Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 Next
Comments 91751 to 91800:
-
RickG at 04:07 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel @ 703 Your basic misconception concerning Trenberth's schematic appears to be about what the schematic is not about. It is not depicting the Stefan–Boltzmann Law and black body radiation. The schematic is based on actual instrumental data showing how energy is distributed globally. Once again, please read the Trenberth et al paper. Earth's Global Energy Budget. -
idunno at 03:49 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi several people, I retract. I had assumed that most of the pylon of a wind-generator was also concrete. If anybody else has published correct info, ignore that bit of my comment #41. I still do think there may be more potential in water-driven generation, specifically subsurface marine and/or tidal. As I say, I have really no idea if the claims made for thorium are credible. About the whisky and the cricket though, ;p -
Alexandre at 03:41 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel #703 Just a reference about emissivity values. ε=1 is not that bad an assumption at all.
-
damorbel at 03:34 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 701 RickG you wrote:- "Since I asked you to post your revised edition correcting Trenberth's short-comings on how it should appear, I gather your above comment is code for you can't support your claims?" Looking at the Trenberth pdf you cite: on p5 he has:- "At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law R = εσT4, (1) where the emissivity ε was set to 1." Emissivity set to 1? As John McEnroe might have said "he can't be serious" Using such a figure for the Earth's surface inevitabl gives the wrong answer because the Earth's surface does not, by any stretch of the imagination, match the specifications of a black body. Worse still he claims 333W/m^2 from clouds. Clouds are even further from being black bodies. You make no reference to the fact that GHGs absorb and emit radiation only as a function of their temperature, not of their altitude. You must attach some importance to this. These things are the very essence of heat transfer in the atmosphere and anywhere else; I do think they should be examined by climatologists. -
pohjois at 03:21 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
@energy storage I would like to draw your attention to the interesting storage technology from the British startup called Isentropic. They store electric energy as a heat, claiming 80% accuracy of energy recovery. They use two storage tanks filled with gravel. One is heated to 500C and the other cooled to -150C, with the argon that is heated and cooled by heat pumps powered by electricity. Then, when the electricity is needed the heat pump works as generator recovering energy from the gravel. As far as I know they have built two small scale prototypes, working according to specs. They claim the storage costs between $55 and $10 per kWh, the latter for a large scale installations, which quite impressive. Certainly it could be very interesting alternative to the molten salt heat storage. Their web page. -
RW1 at 02:55 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 635), "RW1 @630, as it is difficult to carry on two discussions at once on the same thread, do you mind holding of on the discussion of the relevance of the light box until we have settled that it does not violate any law of thermodynamics? And to that end, do you agree that the light box does not violate any law of thermodynamics?" I'm not sure why you are asking me this. I do not believe that the GHE effect violates any of the laws of thermodynamics. -
Tom Curtis at 02:37 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Further to my 44, at a reasonable efficiency (35%), the CO2 from the concrete foundation would be fully compensated for after 75 days. Of course, I have assumed that the foundations are entirely cement, whereas concrete consists mostly of steal and gravel, much reducing that figure. Also, some turbines require up to 800 tonnes of concrete for their foundations, increasing the time required by a factor of five. All in all, three months is about the top time that should be required. -
ranyl at 02:28 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Rahul #23 - the plan is based on limiting warming to 2C, which is about 450 ppm, but only if every other major emitter follows suit. Dana but isn't that wishful thinking, that 450ppm is 2C, when the pliocene was 3-5C warmer at 350ppm? Basically 450ppm means we won't even be able to adapt! -
Tom Curtis at 02:10 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
idunno, further to your 41: Fluvial water power could not supply even a very small fraction of Australia's power needs. Hydroelectric power, on the other hand, already supplies a significant amount, but opportunities for new stations are limited. On the other hand, I personally believe that wave power is the way forward for much of Australia's renewable power needs. It is, however, an undeveloped technology and is unlikely to be readily available by 2020. (2040 is a bit different.) Finally, I have seen a number of people pushing Thorium as a magic bullet for nuclear safety. I have seen exactly the same people come out on mass a few days ago to declare that the problems at Fukujima power station were very minor and would not lead to significant exposure to radiation for anyone. That, in fact, the event was a squib and wouldn't even rate with Three Mile Island. Jokes were made comparing the expected radiation exposures from the event to those experienced from eating a banana (which are very slightly radioactive because of their phosphorous content). I take it with a grain of salt, or perhaps a grain of iodine. -
Tom Curtis at 02:00 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
idunno: CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power generation: Pollutant CO2 (Tonnes/GJ) Hard coal 0.0946 Brown coal 0.101 Fuel oil 0.0774 Other oil 0.0741 Gas 0.0561The average CO2 intensity ranges from 0.65 to 0.92 tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement across countries with a weighted average 0.83 t CO2 /t. The global average CO2 intensity in cement production declined by 1% per year between 1994 and 2003.
Around 150 tonnes of concrete are used in the foundations of a single wind turbine.
So, in the least efficient case, when we substitute wind for gas power generation, the cement in the wind power station would produce the same amount of CO2 as the Gas power station would produce after producing 2,460 GJoules. So, over 30 years, and assuming no power production due to maintenance for two days in every 7, the wind turbine would have to produce all of 3,650 Watts on average during operational times. For a 1.5 MW wind turbine, that represents an efficiency of 0.24%. Somebody was feeding you a furphy. And just a minor point, how much cement do you think there is in a gas fired power station? -
idunno at 01:42 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi RickG, Sorry, absolutely no idea. -
RickG at 01:29 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Idunno: 1. About 5% of all anthropogenic CO2 is generated by cement production. 2. So much cement goes into a wind turbine that it takes 30 years to save the equivalent in CO2 emissions. But how much of total cement production is used to construct wind turbines? -
idunno at 01:08 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi all, I have a bit of a gripe against wind turbines. In your article, John, you say at one point "...zero-carbon, not counting emissions from construction."... Well, a couple of points of information, of dubious accuarcy, as I quote from a fallible memory: 1. About 5% of all anthropogenic CO2 is generated by cement production. 2. So much cement goes into a wind turbine that it takes 30 years to save the equivalent in CO2 emissions. I also strongly suspect that there is something to be learned from our forefathers here. Windmills were historically only ever widely built where there was absolutely no other choice, in areas such as Holland and the English Fens. Wherever anybody ever had a choice between building a watermill or a windmill, you see very few windmills. Now, I'm not at all sure that fluvial water power would be adequate to supply Oz's power needs, though it would be more reliable than wind, where available. But there might be a good deal of point you lot keeping a very close eye on the latest developments in tidal and otherwise maritime power generation. The latest scheme I heard of is to supply the Island of Islay in Scotland with all of its household power needs, and enough to run 8 single malt distilleries, entirely from submerged marine generators of some kind. Given that loads of Ozzies seem to have settled along the coasts, so you can practice surfing and being bad at cricket, and that the Roaring Forties of the Southern Ocean aren't that far away... Anyway, I'm no expert, and unlikely to be one any time soon, but just thought I'd say. Also, I only just came across this yesterday, and haven't looked into it at all, but I have seem it claimed that thorium is the magic bullet. Safe nuclear. Hmmmmmmmm... P.S. Anybody wishing to encourage Islay in its efforts to go carbon zero can probably find a most enjoyable way to express your appreciation in the most expensive section of the drinks aisle. -
RickG at 00:39 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
domorbel @ 700: Trenberth's diagram is deficient in so many ways it is beyond revision. Since I asked you to post your revised edition correcting Trenberth's short-comings on how it should appear, I gather your above comment is code for you can't support your claims? The data that goes into the schematic is massive and from numerous independent sources including ISCCP-FD, NRA, ERA-40, JRA, WHOI and HOAPS. It is not an ad-hoc meaningless diagram as you claim. "Again", read and absorb the paper (Earth's Global Energy Budget) by Trenberth et al that displays and explains the schematic in vivid detail. Here's the link: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf -
Ken Lambert at 00:07 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Original Post Has James considered the situation of a large weather system such as has deluged Queensland this summer where heavy cloud and rain persist for several days (up to a week or more) - and there is much reduced solar and not much wind. The molten salt would not cover more than 12-15 hours storage. Looking at the map - 4 or 5 power towers and some of the wind would not be producing much at all. What would be available to avoid power cuts and disruption to nearly all our work and domestic life? -
Bern at 23:51 PM on 20 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
Well, it was worth the time. Nice interview with Barry Brook, and John, I thought you did quite well explaining the tropical tropospheric hotspot (that *is* a mouthful!), but, yes, Gareth's one-line summary was a pearler. I hope you'll be putting that into the basic version of that rebuttal? :-) -
damorbel at 23:30 PM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #695 RickG you wrote:- "All I can say is I don't know of a single climatologist on the planet when describing the Earth's Energy Budget, uses anything other than W/m^2." Is this a reason to accept it? Doing it the W/m^2 way without temperatures has, from the thermal physics point of view (even Newton knew it was wrong), never been justified; it is unjustifiable. Again, you wrote:- "If you are unwilling to accept that simple fact, then I suggest you redo Trenberth's schematic in your terms of temperature and show everyone how it should done." Trenberth's diagram is deficient in so many ways it is beyond revision. The so-called 'back radiation' has the concept behind it that there is a place in the atmosphere from where 'back radiation' comes; but even John Tyndall knew that this is not the case. He measured both the emission and absorption by GHGs and found that their emitted radiation was completely absorbed by gases at a lower temperature. This last means radiation emitted by GHGs is immediately absorbed and re-emitted by adjacent GHGs. This is so when the pressure and temperature gradient are zero; in the atmosphere the density reduces with altitude so the upwardly emitted radiation is not completely reabsorbed, an increasing %age gets ever higher until it escapes completely; that is the mechanism for heat radiation from the Earth.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The only thing deficient in this thread is your continued repetition of the same 'objections' to the same accepted body of work. What is preventing you from taking your comments to Dr. Trenberth, rather than belaboring them here? -
Marcus at 23:14 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Also, how *exactly* do you come up with a deceleration from that graph? A shift from an anomaly of -25mm to almost +25mm-in only 18 years-doesn't seem like much of a "deceleration" to me. Sounds like someone is just faking it now. -
Henry justice at 23:12 PM on 20 March 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
I'm looking at a TOPEX/Poseidon Jason-1/2 (CSIRO)chart showing 200 mm of rising ocean level over 130 years. This equates to a 1.54 mm per year rise. There is not much of an uptick in the curve corresponding to the increased levels of CO2. Let me check Rob's graph. Yes, it now shows 3.0 mm rate of rise. Almost double. Now I will go back to the latest CSIRO to see if they have similar data. Darm, you guys are making a believer out of me yet! -
Marcus at 23:11 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
BP @ #17-as if to prove my previous point, there you go with your Cherry Picking. Why 18 years BP? Would 20 or 30 years have disproved your argument? Got to love you contrarians, always so very selective of what "data" you use to "prove" your case-probably because the *whole* picture doesn't do your case any good at all. Still, nice to see that, along with all your other arguments, you're very clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel now. -
Alexandre at 23:05 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
R. Gates #37 Well, I understand the point of publishing such a study is try to raise public interest and political will via showing the possibilities. -
Alexandre at 23:02 PM on 20 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
My way to work takes some 25~30 min. This time the show will last 3 trips, then. No problem at all to me... -
les at 22:49 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
17 Berényi: does really say "below Current levels"!?!? No one could seriously tell if that graph is curve like a parabola or asymptotic. -
Bern at 22:25 PM on 20 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
80 minutes this week? Eeek! Ah, well, I've got a nice cuppa handy and no pressing demands... :-P -
Berényi Péter at 22:22 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
#12 Marcus at 16:17 PM on 20 March, 2011 though its true this doesn't represent peer-review science, it is *backed* by the vast bulk of peer-review science Presumably you mean papers like this one. Environmental Research Letters, 2007, Volume 2, Number 2, 024002 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002 Scientific reticence and sea level rise J E Hansen "There is enough information now, in my opinion, to make it a near certainty that IPCC BAU climate forcing scenarios would lead to a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale".
Hansen's statement is unfortunately not supported by actual measurements. If it goes on like this, sea level would stop rising by 2027 and would be 23 cm below current level by 2100.
-
Bern at 22:22 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus - yes, you're right, there are many options out there for energy storage. I understand it's a rich field of research at the moment. The molten salt option was chosen by ZCA, as I understand it, because it's easy, proven, and off-the-shelf. It's also all you need if you only want to provide storage for ~12-15 hours or so. I do like the "long term storage" that some of the chemical options give you, very much worth looking in to. Oh, re methane - as I understand it, it's 77 times worse than CO2 over 20 years, and 25 times worse over a century. So biogas is an even better option than you state (and is why landfill gas projects are sometimes considered to be greenhouse negative). R.Gates - yes, the political will needs to be there. I was going to comment further on that, but it's seriously off-topic for this thread, which I think is focussing more on the technical side of things. -
Marcus at 22:12 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Also, BP, its worth noting that China has considerable investment in the Australian Coal & Natural Gas industry, & I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same in the US-so I'm sure we'll hear you kicking up a massive stink about that...well actually we probably won't, because Chinese investment in fossil fuels is *fine*-its only a problem when they invest in renewable energy. Isn't that right BP? -
Marcus at 22:03 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
As JMurphy says-so you'd be OK with the Chinese withdrawing *all* investment from the US economy? If you do, then say good-bye to the US economy altogether. Secondly, does this support for energy sources that aren't dependent on foreign dictatorships also extend to *oil*, which comes largely from the most non-democratic nations in the World (like Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates). Seems like you're cherry picking in order to create a straw-man argument, which is pretty much all you ever do. -
JMurphy at 21:52 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Berényi Péter, does your aversion to Chinese investment extend to all of it or just that bit invested in renewables ? -
John Brookes at 21:43 PM on 20 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
That wasn't a wise man, it was Bob Dylan! -
Berényi Péter at 20:34 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
#11 Marcus at 16:15 PM on 20 March, 2011 The second part of your argument is just naked racism I see. If one prefers a constitution based on checks and balances in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to one built on people's democratic dictatorship and the principle of democratic centralism, that's naked racism. I have not heard this line of argument in more than two decades but I can't say it is unheard of. In fact I was fed this BS ad nauseam during my youth. -
R. Gates at 17:26 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
While I appreciate the optimism and logic you display in your article, from what I can see going on politically in the U.S. and elsewhere, I think the momentum for making serious changes has slowed to a near stand-still and in some respects reversed. To make the kinds of changes you suggest will require a different mind-set of the majority of citizens-- something akin to a "war footing" and that is not currently in place. It will only be to the extent that climate change related "inconveniences" impact the lives of the average person that they get a war-footing mentality and support the kinds of changes suggested. In short, even if the majority of politicians were behind what you suggest (which they aren't), they'd still need to convince the majority of voters to go along with these changes as their will be the upfront costs. -
Rob Painting at 16:36 PM on 20 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Gary Thompson @ 45 - Eye-balling the graph does indeed tend to convey similar pH levels to present during past interglacials, however that isn't the case. The graph simply lacks sufficient detail. Here's what the authors from Pelejero 2010 have to say: "The current human-induced perturbation of seawater pH starts at the low end of glacial–interglacial pH variability. From this perspective, and given that the surface oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units since the pre-industrial period, current conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by the oceans during glacial–interglacial cycles (Figure 2). Moreover, by the end of the twenty-first century, the projected decline in seawater pH might be three- times larger than perturbations observed as the Earth’s climate has oscillated between glacial and interglacial periods" Note that the 0.1 units referred to by the authors, represents almost a 30% increase in acidity over pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric CO2 (as contained in the ice cores) is a proxy for global ocean pH because of Henry's Law. More CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans as concentrations in the atmosphere rise, causing pH to fall. (See the equations in the above post) . As atmospheric concentrations of CO2 fall (as in entering into a glacial period), CO2 dissolved in the oceans decline raising pH. The chemical reactions move in the other direction. Of course the ice cores only go back 800,000 years, and that's where the boron isotopes come into play as a paleo pH proxy. So your question as posed, is invalid. As stated earlier ocean pH levels have not been this low for millions of years. Here's what Pelejero 2010 have to say on that: "The average surface pH levels that oceans have reached today are already more extreme than those experienced by the oceans during the glacial–interglacial changes and beyond, probably being more extreme than at any time during the last 20 million years" Read the study, it summarizes the subject very well. -
Marcus at 16:17 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Also, BP, though its true this doesn't represent peer-review science, it is *backed* by the vast bulk of peer-review science. Meanwhile, the propaganda being pushed out to the public, by the Contrarians, isn't backed by peer-reviewed science, but I bet you don't object to that-even when its funded by tax dollars? -
Marcus at 16:15 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Yes, Beranyi, & how much tax-payers money do you think the US Coal & Nuclear industries get-in spite of being "mature" technology? Lets just say that it is way, way more than $450 million. So you're really just putting up a straw-man argument right there. The second part of your argument is just naked racism, which I'm sure you'd hate were it directed towards you. I see that, after months of posting bogus arguments, you're finally just scraping the bottom of the barrel. -
Marcus at 16:06 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
I think there's something we need to ask in relation to the title of this post-how are we defining "Zero Carbon"? I mean, are we talking net zero CO2 (i.e. where the amount of CO2 put out is at least matched by the CO2 soaked up by new & existing sinks), gross zero CO2 (i.e. no CO2 emitted from Human Sources at all), or net/gross CO2e (i.e. where the amount of *actual* CO2 produced is offset by a reduction in the production of other, worse, greenhouse gases). If its defined as net CO2e, then I think Bio-gas is an oft overlooked option for base-load energy production. After all, human waste streams are *always* going to produce methane, which is an 8 times worse GHG than CO2. So every tonne of methane converted to a tonne of CO2 means 7 tonnes of CO2e effectively saved (at least as I understand it). Also, every tonne of CO2 produced from burning bio-gas to generate around 2 MW-h of electricity saves around 2t of CO2 produced by burning coal to generate the same amount of electricity. So, unless I misunderstand it, burning 1t of methane to generate around 2 MW-h of electricity saves approximately 9t CO2e. Of course, this benefit can be extended further by (a) using any waste heat to heat local buildings or heat for industrial uses & (b) if the bulk of the CO2 gets captured in algal biomass, which can then be gasified & re-used to produce electricity/heat. Anyway, just a thought. -
garythompson at 15:52 PM on 20 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
It is without question that the atmospheric CO2 now is much greater than prior interglacials. But the ocean pH now is very similar to the pH in past interglacials (about 120,000 years ago) as shown by the graph below which was taken from the pelejero paper. So my question was regarding what was the impact on oceanic species and the possible extinction as related to now. And the fact that the pH in past interglacials was equal to the pH now seems to point to something else that changed the pH since the atmospheric CO2 now is much greater than in the past.
-
HuggyPopsBear at 15:30 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Thanks -
Daniel Bailey at 15:26 PM on 20 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Apologies for being away: Had to deal with this crazy thing called life, the universe & everything. Charlie A, I'm sorry if you have taken exception to my phraseology. I apologize for a lack of clarity in my thoughts. While indeed in the historical, paleo, record coral atolls have managed (with mixed success) to survive periods of sea level variability, for the majority of those periods the rates of change will be exceeded by those to come. For your observation about land reclaimed from the sea or created out of whole cloth: point taken. I would submit that the areas reclaimed have been quite small in comparison to the existing land surface, however. And that rates of people creation have vastly exceeded those of land area creation. I would also point out that reclamation of areas/land creation is an expensive proposition in an era of stable sea levels; given 1-5+ meters SLR projected to possibly occur over the next 100 years it would seem likely that efforts will shift to protecting as much as possible of what exists via sea walls and tide surge barriers. Given a 5 meter SLR and a 5 meter storm surge, how much can be protected before the cost of protection becomes economically unviable? Napoleon once faced such as onslaught...and fared non-too-well. The Yooper -
Rob Painting at 14:42 PM on 20 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
CharlieA - "It makes the basic point I was trying to make, that there is indeed creation of new real estate going on in many areas" OK. Point taken. -
Rob Painting at 14:36 PM on 20 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
Charlie A -"Corals don't grow very fast if submerged more than a few 10's of meters. The existence of coral atolls through the many past changes in sea level are a testament to the resiliency of the coral atoll systems." It's very likely Dan Bailey is correct and the Maldives will be submerged in the future. Like Pacific atolls, the Maldives were subjected to higher than present sea levels earlier in the Holocene. See Kench 2008. Accordingly these atolls too will have solid reef flats that formed during this period of higher sea level. These serve to protect them from long-term sediment loss. However once the reef flats are submerged by the rising high tide, the coral rubble, sediment and thin soils which have accumulated, will be subject to wave damage. Add ocean acidification & coral bleaching into the mix and the future looks a bit dicey. It's a fallacy that atolls, as they now appear, have existed for a long time. They only began forming once the rising sea level, coming out of the last glacial maximum, submerged the atoll summits which formed during the previous interglacial. Something Darwin was unaware of when he first proposed his reef formation hypothesis. -
Charlie A at 14:22 PM on 20 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
#27 Rob Painting. I agree with the above post. It makes the basic point I was trying to make, that there is indeed creation of new real estate going on in many areas. This sequence of several back and forth comments all go back to comment #16 by Skeptical Scientist author Dan Baily, where he stated that "Creation of new real estate (at all, let alone that above future SLR) = slim to none (outside of new volcanic islands)." and my response in #19 that said his statement was contrary to the historical record for coral atolls, the historical growth in seashore land area in urban areas, and the historical growth of some deltas. I didn't think that was a particularly controversial statement, although it drew an immediate contrary response from you. Unless you want to challenge that portion of my assertion that is most relevant to this article ... which is that almost all urban areas have added real estate over the last 100 or 200 years, even as the sea level continued to rise; then this exchange has reached its end. -
Marcus at 14:12 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Tom @28. I've read about a number of low-carbon building techniques over the years-in a purely amateur fashion of course. Like I said, the Romans made their cement out of Aluminium Silicate-which was to be found in abundance on at areas of high volcanic activity. Ironically, fly-ash waste from burning coal is also a rich source of aluminium silicate as well (& there must be *billions* of tonnes of the stuff buried around the world after at least 30 years of the stuff being collected in flue stacks, rather than released into the atmosphere). Anyway, the stuff we've been using since the 19th century makes use of Calcium Carbonate which, when baked at high temperature, releases CO2 & leaves behind Calcium Oxide-which is what they actually use to make the cement. Aluminium Silicate, by contrast, releases no CO2 when it is made into cement-so is effectively CO2 free. Another area is steel manufacture. It's just common sense that steel containing a large amount of material from recycled material will require less energy to manufacture than making it from raw iron ore. Arc Furnaces are also more efficient than blast furnaces, requiring just 1/3rd of the energy to melt iron & steel than blast furnaces. Also, I've read of attempts by the some steel manufacturers to capture the waste heat from making steel, & converting it into electricity (so-called co-generation). All combined, this could make the manufacture of renewable energy generation systems much less CO2 intensive. -
Marcus at 13:52 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
"I was in iceland last year. I saw a BP hydrogen station in Reykjavik (actually I think there are a few of them). Very nice green paints. Unfortunately, not a single car stopping at them. May be some buses stop there from time to time , but I missed the time;" Yes, & how old is this technology Gilles? From my reading its barely been around more than 5 or 6 years. Sheesh, I reckon if I went back in time about 120 years, I'd be able to gleefully "predict" that petroleum & Internal Combustion Engines were a total dead end-because there would have been no petroleum distribution network yet & very few people making use of what little petroleum dispensing centers currently existed at that time. We all know how useful that little prediction would be though, wouldn't we? This highlights how pointless *all* of your questions regarding *current* use of renewable fuels actually is. It doesn't *matter* what the current situation is, as the technology is still relatively new-only the future potential of the technology is what matters. Coal & Oil were, in their beginnings, the only real game in town, yet they took several *decades*, even with 100% government support, to go from the drawing boards to commercial viability-& even today these industries enjoy very healthy subsidies courtesy of tax payers. Yet people like you frequently *demand* that renewable energy technologies be 100% commercially viable, subsidy free, *yesterday*. -
Marcus at 13:41 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
"However, in addition to demand being substantially lower at night (about 40% lower, according to the figures I downloaded), you have to look at how that 7.5hrs of storage is achieved - it's a big insulated tank full of molten salt." A couple of points Bern. Firstly, if the majority of our street lights were solar powered (i.e. powered by batteries charged by sunlight during the day) & if owners of office buildings didn't feel the need to leave the whole office block lit up like a Christmas Tree, then I reckon night-time demand for mains electricity could be cut to little more than 20% of day-time peak demand. Secondly, Molten Storage is great, but I'm surprised there isn't more work going into so-called "Thermo-chemical storage". A number of ubiquitous chemicals-like Methane, sulfur trioxide, ammonia & apparently even water-can be broken down into their constituent components at the temperatures achieved by Concentrated Solar Power (though its true that some require a catalyst as well). Methane can be broken down to CO2 & H2, Sulfur Trioxide can be broken down to SO2 & O2, ammonia can be broken down into N2 & H2 & even water can (with a nickel catalyst) apparently be broken down into H2 & O2. Now, once broken down, the energy can be retained as long as you want, until you re-react them together again-which will, of course, re-release the heat as an exothermic reaction. Not only does it represent an excellent source of long-term storage of solar heat for night time & very cloudy days, but some of the by-products can even be used as feedstock for other industrial processes. Just a thought. -
Marcus at 13:31 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
"if you understand that I'm claiming that it is not worth improving our energy efficiency and save FF, you totally misunderstand me. I'm sorry you're not able to get what I'm really saying - although as a teacher I am somewhat used to this kind of situation." Wow, you're a *teacher*? I really pity your students is all I can say. Every single post you extol the virtues of fossil fuels & tell everyone how civilization can't exist without them. You constantly assert-or at best imply-that energy efficiency is a worthless endeavour-so I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand? Maybe if you want to be better understood, you need to be a more effective communicator of what your actual views are on this subject, because so far you've done an exceptional job of portraying yourself as an unreconstructed supporter of all things fossil fuel. -
cjshaker at 13:01 PM on 20 March 2011We're heading into an ice age
"it looks as though", not "it look as those" Chris Shaker -
cjshaker at 12:59 PM on 20 March 2011We're heading into an ice age
I see the same thing in the graph at the top of this page, we appear to be cooler than the peak during all of the previous interglacials on the graph. Also, it looks as those the temperature has previously been higher during this interglacial, and is slowly cooling overall? The line is quite thick, but it seems to trend down over the past 15,000 years or so. Chris Shaker -
cjshaker at 12:53 PM on 20 March 2011We're heading into an ice age
I am also curious as to whether other people seeing the same things in the graph that I am seeing, ie - is the temperature delta over the 100,000 year glaical cycle 10 to 11 C, as it seems to me? Does someone have a better number for the current temperature than the one provided in that National Geographic article? Chris Shaker -
Bern at 12:51 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
MattJ @ 19: yes, the prototype / pilot plants constructed so far only had 7.5hrs of storage. However, in addition to demand being substantially lower at night (about 40% lower, according to the figures I downloaded), you have to look at how that 7.5hrs of storage is achieved - it's a big insulated tank full of molten salt. You want more storage? Build a bigger tank... Of course, that also requires an increase in the size of the collector to heat it up during the day, but it's not an intractable problem.
Prev 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 Next
