception of "Cargo" from the west in local non western cultures)

Using native (optimum) plants and animals is a great first step toward sustainability, but markets do not value those crops as highly as the aliens.

Ghandi actually pioneered this approach with his Kahdi and swadeshi policies.- the use of homespun and the boycott of foreign goods. So you are treading on a familiar and once successful path.

However, in todays internetworked world, it is difficult for people to be satisfied with local produce- when all of the choices that the world has to offer is viewable just a mouse click away. Until we can engineer "aspiration" out of people, (which I do NOT suggest we do!) they will always aspire towards more and more material well being and better goods. Where the people themselves define what better is.

The compromises necessary may be possible climbing UP the continuum of material welfare, but I donot believe that any one alive would voluntarily choose a drop in their personal material welfare. The tragedy of the commons comes to mind here as an important and illuminating point.

So local solutions as you propose will work for the short term. For the long term, everyone wants more, and feels that they are entitled to it.

I am sorry that I did not catch your request for sustainable systems assistance beneath all of the global warming stuff.

I will contact you directly as i have a question on your biomass calculation for the banana crop. It seems that your calculation of annual biomass would have you sacrifice all of the trees each year, rather than live off the biomass "interest" given by the cash crop of fruit. Watch your email.

milo

Dear Taganan, Score one for a good answer. The question as I see it is not "Is it Green?" But is it efficient? By efficient, I mean least destructive, produces the most for the least energy, cost and effort. Most of the "Green" products are old, repackaged bad ones that did not sell at the level that their producers wanted. By putting the green label one them it makes the product look more appealing.

It is politics and money. As usual.

Dragon

It is five days since the APPEAL to the honorable engineer members of this forum was made:

"... it is once again "prayed" that Engineer Members here and other interested personnel (interested in Sustainability Engineering) do come forward to help us create a better engineered world for all of mankind. We are attempting to do our bit in the best way we feel we could. Do please, therefore, study the different aspects on which we are working, by visiting the links presented, and YOUR VALUABLE COMMENTS on the possible improvements there on will be a great help. Let this forum be the channel for constructive interactions and Internationally Useful systems that the world would look for."

It appears that there probably is little "spirit" (so to speak) amongst most here to come forward. As to what causes this nonchalant outlook is difficult to understand or fathom, especially when it is observed that there is no dearth of rhetorics that border on scorn and ridicule, if not outright rejection, of the concept of Global warming and the related subjects.

Politics and rhetorics apart, may we try to analyze the possible "fundamentals" of CARBON EMISSIONS, CARBON OFF-SETTING and their actual relation to CO2?

The following are the approximate "chemical" formulas and resultant Mol weights of a few fuels (only the basics):

METHANE = CH₄ (Mol. weight = 18)

PROPANE IS C₃H₈ (Mol. Weight = 44)

GASOLINE/ PETROL IS C₈H₁₈ (Mol. Weight = 114)

DIESEL OIL IS C₁₆H₃₄ (Mol. Weight = 226)

It is logical to observe that the comparative CO2 productions would be based on the "theoretical" complete combustions of these fuels.

The following are the plausible CO2 productions per Kg of each fuel:

METHANE ............................................. 2.7 Kg/ Kg of fuel

PROPANE ............................................. 3 Kg/ Kg of fuel

GASOLINE ............................................ 3.08772 Kg/ Kg of fuel

DIESEL OIL .......................................... 3.1150 Kg/ Kg of fuel

CARBON OFFSETTING:

This would need that any CO₂ producing Fossil Fuels would have to be replaced by Natural/ Renewable Fuels. For example, we could do this by burning Methane gas generated through Anaerobic fermentation of Agrowastes/ Organic wastes.

If we conservatively consider the sp.wt of liquid fuels to be 0.8, every Ton of Fossil fuel Burnt would produce not less than 3 tons of CO2, which would be totally offset if we used renewable fuel such as Methane (generated through anaerobic reaction of organic wastes) for equivalent energy needs.

Any thoughts and discussions analyses please?

pvhramani

Hello Milo

As such we are well advanced in the basic "design theme" of appropriate energy system for a commercially needed Industrial plant. Please see the thread:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/214893/Re-Economics-and-Politics-of-Global-Warming

Also, you would note that the last discussion thread has attempted to analyze the CO2 emissions per Kg of a variety of fuel system (though only on the basis of fundamental chemical formulas): http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/217716/Re-Economics-and-Politics-of-Global-Warming

The exercise now is to compute the potential CO2 Offsetting in the Project:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/208204/Re-What-makes-an-Ideal-Design-for-a-rural-based-Philippine-Industrial-Plant

I hope you do have the time to go through all the different discussions in the various threads, which would answer your "questionnaire" ...Please let me know if you need further data, after that

The Project of manilaman is discussed in the threads:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19792/What-makes-an-Ideal-Design-for-a-rural-based-Philippine-Industrial-Plant

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/20153/Aternative-Energy-AE-Solutions-for-Philippine-Factories-Which-is-ideal

Please let me know if any thing more I need to offer as inputs

Today, THE PROJECT THAT SCORES OVER THE NEAREST RIVAL ON CO2 OFFSETTING HAS THE GREATER COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. It is visualized that our APIX-SEP project does stand to gain; but we need ACCURATE computations of the CO2 offset potentials, so that the entrepreneur benefits by way of Carbon Credits

pvhramani

Hello cwarner7_11

While it is true that "There is more involved here than just the carbon emissions...", it is also to be noted that Methane does produce more heat than almost all other generally used liquid and gaseous fuels, on a per unit weight basis.

Calorific Values of the "previously analyzed" fuels:

Diesel ................... 44, 800 Kj/ Kg

Gasoline/ Petrol ..... 47, 300 Kj/ Kg

Methane ................ 55, 530 Kj/ Kg

Propane ................ 50, 350 Kj/ Kg

Please see:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html

Thus, the computations of CO2 emissions, purely based on the "basic" chemical formulas would not be very far off from the reality that CO2 emissions are some what related to the calorific values of the fuels in a manner of reverse proportions (the higher CO2 emission shows lesser Calorific value). Minor variations need not be considered as serious. It is, therefore, to be appreciated that Methane would definitely have better CO2 "Offsetting" edge over all other common fuels.

(Note: Hydrogen, which has a Cal value of 141, 790 Kj/ Kg DOES NOT produce any CO2)

pvhramani

Hi chtank

Thank you for "talk" and appropriate presentation. It is hoped that more engineers in this would supplement our efforts

best wishes

pvhramani

bio-digestion makes the nutrients readily available for the soil, the "slug" is an excellent fertilizer and also adds more to the soil.

I may be wrong, but the reason we, here in Texas, ware boots is so our fertilizer does not run between our toes. Most USA farmers used to fill their Honey-wagon loaded with well composted manure and spread the bull shit all over the fields. But they have learned, mainly via their county extension leaders that there is black gold in them thar manure piles and are trapping the methane gas as it composts. Some farms are run solely on the collected gases. After the digestion is when they spread a lot of bull shit. That is why Texans ware boot. If you would bother to look at the links to the USA DOE, EPA and Dept. of Agriculture, you see that our government is big into alternate energy, but it is up to us to do something with it. The government can't run the business on their own, that takes an act of Congress and the President's signature, and the anti-alternate energy lobby is rich and powerful.

hello cwarner7_11

Your computation of the KWH equivalent of the Calorific values of these fuels appear to be incorrect. They have to be corrected as follows:

Diesel ....... 44, 800 Kj/ Kg = 12.44189 KWH

Gasoline ... 47, 300 Kj/ Kg = 13.1362 KWH

Methane ... 55, 530 Kj/ Kg = 15.42184 KWH

Propane ... 50, 350 Kj/ Kg = 13.98324 KWH

Please note that the following multiplication factors are to be used:

1 Kj/ Kg is to be multiplied by 0.23884 to get K-cal/ Kg

KWH is obtained by dividing K-cal by 860

Your computations do not seem to be correct.

pvhramani

I will grant that there may be some issues with my calculations- there is significant disagreement also in the values being used for various fuels in a number of references. My point was that there does not seem to be a significant difference in the carbon foot-print with respect to the source of carbon which is being oxidized for harvesting energy. I am wanting to do a comparison as well between, say, walking a mile and driving a car the same mile (it works out, in my life, anyway, to take about the same amount of time, if one starts the clock when one leaves the front door. Going more than a mile, and the timing equation changes significantly...).

Your program has a lot of merit for a variety of reasons. I just do not accept the concept that it reduces carbon emissions significantly. It DOES potentially reduce other emissions that are much more disagreeable than carbon dioxide (i.e., unburned fuels, nitrous oxides, etc.) I also live in a region with significant banana production, and it would be nice to find something useful to do with all that excess biomass, but in the end, the material must be returned to the soil, or you won't be growing bananas for too many years into the future...

One should read the United Nations reports before one uses this as a basis for any endeavor (I admit, I haven't gotten through the entire library myself- it is pretty extensive and quite informative). The only conclusion I have been able to glean from it is that the science is, in the final analysis, inconclusive, and that we don't really know what to do about the fact that the world recently seems to be getting a bit warmer.

I also think (emphasis- this is opinion, not based on an in-depth study) raising bananas is a lot more environmentally friendly than raising cows, rice or wheat. Banana plants seem to gain mass rapidly, which suggests that they remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than alternatives...

I agree with "I just do not accept the concept that it reduces carbon emissions significantly. It DOES potentially reduce other emissions that are much more disagreeable than carbon dioxide (i.e., unburned fuels, nitrous oxides, etc.)" CO2 is not a big problem like other emissions. Does the banana alternative result in monocultures replacing the natural variety of plants? What do you say to people in areas where bananas do not grow? I am in favor of biofuels, but there seems to be much opposition to them. Is it not feasible to try some genetic modifications to breed plants specifically for fuel production? I know that DNA from one plant can be put into another using the gene gun developed by 2 Cornell professors and a local machine shop owner in the early '80s.

I butinski refer you to the concept of on demand hydrogen is far more cost effective.

Thats a great opinion.

Would you kindly tell me how many Tankers of hydrogen it would take to get the equivalent mileage as a single tanker of Gasoline?

All I ask is for a wee bit of calculation to be shown to back up that great opinion.

Can you show me the math?

milo

zero, none, or not applicable.

On demand by principle doesn't require nor accommodate storage, need of fuel precipitates its production and immediately it is consumed.

Dear Milo, Thank you for taking the time to refresh my memory. If you assume that the hydrogen is "trucked in" then the actual figures are not a good balance. However if the hydrogen is produced on demand on site then the figures are nearly reversed.

I know there are those who will say that there is no way that the hydrogen fuel, or hydroxyl, can possibly be produced in sufficient quantities on demand to be viable: to them I say, "Do the research I have done and then tell me you can not understand the process."

If you truly wish to know how hydroxyl fuel can be a viable stopgap, until HE³ fusion and quantum flux generators are available, research Stanley Meyer and Daniel Dingle's work on the process of running any ICE on hydroxyl fuel.

I apologize for the brevity of my comment but I had to undergo some treatments for my condition and as a result I am exhausted.

Cordially Dragon

Dragonsfarm, Not a problem.

I did not give such a close readingthat "on demand' meant "as is ,where is" That doesn't seem to fit my definition of a fuel, which I presume has an attribute of portability to it.

Similarly, My reading of the word "fuel" is something that one takes along as a source of energy.

Its a habit of current usage, so i did not 'Grok" the concept of "its ideal but only under this one limited condition."

As on demand might include at night, I would ask that the claim of "ideal fuel' might somehow rely less on "as is where is" and show more of the properties of todays current fuels, portability, available whenever wherever, and similar density of energy per unit of delivered volume, which is how it will need to be used.

Best regards, and enjoy your rest.

Goodnite.

milo

Milo, My apologies for my lack of clarity. By on demand I meant as needed. The system is entirely portable and may be installed in most vehicles as a booster. The full unit however is not overly large (approx. 2'x3') but still requires a bit more space.

I know, it sounds to good too be true, however, my son and I are in the final development stage for the booster and everything is going according to design. I will, if you wish, keep you informed as all four stages are developed.

Cordially Dragon

Dragonsfarm,

For you hydrogen generator:

http://pontotriplo.org/quickpicks/2007/05/generating_hydrogen_with_a_liquid_aluminum-gallium_alloy.html

and

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5724.html

"The two methods mentioned in the paragraphs above are most suitable for use in automobiles and can be the fuels of the future to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. The one fly in the ointment for the AlGa scheme is the availability of the Gallium. Like Silicon, Gallium is used in the computer chip industry and is in a somewhat limited supply. The demand for Gallium for producing Hydrogen for the automobile industry would be astronomical. Boron, on the other hand, is quite plentiful and would be rather inexpensive, even at the demand rates that the automobile industry would place on it. There are other metals and chemicals which can produce hydrogen but these two would been to be in the forefront at this time."

All if the above is quoted from MESS-SEProject found on http://www.chtank.org/

Dear Chtank, Thank you for the information, I will look into it. Just a thought: an Aluminum, Boron, Carbon alloy would be very effective in place of the AlGa. With Carbon as the "binder" so to speak. Of course the Carbon would have to be in the form of nano-tubes as a matrix in the alloy.

Again, thank you, Dragon

available whenever wherever,

How is it that on demand does not fit this scenario? When you need it, it is available day, night or in between.

Saying something is available "on demand" is not the same as making it so.

The energy density of Hydrogen is much less than that of current fuels.

As my earlier posts attempted to communicate, one would need over twenty times the amount of Hydrogen as gasoline to get equivqalent output.

I dont find fuel grade hydrogen available anywhere in my particular zip code.

And to create it is less efficient than merely harvesting cheap readily available electrons off the grid.

Hydrogen in the future will be like batteries are today: expensive supplementary energy for applicatins where cheaper sources are not available.

ELectrons are easily distributed, readily available, and zero emmissin at point of use, allowing cost effective BAT controls at point of generation.

Thats my point.

please excuse typos I'm losing the "o" key on this laptop.

milo

Raw hydrogen, as a fuel for automobiles, is not very viable nor really practical. I is very difficult to contain and/or store in sufficient quantities (by weight) to drive a vehicle any appreciable distance between refiles. There is the ability to produce hydrogen on demand through chemical reaction aluminum/gallium alloy with water or with a boron water reaction and there is always electrolysis, however, to date, these methods are still in the "proposal" state. The best best for fueling vehicles is ether with alcohols and with storage batteries. It seems that research is marching forward at a rapid pace on both the alcohol and battery fronts. In the near term, look for hybrid highly efficient vehicles and all battery powered vehicles, possibly using safe Lithium Ion batteries. As for fuel cells, hydrogen or otherwise, stationary power plants seem to be the most practical and the power produced this way can be used to "charge" batteries.

Whom said anything about storage? I didn't you assumed it. You are correct in your description of the impracticality of storage and refills but that is not the method I am suggesting to employ.

It's obvious you have completely missed the point.

It is to produce the hydrogen fuel upon demand at the point of use as in on board the vehicle and produced at the quantity demanded for the level of performance required.

"CARBON CREDITS, CERTIFIED EMISSION REDUCTIONS, CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM, GREEN HOUSE GASES (GHG's), GREEN PRODUCTS ."

Carbon credits are a way for the rich to get richer and do nothing else. A way for politicians to exercise in their favorite sport, control.

Certified Emission Reductions - part of that political control when imposed by government, part of a free economy when used as a selling point for lower emission equipment.

Clean development mechanism - did you learn Newspeak from George Orwell's "1984"? Of course no one wants to develop a dirty mechanism or develop one in the dirt. It sounds so "Newthink" as to make no sense.

Green house gases - have already been defined, so we try not to make more of them than is absolutely necessary to make a sellable product.

Green products- a synonym for products that are normally of lower quality yet cost more. Add "Green' to the label of anything and the price goes up. A hand made wooden spoon is priced higher when labeled as "Green" and if you also call it "organic" then the price is higher, but it is still just a handmade wooden spoon. It may not be sanded or oiled, but being "Green and organic" the rough spoon will sell for more. That is not to say there are not truly 'green' products, but they should not use that just to raise the price as so many do.

There are many calls to action, "Let us not simply be FOLLOWERS, but LET US ALSO LEAD.", but where and how? Get off the soap-box and get definite.

Engineers and scientists do have a unique position regarding real problems and real solutions. Politics are a part of life for all. Reinvention of the United Nations as a political act is called for in the case of this global problem of energy, and how it affects civilization. I do not think it is necessary to even mention climate, since obviously civilization is at risk across the board as a consequence of energy demands and the political policies applied. A stereotypical engineer does meet challenges when it comes to Politics, which are often corrupted and irrational. I myself would like my government to employ first rate Technocrats, along with an uncorruptable Bureaucratic Corp. The career of Mr. Carter, President Carter, who was a nuclear submarine physicist? engineer? is possibly a study. It is damning that Reagan took the Solar Panels on the White House down. There is a saying that goes, "If you want what they've got, do what they do." I am aware that since I have not raised and army, and started a war, I have only a little "model" country, similar to a "model train set". Politically we are very challenged when it comes to the environment in light of Machiavelli's statement: "A struggle with the environment is not enough to create a nation." Regardless of whether or not climate change is a fact, which it is, Civilization is dependent on abundant energy and engineered machines and systems serve the greatest ethical aspirations of mankind. The problems to be solved, and the challenges are very well laid out by Jared Diamond in Collapse, and his political concerns are dramatic. There are "good" autocrats, kings, and strongmen, as it turns out, and some leadership is exclusive of dogma or philosophy. I have long made a number of suggestions from the standpoint of Political Science regarding ways to advance our goals, in ways typical of the way things are. A successful strategy is dependent on tactics which in the Political Realm are to put out papers, go on the radio and tv, and otherwise advertise your product and your positions. A little humor does go a long way, and I do prefer a war of the minds, over actually stabbing people. I would be delighted to see Hari demonstrate his stuff, with a funny pretty Indian Girl as part of the Show. (on youtube or CBS,)bbc? Certainly Obama did the route of putting out a book, and making speeches, as was done by Huey Long. The history of the atomic bomb, would recommend that an engineer of status sent a letter similar to Einstein's was to Roosevelt, to all in such a position of power. The Carbon Trading racket is recommended since it is the game going. It is sensible from my view to recommend playing whatever game is around best you can for your goals. I consider this anarchist. I am greatly influenced by Godwin Anarchy which puts defense and education first. The politics of Global Warming are energy issue founded and Grid and Off Grid are in conflict. This conflict is to be seen in light of who is poor, and who isn't. "God Bless the Child that's got its own." Is a simple truth. So my point overall is that of course Engineers ought not be as a group by-standers, but do recognize that not every engineer is suited to be a politician, and that it follows that a Party be allied to, or founded as a component of the overall goal. Russell