Carbon Footprints and Offsets

Does methane and natural gas have a different sized carbon footprint?

Yes. There is a good article on the subject here

Link (yes it's Wikipedia)

Does burning methane also get classed as carbon neutral?

Yes, and it depends on the source (which also must be taken into consideration). Landfill gas for example has many environmental advantages, however it is also a very dirty gas containing a large percentage of methane as well as a large percentage of carbon dioxide (and other nasties as well).

The environmentalists say burning wood is carbon neutral

They are wrong. If this were true then forest fires and deforestation by slash-n-burn techniques would have no environmental impact.

What they may be saying is that burning wood is the most carbon neutral method of power production, which is also wrong.

Well what they actually mean is burning wood is neutral in biosphere energy terms as it is reabsorbed in growth and is part of the 'now climate' carbon cycle. Which is right.

This is distinct from reintroduction of 'old climate' carbon, re-released by digging it up and burning it. Which is both dumb and extraordinarily inefficient as practiced, particularly if you take the 'whole process' thermodynamics in terms of the climate energy equation.

Thanks. Unfortunately it doesn't address the issues I am looking for answers on. I keep getting solar PV sales types getting in my face claiming going to PV will reduce my carbon footprint. What they either ignore or do not know is my electricity is 100% hydro-electric so where is the carbon foot print there?

Secondly Our area is provided with natural gas from the Alberta gas wells. Where I used to live they built a huge methane digester designed to provide biogas comparable to natural gas thanks to some technology imported from NZ. A majority shareholder in the project is the natural gas company. The digester output is piped directly to houses and a power generation station some 5 miles away. It has been so succesful a second unit is being contemplated.

I only use 15 gallons of fuel per month so where and how am I supposed to reduce my carbon foot print any further by going PV?

If you went PV, perhaps somewhere on the grid there would be less of nonrenewable energy source X power needed - e.g. the hydropower you're currently buying could be used by someone else (whether they pay a premium for it or not to be green is another matter). Not to say PV makes sense for you (e.g. depends on how much sun you get up there), but it seems like this argument could be reasonably made.

The thing to remember is that Carbon Dioxide comes out of the atmosphere by many processes (coral reef building, diatom building, tree planting, algae blooms) nearly as fast as it is being put into the atmosphere. For centuries, the levels stayed fairly static even in the face of raging lighting induced forest fires and volcanoe eruptions because of these natural balances. When the input of carbon from fossil fuels exceeds the natural reduction rate, there is a net gain in CO2. It is the net gain which results in global warming. (I know, its more complicated than that...but hang in there for a minute...) If there was no input from fossil fuels, there would be no net gain. I will repeat this....IF there is NO input to the carbon dioxide in the air from burning of fossil fuels, there will be NO net gain, and therefore no global warming.

So...what if you replace all the burning oil and gasoline and coal with wood and wood products? Well, you would get a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel additions, and you would solve the global warming problem. Carbon in would equal carbon out.

However, we can dream on because it will never happen. Imagine 9 cubic miles of wood! OMG. Now imagine the amount of smoke in the air from all that burning wood? No...as attractive as the concept might be, changing oil for biomass fuel would result in some very BIG problems. But don't you think that an attempt to reduce fossil fuel use by using biomass fuels would have SOME sort of future? Do you think we might be able to come up with ways to keep the smoke out of the air? I don't think it would be an insolvable technical problem.

And with "peak oil" becoming more and more of a reality, don't you think these problems should be examined, and solved, like..........um...........now?

Yes to all your questions.

With regards to your comment about wood burning. The new types of wood gassification stoves meet EPA regulations on particulate emissions.You cannot see any smoke from these when they are running ( burning).

The coal fired utilities that I inspect have been doing tests with woody biomass in their stoker boilers. The tests have all failed. They have done blended tests, too. The highest that they can run is at 20% woody bio-mas and 80% coal. These boilers already have ESPs, scrubbers, and baghouses to control emissions. I don't have the test results to compare the emissions. I could probably get the data from their CEMs and COMs reports, but that is a lot of data to look at. I do know the utilities decided not to change their permit to use the woody biomass which to me says the cost isn't worth it.

One of my coal fired utilities (I have 4) is going through the contract negotiation process for a trash to energy project. They are creating gas out of the trash, and feeding that to a specifically designed boiler to create energy. Once completed, they will be shutting down their coal fired boilers. With this being a Title V PSD source, their air emissions will be heavily regulated and will probably getting some netting of air emissions from shutting down the coal fired boilers.

The other thing to remember about getting Methane from landfills (trash), most of the trash is plastic. Most plastics are made from the byproducts of oil refining. Oil is "old climate" carbon.

To simplify, until we get off of oil, coal, and all other forms of buried fossil fuels, we will continue to push the limits of our current carbon system (possibly irreparably damaging it) and increase ghgs in the atmosphere.

Note: I like the "old climate" term. Hope you don't mind me using it!

Also, for the OP, your hydro power is damaging the ecosystems of the river and the ocean. Mostly by removing the breeding grounds for fish. I will let you look it up and find out the details for yourself. A new study has shown that building a dam is less carbon intensive as originally thought, but it is still built by fossil fuels.

I met a dutch engineer at a trade show I was working. He told me he was over here to arrange purchase contracts for wood pellets. His employer was a power station in Holland. They mix coal and wood in equal measure in order to met European air emission standards. Evidently they are using a different burner design than what you are referring to. I was born in Europe and grew up partly over there and partly over here in north America. One thing I quickly learned was the influence a "not invented here" mindset had on design development. Many times I was told by someone that the Europeans couldn't possibly develop so and such . Most times I simply walked away knowing I had seen so and such with my own eyes and knew differently than the speaker. I decided to let them wallow in the comfort of their lack of knowledge.

I was not talking about getting methane from landfill. I have been aware of such projects for over 20 years There are 25,000 registered methane digesters built for energy generation in Europe at this time. You can find several manufacturers with off the shelf equipment. Apparently they have found a way to make it work well enough to make it financially viable. My difficulty was in not being able to find equipment in small enough capacities for what I had in mind.

Fifteen years ago The Department of Energy and the Agriculture Department funded several pilot projects in the mid west. They demonstrated the feasibility of methane digesters for livestock operations and making the farms energy self sufficient and in some cases even able to feed power back to the grid. Because methane can be stored this type of operation lends itself to peak demand supplementation. The most recent 'pilot' project I found documentation on was in Washington state. This facility opened in 2005 and was supplying the local utility

I did see a news report in 2008 about a facility somewhee in California just being built but unfortunately like most news blurbs it was short on details as to place name, owner /operator etc.

Your statement concerning all hydro power being damaging to the ecosystem is not entirely true. Where fish migration exist, fish ladders are built. But when the waters come tumbling down rock faces, sometimes dozen or even hundreds of feet no fish migration ever existed. There is a NUG ( non utility generator) only a couple of hundred kilometes away from me. His private generators deliver 50 Mw from three turbines fed by water falling several hundred feet. Niagara Falls is not only a power source but a tourist attraction. The list goes on.

Blanket condemnation of hydro power doesn't do any of us any good. Neither does rejecting other alternatives just because old way of thinking suggest it may not have worked in the past before new technology was available to use.

I have seen what you are talking about. Cars are a prime example of "not our standard or technology, not good enough". IMHO it really is a hinderence on our society. Europe has higher speeds, more efficient cars and more stringent emissions requirements, but some of the cars are not legal to bring in to the U.S. Wait until China is fuly industrialized and see what the sentiment is towards them.

I haven't looked into the other forms of hydro power, only the giant hydro power dams that are being proposed for a large protion of Canada and parts of the U.S. Most are proposed on my beloved whitewater rivers. With these, just the change in water temperature changes the species that live in them.

The days of huge large scale projects are hopefully destined for oblivion. Way back in the seventies a term became popular " small is beautiful". Perhaps its time to revive it. Smaller power generation for local use may in fact be more benign environmentally. Ther is a small town south of here wher the bridge footing stand in the river and except during low flow in winter there is bow wave one or two foot high from the water flow. At one time this town was entirely powered by water but during the thirties a diesel power plant was built as part of the depression make work program. Maybe its time to rethink that plan.

New technology and design in tidal stream generators for relatively slow water 0- 5 knots would not block fish migration. Methane digestersfor agricultural regions migh well save having to upgrade hundreds of miles of transmision line to met new peak demands. I found a report saying methane is far more damaging that CO2 gas so consuming methane from farm sources while creating CO2 is still better. And you get energy created in the process. No need to get it from a non existent land fill site.

Note: I'm quite curious if Yusef will.

twenty percent is better than none.

It is, in fact, a darned good start!

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Time to look at what the Dutch are doing with their 50/50 mix of coal dust and pellets. The pellet plant down the road from us only ship in bulk using 100 Ton rail cars all of it being shipped to Europe. Interestingly the pellet machines are Danish designed and built. I spent about a hour talking to one of their engineers who was working the same trade show I was at. The Dutch engineer said his generator used 100 Tons of pellet per day in some kind of fluidized bed combustion process.

Logging practices have changed. These days when a wood lot is cut as often as not a big chipper mounted on a 40 foot trailer is brought to the job site. With so much pine beetle kill being harvested it is just as easy to process scrap wood into chips right there and ship the chips directly to a pellet plant where it is chipped a second time before going into the pellet mill. The local pellet mill currently has about 60 acres of chips piled some 30 feet deep just to keep up. Last year they increased the plant and added another shift. The company expects to build quite a few more pellet plants to keep up with global demand.

Think not what fuel you're using but how efficiently you're using it or what the end products of combustion are (i.e. do a mass balance)

What is a carbon footprint - definition

A carbon footprint is defined as:

The total amount of greenhouse gases produced to directly and indirectly support human activities, usually expressed in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).

In other words: When you drive a car, the engine burns fuel which creates a certain amount of CO2, depending on its fuel consumption and the driving distance. (CO2 is the chemical symbol for carbon dioxide). When you heat your house with oil, gas or coal, then you also generate CO2. Even if you heat your house with electricity, the generation of the electrical power may also have emitted a certain amount of CO2. When you buy food and goods, the production of the food and goods also emitted some quantities of CO2.

In other words whatever it is you're burning, if it gives off CO2 it is adding to your "carbon footprint". What needs to be done is to capture the CO2 being emitted and somehow use it in another process such as agriculture (plants, algae etc. which will in turn convert it into a form other than CO2 hence "capturing" it in a useful conversion.

See also http://discovermagazine.com/2011/sep/26-carbon-dioxide-into-bioplastics-2-birds-1-stone?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverTechnology+%28Discover+Technology%29 where it is turned into plastic hence saving the need for turning oil into plastic.

See also http://www.originoil.com/ where you feed the CO2 to Algae and it produces oil. Sequestering CO2 shouldn't mean pumping it down into the ground so later we get Perrier or carbonated water coming back up but utilizing it and converting it to a non-greenhouse emission.

Carbon footprint actually applies to fossil release. It is 'carbon cycle loading' - not 'natural carbon cycle' which is the biosphere mechanism.

"capturing" fossil released carbon and using it to grow alga or food or fuel, is not sequestration, it's not even capture.

"renewable" applies to systems based in 'now growth'. PET can be made from 'now growth' as can a number of other plastics.

"fossil" applies to 'sequestered growth'. Digging it up is cheaper than growing it from scratch - which is energy 'un-affordable' - like growing wood chips converting them to anthracite and burning the 'higher grade fuel'. This however reflects the true energy price of coal and if so, you wouldn't be burning it 27% 'best efficiency' - would you?

That the "definitions" do not adhere to these distinctions is why the 'sales story' is often 'illogical' - or as in the OP's example, ludicrous.

I might add, in terms of other comments, a concrete dam has a carbon cost due to heating of cement and fuel used in obtaining aggregate, transport and construction.

An earth mass dam consumes more fuel, but less concrete.

But a well constructed dam has little maintenance and a life exceeding that of multiple thermal/fossil/nuclear power plants.

I.e. the scale of fossil used to make a dam is microscopic when compared to the tons of coal per second being devoured making power, by a single one of those 1/4 life stations.

Hydro can be regarded as '100% now solar' on carbon footprint amortization.

"Scale" is the big oversight in much of this 'selling green science' idiocy.

"Rubbery definitions" are no help to 'consumers' but a big help to marketers of wasteful and inappropriate "solutions".

Several of you have mentioned earthen or concrete dams as if that was the only method of developing hydro-electric power. Don't forget that in the mountainous region we often have rivers and lakes located high up in elevation to begin with. When these lakes collect an over abundance the excess water spills over a threshold at the lowest place and cascades down a rock face. When this cascade is collected in a penstock tube and funneled to a turbine down below we get power generation. I already mentioned one private NUG who is delivering approximately 50Mw and there are more potential sites like it. These streams never had fish migration due to their steepness. There are more potential sites but so far our mindset has always been on bigger is better so small sites gets ignored. Its time these smaller potential sites get developed since they do not always require huge civil infrastructure. They do not alter fish migration and if natural flow volume is respected there is really no change to original conditions. The jelly bean counters will argue that this has a higher cost per kilowatt. Yes but what is the cost of continuing the same way we have always done? Using only the natural flow rate is sustainable. Using free flow designs in natural river channels does not impede fisjh migration.

Capturing the methane from animal manure instead of letting it escape is also sustainable unless you insist on forcing everyone to become vegans and cease to eat meat. By capturing methane from manure and using it as an energy source makes more sense than not using it.

Alberta natural gas from wells is sour gas and must be scrubbed before distribution in the pipelines. My original question was if methane as opposed to well gas had any differrent carbon foot print. Summing up the circumabulation of this thread it looks as if the answer is yes. Biogas turned into methane for fuel is marginally better and has less of an impact environmentally than pulling natural gas from the well head. Best of all a methane digester is scalable technology that can be sized for an individual farm or a small village or even a small town. It will never represent a wholesale replacement of grid power but even a small reductin in how much fossil fuel is required should be cause for cheer. Now if we could persuade people to stop wasting so much energy we would be even better off.

If you consider the basis of your question I must ask how it was arrived at since natural gas is mostly Methane with a mix of other gases. According to what I pasted below there would be little difference in the carbon footprint of methane vs. "natural gas"

Chemical Composition of Natural Gas

"Natural gas is a naturally occurring gas mixture, consisting mainly of methane. While the gas from sources has a similar analysis, it is not entirely the same. The table below outlines the typical components of natural gas on the Union Gas system and the typical ranges for these values (allowing for the different sources).

Note that there is no guarantee of the following composition at your location or as an overall system average. Since the different gas supplies enter the Union Gas system at different locations, the exact composition at any site will vary among the different regions. The system average heating value will depend on the mix of gas supplies (which is increasingly controlled by our customers), and therefore can vary from the typical value listed below.

I am not a chemist hence the question. Because the natural gas comes out of the ground and may carry traces of other substances from crude oil pools I wondered about any differences when this gas is burned.

From everything I have read methane has mostly carbon dioxide as a companion gas when generated in a manure digester. CO@ is readily scrubbed from the biogas. However I keep running into naysayers who feel only well sourced natural gas is acceptable and methane digesters are somehow a negative factor that increases our carbon foot print.

These naysayers must be among the group who feel we should continue to hand over most of our income to the multi national energy companies and stop wasting time finding workable alternatives. Guess they are share holders in the energy companies.

Your definition of carbon footprint would appear to be your definition as opposed to the rest of the world.

What Is A Carbon Footprint?

A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment, and in particular climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc.

The carbon footprint is a measurement of all greenhouse gases we individually produce and has units of tonnes (or kg) of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The pie chart above shows the main elements which
make up the total of an typical person's carbon footprint in the developed world.

A carbon footprint is made up of the sum of two parts, the primary footprint (shown by the green slices of the pie chart) and the secondary footprint (shown as the yellow slices).

1. The primary footprint is a measure of our direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels including domestic energy consumption and transportation (e.g. car and plane). We have direct control of these.

2. The secondary footprint is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole lifecycle of products we use - those associated with their manufacture and eventual breakdown. To put it very simply - the more we buy the more emissions will be caused on our behalf.

Their definition and that of many others very much points to the CO2 emissions that are a result of fossil fuel uses as the main culprit. It would very much point to the fact that if all the CO2 were captured then there would be no footprint. The capturing of CO2 and how one sequesters it or converts it into a form other than an atmospheric release that causes Global Warming is the main issue. If all the CO2 gas from a fossil burning plant were captured and converted to an agricultural product or into oil through algae I do believe that the plant would be considered to be "carbon neutral" even though it is burning a fossil fuel (except of course for the carbon release in the production and delivery of the fossil fuel).

I would suppose that the near perfect solution would either be through the use of nuclear energy, solar, hydro and wind to produce all the electricity, the use of only electricity to heat our homes and businesses and the use of only electric powered vehicles that utilized solar panels as part of the body structure to continuously re-charge the batteries. Either that or we all agree to eliminate the current life styles, regress to living in unheated caves, eating raw food and trying not to be "too gassy" so we don't emit too much methane from our biomass producing intestines.

Spinco wrote:

"Your definition of carbon footprint would appear to be your definition as opposed to the rest of the world."

That is why I asked because I do not have a definiton other than what I read about and I am at the point I no longer believe all I read on this subject.

My comment was in reply to the #17 response which I did not feel was hitting the mark in terms of the current discussion and the original question. In your elucidations of the reasons you were bringing up the question I could follow that your intent was to make use of a resource that was available and probably available at a much more reasonable cost than the solar panels that were being quoted.

The following has some good info and a number of references to further clear up any questions: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practices/digester.aspx

Frankly, if you have a multi-purpose farm where you have some livestock and a good bit of cultivated soil then plowing it back in is probably a great idea to replenish the soil. But if the farms are mostly livestock oriented then the amount of manure is generally considerably in excess of what can be used. If left to decompose in the field there will be a "carbon footprint". If picked up and put into a digester and the off gases are burned off to produce heat and power the removal of the methane from the atmosphere and the addition of CO2 from the exhaust instead should prove beneficial in lowering that footprint since one is replacing the deriving of heat or power from a fossil fuel by a product of decomposition which will happen naturally. Generally especially in remote locations I believe the practice is encouraged as you can see by some of the links.

The US Department of Agriculture report I saw said the solid residue still had value as fertilizer after extraction of methane, except it was deoderized. The feed lots with confined animals feed operations CAFO was deemed a good example of becoming a net power producer as opposed to simply being energy self sufficient.

"Your definition of carbon footprint would appear to be your definition as opposed to the rest of the world."

I don't follow.

Your posting states it is specific to: "through burning fossil fuels"

Which is exactly what I said - except perhaps that I say fossil is the only 'culprit'

Hence; I added the distinction of in addition to natural carbon cycle because some people/lobbies like to lump in 'bush fires' and 'logging' - because they think "carbon is carbon" and it's all evil.

I went on to say, in essence, once re-released it's un-affordable to 're-capture'.

This would appear the main 'difference' in "my definition" you find contentious.

It's straight forward thermodynamics (enthalpy). You require 100% of the energy of burning to reverse the burning. Net gain is zero. "Capturing" 27% for use, means you are 127% shy of energy required to sequester the CO₂ released.

Transforming a portion of the CO₂ into people or transport fuel is just increasing on 27% (arguably, as it reduces 27% to do it).

What it does not do is sequester in any manner. The carbon is back in the system, re-added to the carbon cycle and will stay in the cycle.

In short, if all the CO₂ from a fossil plant was 'not leaking from it', you could delude yourself into thinking that plant is "carbon neutral".

But all you have done is moved the emissions to - say Vegan farts and the massive increase in farming spoilage and fuel used in transporting an increased tonnage of low protein.

You may harvest energy from 'the increased waste produced', but still, all you are doing is re-releasing the carbon the power station 'hid' for a biosphere nanosecond, in a tomato.

What it does not do is sequester in any manner. The carbon is back in the system, re-added to the carbon cycle and will stay in the cycle.

se·ques·ter

1. To cause to withdraw into seclusion.2. To remove or set apart; segregate. See Synonyms at isolate.

cap·ture

1. To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.2. To gain possession or control of,
3. To attract and hold:

4. To succeed in preserving in lasting form

So when plants, algae and vegetative matter absorb CO2, as they've been doing for the past millions or billions of years, take the C part into their matter and release the O2 part into the atmosphere thus allowing human existence they are not capturing the carbon element of CO2?

And when they die and decompose and along with the dead dinosaurs fermented or fossilized or liquefied into crude oil or solidified into a coal fossil they were not sequestering the carbon element or contributing to the carbon cycle and the energy that was required to do this was 127% of what we currently get back?

I prefer to think in terms of matter rather than enthalpy. Basically it also revolves around a mass balance and the law of matter:

The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.

Or more simply put, "Matter can not be created nor destroyed but only changed in form" and granted the Earth is not truly a "closed" system so energy is added to the atmosphere daily by solar radiation which all the trees and plant utilize as part of respiration to ingest the CO2, capture the C and release the O2 so animals and humans can exist. And the Beat goes on.

As far as "It's straight forward thermodynamics (enthalpy). You require 100% of the energy of burning to reverse the burning. Net gain is zero. "Capturing" 27% for use, means you are 127% shy of energy required to sequester the CO₂ released." I don't quite follow your point. One burns fossil fuel in a boiler, turn it into steam, run it through a turbine, drive a generator to convert that steam energy (enthalpy) to electrical energy (which is a form more readily moved long distances than steam), condense the steam in a water cooled condenser, recover what latent heat (enthalpy) you can and release the remaining energy to either the atmosphere or the water environment. Of course there are losses, but unless you propose going back to wearing bearskins, eating raw meat and walking a lot it's going to happen.

It would seem more germane to saving the planet that we try to utilize the burning of fossil fuel as efficiently as possible and to capture and recycle as much of the exhaust stream as possible, utilizing of it what we can, converting it to other forms and yes sequestering it it usable forms and I don't mean stick it down an old oil well either so we can make future Perrier water when it comes back up in a hundred years or so.

I personally would like to see coal fired plants converted to gasification units with combined cycle plants which would include fuel cells where the readily captured and separated CO2 could be used to feed algae which in turn would produce either oil or biomass to feed the ethanol plants instead of corn and soy which could be sent to Somalia to help the starving there.

Just a couple of points;

Defining terms back at me, particularly when I have used them in the correct manner is obnoxious, patronising and arrogant.

Copy paste of my statements should be visually distinguished for clarity of who said what and to avoid allegations of plagiarism.

E.g. "I prefer to think in terms of matter rather than enthalpy"

This is in quotations and italicised - indicating someone else said it and visually distinguishing it from the body of this comment.

As a result of this jumping back and forth between what I said and what you are saying about it, in uniform block of type - I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Nor will any one else.

All I can glean is you don't grasp the "time line" of "now climate" and "old climate" and a few things in thermodynamics, like "full process energy" - as opposed to 'cleaning a step' by moving the emissions 'off site'.

I have no idea what "instead of corn and soy which could be sent to Somalia to help the starving there" has to do with anything. Somalia is in the same bio-sphere.

{Carbon footprint actually applies to fossil release. It is 'carbon cycle loading' - not 'natural carbon cycle' which is the biosphere mechanism.

"capturing" fossil released carbon and using it to grow alga or food or fuel, is not sequestration, it's not even capture.

"renewable" applies to systems based in 'now growth'. PET can be made from 'now growth' as can a number of other plastics.

"fossil" applies to 'sequestered growth'. Digging it up is cheaper than growing it from scratch - which is energy 'un-affordable' - like growing wood chips converting them to anthracite and burning the 'higher grade fuel'. This however reflects the true energy price of coal and if so, you wouldn't be burning it 27% 'best efficiency' - would you?

That the "definitions" do not adhere to these distinctions is why the 'sales story' is often 'illogical' - or as in the OP's example, ludicrous.

I might add, in terms of other comments, a concrete dam has a carbon cost due to heating of cement and fuel used in obtaining aggregate, transport and construction.

An earth mass dam consumes more fuel, but less concrete.

But a well constructed dam has little maintenance and a life exceeding that of multiple thermal/fossil/nuclear power plants.

I.e. the scale of fossil used to make a dam is microscopic when compared to the tons of coal per second being devoured making power, by a single one of those 1/4 life stations.

Hydro can be regarded as '100% now solar' on carbon footprint amortization.

"Scale" is the big oversight in much of this 'selling green science' idiocy.

"Rubbery definitions" are no help to 'consumers' but a big help to marketers of wasteful and inappropriate "solutions"

"Patronizing and arrogant" and somewhat rambling would be the label I would have put on your diatribe above.

"when I have used them in the correct manner" is somewhat questionable based based on some of your uses of the terms and what is commonly found elsewhere. Very assumptive on your part as if you and only you were using the terms correctly.

Perhaps my copy and paste of your statements was not as obviously giving you the credit for the statements but I am not as prodigiously a poster as your numbers would indicate you are. I was simply trying to show the points that I felt were not accurate in your posting and attributing them to a previous posting

And quite honestly, some of your comments are the very last that I would wish to plagiarize. But I think enough has been said on who's right and who's wrong. After all, this is supposed to be an Engineering "Exchange" website not a didactic or grammatical site. There will always be differences in opinions as to causes and effects but there's certainly no need to get personal or unpleasant just because someone holds a different point of view. Generally it is often the case that neither side is 100% correct nor 100% wrong.

And soy beans and corn are used in the production of ethanol by some plants in the mid-west to be blended into gasoline. Both soy and corn are edible food products are are a basic staple for many Third World countries. I was simply pointing out that they could be put to better uses such as saving lives in Somalia, Ethiopia and other places where people are currently starving to death

Thank you, that is much clearer, and if any other person should read, c/p , or link to your post; wrongful attribution is much less likely.

I guess there's a reason the esteamed member goes by the name spinco

I understand the point you are trying to make

once the carbon comes out of the ground, there is more of an effect on the part of the system we inhabit

Not exactly rocket surgery, is it?

the hydro vs other is long view

vs

short view

on energy balance

the hydro discussion is complicated by the long term effects of storing water on the watershed(s)

good points

depends on the water shed

when the the rainfall is in the 100's of inches, hydro looks better, when the terrain has built in advantages, we should make use of them

we should make the best possible use of the resources [all types] we use

Of course you don't need an 'outflow system' to store power with gravity. Meaning re-pumping systems aren't reliant on rainfall (or fresh water).

Power storage is actually the big issue in generation efficiency, even in systems using fossil, that must run at a 'response readiness level' irrespective of 'base load'.

The advantage of water and gravity is turbines are more efficient in water media than giant solid weights and winches. Gravity 'potential' is non polluting, doesn't degrade like chemical, or thermal potential. Do it properly and you can get 80% back, which almost twice the nearest competitor.

We have oceans of water, it's low cost to 'mine', low cost to store, mostly non-toxic so doesn't present an 'end of life' disposal problem, or health hazard in normal operation. No toxic ponds, no mountains of toxic radioactive ash ...

In fact it's so benign compared with other storage media, you can play in it, grow food in it, or even drink it.

I can think of a couple of prime spots, where there is existing water transportation infrastructure. where water is pumped over the mountains & stored for LA

as I do a search, I see a bit of the pumping energy is reclaimed as the water heads back down the hill, the only part missing for a more complete system are a few pumps on the LA side.

in ag country, the issue gets mixed up with irrigation water, which is where the complications with ecosystems starts. not insurmountable.

maybe decoupling the functions of the systems, would help. the conversation required is probably too nuanced for the politicians, some of the bureaucrats would be able to follow.

it doesn't reduce to sound bytes well

If you are "assuming" that the moniker of Spinco was based on "spinning" the truth as most current day Lobbyists working for "Big oil or big coal or big electricity" you are totally 100% in error and should remember that assume has that little refrain of "makes an as_ of you and me". The name is totally unrelated to that aspect just as I assume you did not pick Garth because you wanted to label yourself as "Garth of Izar, also known as Lord Garth, Master of the Universe, fictional insane character in Star Trek's "Whom Gods Destroy" as Wikipedia has the name. Or perhaps you are a good singer like Garth Brooks. I'm sure that there was a reason other than that's your real name which I wouldn't assume it to be.

If my cause ,as an engineer, is to push for the most efficient and clean use of "the carbon" that "comes out of the ground" and push for the least amount of CO2 being released to the atmosphere and the best capture and containment and recycling of the carbon is disagreeable to some people I really find it hard to imagine why. There will be "carbon" removed from the ground over the next 100 years just due to population growth. "Green" energy will not meet all the demands. So what's wrong with making "black Carbon" energy as clean as possible?

And if one of the existing 7 Super-volcanoes located around the world decides to erupt as spew ash into the atmosphere how will we make up the loss in solar power and who knows how it would affect the jet stream and other wind conditions and the effect on wind power. Seems to me that it makes sense to have a clean less weather-sensitive power supply available unless we're just willing to allow a major segment of the population be exterminated as an answer to climate control and green house warming.

you never did explain your handle, which tends to lend credence to my interpretation, as do most of you utterances here..

speaking of assumptions, I use my name, what of it?

carbon capture & containment isn't disagreeable, just inefficient, there isn't enough energy from all sources to meet demand [no need for qualifying statements]

it does make a difference which part of the system the carbon is from

the cheapest energy is the kw that is saved

Since you are so interested, Spinco in an anagram from a foundry that I ran for 27 years. Never thought that it would be quite so controversial. But then with the present day politicians and their spokespeople often spinning the truth to fit their cause I can see your reason for concern but still see nothing in my postings that lends any credence to the interpretation you made.

Nothing of it. Most people obviously from the postings I've seen don't. I would assume, no, not assume, I would be willing to bet the ranch that less than 10% do.

We all are entitled to our opinions but I do believe that proper planning on new facilities it could be done at much less cost that trying to outfit old technologies which is the problem existing today.

Isn't it in California where the switch over to wind power has practically made the Golder Eagle extinct because of all the killings by the blades? Proper Planning Prevent P_ss Poor Ecological Performance as a paraphrase of the saying could go. Someone lamanted that dams and hydropower prevent proper spawning of certain fish species. So California got rid of the Golden Eagles so they really won't need as many fish anymore.

Carbon sequestering has been mentioned. According to some articles I have read a popular theory is to pump this down into old abandoned wells into the cavity left from extracting the oil. I have also read that oil gushers are powered by the pressure of natural gas captured at the top of these cavities.

My question is if we allow the natural gas to leave the chamber will the oil not be left behind and be hard to extract? Conversely by pumping carbon gas down a well would this not serve to re pressurize the cavity and make it easier to extract the oil. One article I read on peak oil said ther is stil plenty of oil left but it is hard to extract and will cost more to produce.

Suppose carbon gas and crude oil under high temperature and pressure interacts what will happen? Might the outcome be something beneficial.

fill mine shafts with charcoal briquettes