It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Controversial New Climate Change Data: Is Earth's Capacity To Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected
page: 3share:
You asked why? This article shows that you can't trust computer generated models until they are compared to the facts. And cause in this proposal,
we the US, a "developed" country, will have to pay poorer countries at least .7% of our GNP because it is incorrectly assumed that WE CAUSED their
famines, floods, hurricanes, bad decisions, uprisings,etc.
Actual proposal
If we were to follow the IPCC reasoning (AND the WHOLE reason for so called treaties such as these): since we have put in more than 17x the CO2 since the 19th century, shouldn't there be at least 6x (assuming 40% absorp) the amt of CO2 in the atmosphere since we've been "contributing" to it for almost 200 years? But since there's not, and since the earth seems to absorb more than previously thought, the "cap" on emissions shouldn't be so high, and quite honestly so impossible to reach in such a short amt of time.
(You'll have to excuse my ignorance on the amt of CO2 in the atmosphere if I'm understanding something wrong here, which apparently I am since there's only abt a supposed 25% increase, not a 600%.)
And then what abt the supposed increase, is it real? According to what seems logical reasoning to me, the ice core readings are highly inaccurate due to lack of proper atmospheric conditions contained in the air bubbles. Please see this site for more details. According to this site, our CO2 really hasn't risen all that much (using fossil leaves) since industrialization.
Well, those of us who has shown as low as a passing interest up to an obsession with this iceage/globalwarming/climatechange, have connected the dots on that banana. When you see that:
the earth hasn't been affected by our dumping SO much into the air as the article states;
that the true rising of CO2 is not correct, that even though we took off all SUVs from the streets of the US the difference in atmospheric CO2 would be truly insignificant;
the temperature stations that show an upward trend are actually now sitting in the urban heat which is well known to be higher just in itself, so giving a false increase reading;
the computer generated sudden incr in temp is statistically proven false by hard facts, espec since we've had warmings and coolings thruout even the 10,000 yrs;
etc. etc. etc...but the most important one.....there is NO SCIENTIFIC study that shows CO2 emissions are causing the global warming. And this article is just one more article that shows that thus far their computerized models are incorrect and not true to the real world.
[edit on 11/14/2009 by willow1d]
[edit on 11/14/2009 by willow1d]
Actual proposal
[Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties]...[taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]...
PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed
continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.
1. [[[As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report] Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]
2. Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries
[Parties]
If we were to follow the IPCC reasoning (AND the WHOLE reason for so called treaties such as these): since we have put in more than 17x the CO2 since the 19th century, shouldn't there be at least 6x (assuming 40% absorp) the amt of CO2 in the atmosphere since we've been "contributing" to it for almost 200 years? But since there's not, and since the earth seems to absorb more than previously thought, the "cap" on emissions shouldn't be so high, and quite honestly so impossible to reach in such a short amt of time.
(You'll have to excuse my ignorance on the amt of CO2 in the atmosphere if I'm understanding something wrong here, which apparently I am since there's only abt a supposed 25% increase, not a 600%.)
And then what abt the supposed increase, is it real? According to what seems logical reasoning to me, the ice core readings are highly inaccurate due to lack of proper atmospheric conditions contained in the air bubbles. Please see this site for more details. According to this site, our CO2 really hasn't risen all that much (using fossil leaves) since industrialization.
The responses to this study are actually very funny. If someone presented a polka-dot banana and said it clashed with AGW, a similar set of responses would likely appear.
Well, those of us who has shown as low as a passing interest up to an obsession with this iceage/globalwarming/climatechange, have connected the dots on that banana. When you see that:
the earth hasn't been affected by our dumping SO much into the air as the article states;
that the true rising of CO2 is not correct, that even though we took off all SUVs from the streets of the US the difference in atmospheric CO2 would be truly insignificant;
the temperature stations that show an upward trend are actually now sitting in the urban heat which is well known to be higher just in itself, so giving a false increase reading;
the computer generated sudden incr in temp is statistically proven false by hard facts, espec since we've had warmings and coolings thruout even the 10,000 yrs;
etc. etc. etc...but the most important one.....there is NO SCIENTIFIC study that shows CO2 emissions are causing the global warming. And this article is just one more article that shows that thus far their computerized models are incorrect and not true to the real world.
[edit on 11/14/2009 by willow1d]
[edit on 11/14/2009 by willow1d]
reply to post by willow1d
Since my "edit" doesn't seem to be functioning correctly, I'll edit here.
Where I said the "the earth hasn't been affected", I meant "the earth's absorption rate".
And there were a couple of typos, forgotten words that I missed, so please excuse. But I did want to correct the aforementioned statement!
Since my "edit" doesn't seem to be functioning correctly, I'll edit here.
Where I said the "the earth hasn't been affected", I meant "the earth's absorption rate".
And there were a couple of typos, forgotten words that I missed, so please excuse. But I did want to correct the aforementioned statement!
Originally posted by willow1d
Well, those of us who has shown as low as a passing interest up to an obsession with this iceage/globalwarming/climatechange, have connected the dots on that banana. When you see that:
Considering I can't be bothered with the scattergun BS, I would think the best thing to say here is: whatever you're doing in the 'interest/obsession' department, you're doing it wrong.
Cheers.
reply to post by melatonin
Columbia University was asking for governmental grants to market, not to develop. Their device was already tested and they had concrete results. This was not some design on paper; it was an actual, functioning, tested unit. No grant was forthcoming, and it would appear this was due to organizations like Greenpeace denouncing it.
CO2 sequestration is actually not a difficult thing to accomplish. We have had the technology for years. If there were enough carbon in the atmosphere to make it commercially viable, I am certain there would already be such sequestration going on. Carbon has many uses, such as carbon fiber composites, graphite, and even charcoal for barbecue grills.
Cost: demonstrated to be viable, as opposed to Cap & Trade being potentially disastrous economically, to the tune of trillions of dollars in price increases and lost jobs.
Development time: almost immediate, compared to a few years for Cap & Trade to fully engage.
Effectiveness: one ton of CO2 per day per unit, as opposed to questionable Cap & Trade efficiency which has yet to be tested or proven with results.
Overall consequences: one ton of CO2 removed per day per unit. Isn't that what Cap & Trade is supposed to do as well, reduce CO2?
Process: simple chemical reactions. Nothing uncertain about it. There is still plenty of uncertainty about every aspect of Cap & Trade, except that it will cost a lot of money to the public at large.
Where does the product go? Back into the earth. Carbon is not a hazardous material, and does not need to be treated as one. The only concern is over the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the amount of carbon.
8 gigatons of carbon per year. Is that carbon dioxide or carbon? I'd like to see some more information on where you got that number. Does it include all life-based CO2? Or only energy plants? How was it measured?
Time for another linky-dink.
But Cap & Trade is a tax, just like any excise tax or income tax or sin tax. The carbon credits came from governments. Who gets paid when they are sold? Governments. Who pays the price for them? Consumers. No business can afford to not pass on such a cost increase in operating expenses and survive.
Consumers pay extra for their use of a product, which is funneled to their government. That is the definition of a tax.
TheRedneck
There are potential methods to do it, but none to few are tested in any even pilot or large scale. The costs are uncertain but it won't be cheap, the development time is uncertain, the effectiveness is uncertain, the overall consequences and process is uncertain.
Columbia University was asking for governmental grants to market, not to develop. Their device was already tested and they had concrete results. This was not some design on paper; it was an actual, functioning, tested unit. No grant was forthcoming, and it would appear this was due to organizations like Greenpeace denouncing it.
CO2 sequestration is actually not a difficult thing to accomplish. We have had the technology for years. If there were enough carbon in the atmosphere to make it commercially viable, I am certain there would already be such sequestration going on. Carbon has many uses, such as carbon fiber composites, graphite, and even charcoal for barbecue grills.
Cost: demonstrated to be viable, as opposed to Cap & Trade being potentially disastrous economically, to the tune of trillions of dollars in price increases and lost jobs.
Development time: almost immediate, compared to a few years for Cap & Trade to fully engage.
Effectiveness: one ton of CO2 per day per unit, as opposed to questionable Cap & Trade efficiency which has yet to be tested or proven with results.
Overall consequences: one ton of CO2 removed per day per unit. Isn't that what Cap & Trade is supposed to do as well, reduce CO2?
Process: simple chemical reactions. Nothing uncertain about it. There is still plenty of uncertainty about every aspect of Cap & Trade, except that it will cost a lot of money to the public at large.
So we remove CO2, pretty simple chemistry on the small scale, and then what? The next issue is where does the product go? No good if the carbon is back into the atmosphere within a few years. So it needs to be stored long-term in a reliable way - sounds fun. Then we have to wonder how effective the method is...how long will it take to even start reducing atmospheric CO2? Is it able to remove even our yearly emissions (8 gigatonnes of carbon, lol), and how long will it take to do so? How long will it take to roll out these methods to the scale required to reduce CO2 in any useful quantities? How much are we talking about for an effective method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing the resultant byproduct?
Where does the product go? Back into the earth. Carbon is not a hazardous material, and does not need to be treated as one. The only concern is over the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the amount of carbon.
8 gigatons of carbon per year. Is that carbon dioxide or carbon? I'd like to see some more information on where you got that number. Does it include all life-based CO2? Or only energy plants? How was it measured?
Time for another linky-dink.
I don't think straight taxes are the most effective approach. Unless we compel reductions in emissions, I feel industry and people will just overcome the expense and little really changes. Hence C&T makes more sense.
But Cap & Trade is a tax, just like any excise tax or income tax or sin tax. The carbon credits came from governments. Who gets paid when they are sold? Governments. Who pays the price for them? Consumers. No business can afford to not pass on such a cost increase in operating expenses and survive.
Consumers pay extra for their use of a product, which is funneled to their government. That is the definition of a tax.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Columbia University was asking for governmental grants to market, not to develop. Their device was already tested and they had concrete results. This was not some design on paper; it was an actual, functioning, tested unit. No grant was forthcoming, and it would appear this was due to organizations like Greenpeace denouncing it.
I thought 'develop' was pretty indicative of the situation here. They have a pre-prototype.
CO2 sequestration is actually not a difficult thing to accomplish. We have had the technology for years. If there were enough carbon in the atmosphere to make it commercially viable, I am certain there would already be such sequestration going on. Carbon has many uses, such as carbon fiber composites, graphite, and even charcoal for barbecue grills.
You do understand that burning it would just put it back where it came from? There would be 8 gigatonnes of the stuff every year, lol. However, I'm sure it would be much higher soon enough. But with this proposal, we're actually talking about binding CO2 into a compound, then processing, and storing safely.
Cost: demonstrated to be viable, as opposed to Cap & Trade being potentially disastrous economically, to the tune of trillions of dollars in price increases and lost jobs.
Development time: almost immediate, compared to a few years for Cap & Trade to fully engage.
Effectiveness: one ton of CO2 per day per unit, as opposed to questionable Cap & Trade efficiency which has yet to be tested or proven with results.
Overall consequences: one ton of CO2 removed per day per unit. Isn't that what Cap & Trade is supposed to do as well, reduce CO2?
Process: simple chemical reactions. Nothing uncertain about it. There is still plenty of uncertainty about every aspect of Cap & Trade, except that it will cost a lot of money to the public at large.
C&T is tried and tested. Europe will meet its Kyoto requirements and you've had a C&T system for years. You're suggestions of economic disaster is not supported by the evidence.
I know the chemistry is simple enough. There are uncertainties - cost, effectiveness, reliability, and safety. Unless you think pre-prototypes are sure-things... And who pays for artificial trees and the reprocessing? They won't grow themselves...
For CO2 we release something around 28 billion tonnes a year at the moment. How many of these artificial trees do we need? How much will it cost to produce, maintain, and reprocess? How long will it take to roll out? How long will it take to have a real effect? How reliable is it? Just what do we do with the product?
Nothing is stopping them from developing this system, the money is out there in the market - Branson has been waving a $25 million wedge for such technologies. Even one of your bogeymen, Hansen, is supporting the development of carbon capture.
At the other end of the scale, Keith has estimated it might cost $500 per tonne of carbon using today's technologies (see 'A way to pay for capturing carbon dioxide'). That would rack up a bill of $325 trillion to soak up 650 Gt of carbon, but Pielke notes that such a price tag would still only be 2.7% of global economic output by 2100. That compares favourably with price estimates of the IPCC (–1 to 5% of global economic output) and economist Nicholas Stern (–2 to 4%) for stabilizing air concentrations at 450 p.p.m. without air capture.
...
"It is the most expensive climate-mitigation technology," agrees Zeman. "And that's a good thing. It has this role as the upper bound on solving the climate problem."
www.nature.com...
It's an early-stage technology which could be very useful but potentially still very expensive. Indeed, the most expensive according to one researcher into these methods. Don't try to make it something it isn't.
Where does the product go? Back into the earth. Carbon is not a hazardous material, and does not need to be treated as one. The only concern is over the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the amount of carbon.
It needs to be shoved back in a reliable way. Is the storage system prone to leaking back into the environment? If so, would it harm ecosystems? Groundwater? Just return to the atmosphere?
8 gigatons of carbon per year. Is that carbon dioxide or carbon? I'd like to see some more information on where you got that number. Does it include all life-based CO2? Or only energy plants? How was it measured?
Time for another linky-dink.
Would take a few clicks to find it. It was actually 8.38GtC in 2006 (gigatonnes of carbon).
But Cap & Trade is a tax, just like any excise tax or income tax or sin tax. The carbon credits came from governments. Who gets paid when they are sold? Governments. Who pays the price for them? Consumers. No business can afford to not pass on such a cost increase in operating expenses and survive.
No, it isn't. It's a regulation. You're supporting another system that could just be more expensive than what is already on the table and is at a very early stage.
Consumers pay extra for their use of a product, which is funneled to their government. That is the definition of a tax.
TheRedneck
But, taking the US system, most of the cash goes nowhere near the government...
You'll still be paying for carbon sequestration. Just to reiterate, artificial trees don't grow on trees.
[edit on 14-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
A what?
Mel, there is only one thing that comes before a prototype: a design. They have a working model; a prototype.
Yeah, that's the funny thing about CO2... it is the end result any time carbon is burned in an oxygen atmosphere. But only one of my examples is typically burned. Carbon fiber composites are high-strength low-weight building materials (which are now very expensive; I priced some just a few weeks back), and graphite isn't typically burned unless you are in the habit of burning your notes.
The point is, there are many uses for carbon.
As I understand it, carbon output has not reduced significantly in Europe since Cap & Trade was initiated, but fuel prices have increased significantly. Now, being I have never been to Europe, some links to show my ignorance would be considered.
The US does not at this time have Cap & Trade, except as a voluntary measure. No law requiring it has yet been passed, although some are now working their way through Congress.
There are no uncertainties. Carbon sequestration has been feasable for many years... there is simply no real incentive to accomplish it. It is even possible to produce gasoline from CO2, although this is cost-prohibitive at present... primarily due to the fact that so much air has to be processed for each gallon of gasoline produced. That is a nice expletive to how little CO2 concentration there really is.
Well, let's see... 28,000,000,000 divided by 365.25 tons per year = about 76,700,000 units. That would be one unit for every 4 people in the US alone, or less than one per family.
If you consider world population instead of US population (it is a Global thing, isn't it?), then that would be more like one unit per every 85 persons.
So the answer is: a lot less than we have TVs, microwave ovens, or automobiles in the US alone.
Done. Can you put me in touch with them?
There have been many advances that apparently these fine individuals are not familiar with.
How about turning it into artificial diamonds? Would that satisfy you? For an initial outlay of $25 mil, I could probably even make that happen.
Carbon does not damage groundwater. Ever heard of a charcoal filter?
I had figured it was carbon and not CO2 based your estimate of CO2 produced earlier in this thread. No problem; take your time. It's a little late for me to making linky-dinks as well.
A regulation is a hidden tax.
Who is selling the carbon credits initially?
No, they don't, and yes I will. But at least I will not be paying money that goes nowhere near actual removal of CO2. Privately operated manufacturing of a product is immensely fairer that governmental control, and causes much less loss of liberty.
And I personally like liberty.
I'm waiting for that introduction to Branson and Hansen.
TheRedneck
I thought 'develop' was pretty indicative of the situation here. They have a pre-prototype.
A what?
Mel, there is only one thing that comes before a prototype: a design. They have a working model; a prototype.
You do understand that burning it would just put it back where it came from?
Yeah, that's the funny thing about CO2... it is the end result any time carbon is burned in an oxygen atmosphere. But only one of my examples is typically burned. Carbon fiber composites are high-strength low-weight building materials (which are now very expensive; I priced some just a few weeks back), and graphite isn't typically burned unless you are in the habit of burning your notes.
The point is, there are many uses for carbon.
C&T is tried and tested. Europe will meet its Kyoto requirements and you've had a C&T system for years. You're suggestions of economic disaster is not supported by the evidence.
As I understand it, carbon output has not reduced significantly in Europe since Cap & Trade was initiated, but fuel prices have increased significantly. Now, being I have never been to Europe, some links to show my ignorance would be considered.
The US does not at this time have Cap & Trade, except as a voluntary measure. No law requiring it has yet been passed, although some are now working their way through Congress.
I know the chemistry is simple enough. There are uncertainties - cost, effectiveness, reliability, and safety. Unless you think pre-prototypes are sure-things... And who pays for artificial trees and the reprocessing? They won't grow themselves...
There are no uncertainties. Carbon sequestration has been feasable for many years... there is simply no real incentive to accomplish it. It is even possible to produce gasoline from CO2, although this is cost-prohibitive at present... primarily due to the fact that so much air has to be processed for each gallon of gasoline produced. That is a nice expletive to how little CO2 concentration there really is.
For CO2 we release something around 28 billion tonnes a year at the moment. How many of these artificial trees do we need?
Well, let's see... 28,000,000,000 divided by 365.25 tons per year = about 76,700,000 units. That would be one unit for every 4 people in the US alone, or less than one per family.
If you consider world population instead of US population (it is a Global thing, isn't it?), then that would be more like one unit per every 85 persons.
So the answer is: a lot less than we have TVs, microwave ovens, or automobiles in the US alone.
Nothing is stopping them from developing this system, the money is out there in the market - Branson has been waving a $25 million wedge for such technologies. Even one of your bogeymen, Hansen, is supporting the development of carbon capture.
Done. Can you put me in touch with them?
It's an early-stage technology which could be very useful but potentially still very expensive. Indeed, the most expensive according to one researcher into these methods. Don't try to make it something it isn't.
There have been many advances that apparently these fine individuals are not familiar with.
It needs to be shoved back in a reliable way. Is the storage system prone to leaking back into the environment? If so, would it harm ecosystems? Groundwater? Just return to the atmosphere?
How about turning it into artificial diamonds? Would that satisfy you? For an initial outlay of $25 mil, I could probably even make that happen.
Carbon does not damage groundwater. Ever heard of a charcoal filter?
Would take a few clicks to find it. It was actually 8.38GtC in 2006 (gigatonnes of carbon).
I had figured it was carbon and not CO2 based your estimate of CO2 produced earlier in this thread. No problem; take your time. It's a little late for me to making linky-dinks as well.
No, it isn't. It's a regulation. You're supporting another system that could just be more expensive than what is already on the table and is at a very early stage.
A regulation is a hidden tax.
But, taking the US system, most of the cash goes nowhere near the government...
Who is selling the carbon credits initially?
You'll still be paying for carbon sequestration. Just to reiterate, artificial trees don't grow on trees.
No, they don't, and yes I will. But at least I will not be paying money that goes nowhere near actual removal of CO2. Privately operated manufacturing of a product is immensely fairer that governmental control, and causes much less loss of liberty.
And I personally like liberty.
I'm waiting for that introduction to Branson and Hansen.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
A what?
Mel, there is only one thing that comes before a prototype: a design. They have a working model; a prototype.
A pre-prototype.
The team is working to build a prototype at a laboratory in Tuscon, Arizona. Run by a company called Global Research Technologies (GRT), of which Lackner is vice president of research, the laboratory unveiled a "pre-prototype" air capture machine last year, based on a different technique -rinsing trapped CO2 off the membrane with liquid sodium carbonate, and then using electricity to liberate the CO2 from the fluid.
linky
Yeah, that's the funny thing about CO2... it is the end result any time carbon is burned in an oxygen atmosphere. But only one of my examples is typically burned. Carbon fiber composites are high-strength low-weight building materials (which are now very expensive; I priced some just a few weeks back), and graphite isn't typically burned unless you are in the habit of burning your notes.
The point is, there are many uses for carbon.
There are. I was just a bit surprised you even suggested burning it. Sort of defeats the object of pulling it out the air.
As I understand it, carbon output has not reduced significantly in Europe since Cap & Trade was initiated, but fuel prices have increased significantly. Now, being I have never been to Europe, some links to show my ignorance would be considered.
The US does not at this time have Cap & Trade, except as a voluntary measure. No law requiring it has yet been passed, although some are now working their way through Congress.
You have had a successful cap and trade for SO2 for years.
A report by the European Environment Agency released today shows that the European Union and all Member States but one are on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments to limit and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Such an accomplishment should encourage all countries to agree on much larger reductions of global emissions, sealing a global deal in Copenhagen this December.
New estimates confirm the declining trend in EU greenhouse gas emissions
More Whereas the Protocol requires that the EU-15 reduce average emissions during 2008–2012 to 8 % below 1990 levels, the latest projections indicate that the EU-15 will go further, reaching a total reduction of more than 13 % below the base year.
linky
There are no uncertainties. Carbon sequestration has been feasable for many years... there is simply no real incentive to accomplish it. It is even possible to produce gasoline from CO2, although this is cost-prohibitive at present... primarily due to the fact that so much air has to be processed for each gallon of gasoline produced. That is a nice expletive to how little CO2 concentration there really is.
Yes, it's feasible. That's not the point. We already use CO2 scrubbing at the small-scale (e.g., subs), it's actually putting it out on the ground in an effective manner for the purpose we need it.
Well, let's see... 28,000,000,000 divided by 365.25 tons per year = about 76,700,000 units. That would be one unit for every 4 people in the US alone, or less than one per family.
If you consider world population instead of US population (it is a Global thing, isn't it?), then that would be more like one unit per every 85 persons.
So the answer is: a lot less than we have TVs, microwave ovens, or automobiles in the US alone.
lol
An artificial tree in every backyard...
Done. Can you put me in touch with them?
Who? These companies are attracting investment.
There are no government funding programs
that specifically target the development of air
capture, and I estimate that the total annual expenditure
for these efforts is currently less than $3
million per year, of which more than half is private.
Keith, 2009 Science
How about turning it into artificial diamonds? Would that satisfy you? For an initial outlay of $25 mil, I could probably even make that happen.
Carbon does not damage groundwater. Ever heard of a charcoal filter?
It is unlikely to be solid carbon. The CO2 is captured using other materials and must be processed. You could turn it into solid carbon, but that would take even more energy. You'd need to reduce CO2 probably.
A regulation is a hidden tax.
lol
Seat-belt regulations - damn taxes!
Who is selling the carbon credits initially?
You know the outline of Waxman-Markey already. I explained it twice in t'other subforum.
You'll still be paying for carbon sequestration. Just to reiterate, artificial trees don't grow on trees.
No, they don't, and yes I will. But at least I will not be paying money that goes nowhere near actual removal of CO2. Privately operated manufacturing of a product is immensely fairer that governmental control, and causes much less loss of liberty.
And I personally like liberty.
I'm waiting for that introduction to Branson and Hansen.
TheRedneck
There's nothing to pay for at the moment. No more than an early-stage technology with numerous technical issues to overcome.
The idea of C&T is to force emitters to be involved in 'Privately operated manufacturing of a product', for example, capture at the point of origin is a cheaper option than some embryonic process. Geez, at least it's been run as a pilot. The second part is to force them to be more efficient. That actually saves money, lol. And we should see more 'Privately operated manufacturing of a product' in the production of sustainable energy sources. Amazingly, you might even be investing that money in your own economy and american jobs, rather than funding some Arab donkeys at the Epsom derby and bleedin' Manchester City.
The Branson stuff is noted in the top grauniad link. A bit on Hansen here:
On some important aspects of the climate policy issue I agree strongly with Hansen, for instance on the importance of air capture and the feebleness of current policy approaches.
linky
Air capture methods will certainly be very useful in the future. Even when we finally control emissions, that CO2 isn't going anywhere for a while - it will be helpful.
[edit on 15-11-2009 by melatonin]
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Close. I suggest allowing (encouraging?) individual bio-engineering on small areas, which would lead to a cumulative total large-scale change. If 1% of the present population of 6 billion? people planted a single tree each year, that is 60 million new trees every year to soak up all that CO2 you are so afraid of.
TheRedneck
What is often overlooked is you do not have 60 million trees, you have 60 million seedlings, as for tree planting...
quote
National Tree Day
National Tree Day, is Australia's biggest community tree-planting event. This year's event, held on Sunday 2 August, saw more than a million native trees and shrubs planted at over 3,000 sites around the country. This wonderful achievement is the result of thousands of schools, community and green groups, as well as hundreds of local councils who facilitated tree-planting projects in their local area. To the groups and individuals who made this event such a wonderful success Planet Ark says thank-you!
end quote
Yes, one million trees in one day, in one country.
From Wiki
Despite these uncertainties, there is agreement that destruction of rainforests remains a significant environmental problem. Up to 90% of West Africa's coastal rainforests have disappeared since 1900. In South Asia, about 88% of the rainforests have been lost. Much of what remains of the world's rainforests is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon Rainforest covers approximately 4 million square kilometres. The regions with the highest tropical deforestation rate between 2000 and 2005 were Central America — which lost 1.3% of its forests each year — and tropical Asia. In Central America, two-thirds of lowland tropical forests have been turned into pasture since 1950 and 40% of all the rainforests have been lost in the last 40 years. Brazil has lost 90-95% of its Mata Atlântica forest. Madagascar has lost 90% of its eastern rainforests. As of 2007, less than 1% of Haiti's forests remained. Mexico, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Côte d'Ivoire, have lost large areas of their rainforest. Several countries, notably Brazil, have declared their deforestation a national emergency.
Oh but this will be ignored and those who released the report will be disicredited to no ends. I disagree that humans can make no large scale impact
on the planet the destrution of forest is more then likley are largest controbution,What I dont understand is if CO2 is such a problem and we have to
find away to curb it, why not use nature?
technology is not the answer to every thing Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygin so instead of waisting money on new technology and carbon taxing Maybe that money should be put to use planting more trees and regrowing our forest!
technology is not the answer to every thing Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygin so instead of waisting money on new technology and carbon taxing Maybe that money should be put to use planting more trees and regrowing our forest!
reply to post by melatonin
LOL!
I think you are referring to a 'proof of concept'. It is a prototype, but one intended to demonstrate to the developer that the concepts involved are feasible.
A prototype is a single-run construction of a device, intended for demonstration. To call such a 'pre-prototype' is to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the process involved in research/development.
Yeah, those darn barbecue grills, putting out all those CO2 molecules... perhaps they should be made illegal as a rider on the Cap &Trade bills.
You really are terrified of CO2, aren't you?
Firstly, we were discussing CO2. When did we switch to SO2 (a deadly poison)?
Secondly, we do not have Cap & Trade for SO2. Instead we have strict legislation for sulfur content of fuels. Diesel was just in the last few years changed from a maximum sulfur content of 500 ppmv to 15 ppmv (referred to as U'___'). Diesel engines manufactured in 2007 or later are required to use the U'___', and I believe that in 2009 all fuels are required to adhere to U'___' standards.
The result of that program was that fuel usage increased since the newer engines, which also included particle recapture mechanisms, get less fuel economy. They also require higher maintenance, meaning more downtime during which the drivers get paid nothing for their downtime. Fuel costs increased to cover the cost of the distributors and to have their tanks certified to U'___' as well as to cover the costs of the producers to comply to the new standards and to receive their certification. So the workers make less, the companies who employ them have to pay more, and the end result of all that is that the price of moving freight increased. That has contributed to price increases across the board on goods.
But CO2 Cap & Trade won't be that way. Trust us.
Ate who?
You just agreed it is feasible, then proceeded to state that it isn't feasible.
Pick a side?
Right now, the technology exists to build units which sequester CO2 from the air, reducing CO2 into carbon, and to do so in quiet, efficient, economical manner. The only reason it has not been produced on a large scale is there is no incentive for a company to invest in it. Should there be government investment, it would be simple to manufacture such devices for personal or institutional use.
There is little investment capital available right now. What is out there is being sought after so fervently it is next to impossible to get funding without personal connections to an investor. You just stated that there was $25 mil available to develop carbon sequestration, yet in the next few paragraphs, you indicate there isn't. Now which is it?
This is one subject that I do not like having my leg pulled on. I am personally tired of hearing "sorry, but we are not looking into new projects right now."
A TV in every room, two cars in every garage...
Mel, are you even reading my posts? Several of the processes I am speaking of reduce the CO2 into carbon. That includes the one at Columbia University, a magnesium-based system developed a few decades ago, and an acidic-based system that I have the plans to here. Take your pick; they all turn CO2 into carbon: simple, black, powdery graphite.
Do you really believe the cost of seat belts is not calculated into the price of a new car?
Yes, you did. The carbon credits are issued and sold off by the government. The moneys from the sale go to the government.
The idea is not necessarily the outcome. You say it will make energy producers more efficient. Possibly, but you are also stating earlier that the cost of CO2 sequestration is too high. Is it somehow cheaper to do so at one location than another? Do you believe for one moment that the costs will be less for power to do more? Sure, the cost of moving that massive amount of air would be reduced some, but the technology is basically the same: energy must be expended in order to separate the molecular bonds.
It's at least been run as a pilot? OK, I'll grant you that. It's hard to run a competing technology as a pilot program when there are no finances available to run it. That doesn't mean it won't work; it usually means it works better, and doesn't make as much money for those who have the money already.
Keeping jobs and money in America sounds great on the surface, but so did all those NAFTA and CAFTA programs from years ago which have now led to high unemployment rates in America. It was a simple concept back then too: if we open up our borders, other countries will open theirs, meaning we will actually have more jobs. It didn't happen like that. Not a single TV set is made in the US; all the US-based auto manufacturers are hurting; some department stores have nothing, literally not one single solitary product, made in the USA. Unemployment is soaring, prices are rising, poverty is rising, crime is increasing... gee, seems like things didn't work out like they were meant to.
Mel, I understand you have this rosy view of the future and of governments, but as much as I would like to share it, it simply isn't true. There is carbon sequestration technology available, there is not financing to get it from development to marketing, Cap & Trade has not been tried in the US, and government programs over here typically accomplish the opposite of their stated goals.
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]
A pre-prototype.
LOL!
I think you are referring to a 'proof of concept'. It is a prototype, but one intended to demonstrate to the developer that the concepts involved are feasible.
A prototype is a single-run construction of a device, intended for demonstration. To call such a 'pre-prototype' is to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the process involved in research/development.
I was just a bit surprised you even suggested burning it. Sort of defeats the object of pulling it out the air.
Yeah, those darn barbecue grills, putting out all those CO2 molecules... perhaps they should be made illegal as a rider on the Cap &Trade bills.
You really are terrified of CO2, aren't you?
You have had a successful cap and trade for SO2 for years.
Firstly, we were discussing CO2. When did we switch to SO2 (a deadly poison)?
Secondly, we do not have Cap & Trade for SO2. Instead we have strict legislation for sulfur content of fuels. Diesel was just in the last few years changed from a maximum sulfur content of 500 ppmv to 15 ppmv (referred to as U'___'). Diesel engines manufactured in 2007 or later are required to use the U'___', and I believe that in 2009 all fuels are required to adhere to U'___' standards.
The result of that program was that fuel usage increased since the newer engines, which also included particle recapture mechanisms, get less fuel economy. They also require higher maintenance, meaning more downtime during which the drivers get paid nothing for their downtime. Fuel costs increased to cover the cost of the distributors and to have their tanks certified to U'___' as well as to cover the costs of the producers to comply to the new standards and to receive their certification. So the workers make less, the companies who employ them have to pay more, and the end result of all that is that the price of moving freight increased. That has contributed to price increases across the board on goods.
But CO2 Cap & Trade won't be that way. Trust us.
Yes, it's feasible. That's not the point. We already use CO2 scrubbing at the small-scale (e.g., subs), it's actually putting it out on the ground in an effective manner for the purpose we need it.
Ate who?
You just agreed it is feasible, then proceeded to state that it isn't feasible.
Pick a side?
Right now, the technology exists to build units which sequester CO2 from the air, reducing CO2 into carbon, and to do so in quiet, efficient, economical manner. The only reason it has not been produced on a large scale is there is no incentive for a company to invest in it. Should there be government investment, it would be simple to manufacture such devices for personal or institutional use.
There is little investment capital available right now. What is out there is being sought after so fervently it is next to impossible to get funding without personal connections to an investor. You just stated that there was $25 mil available to develop carbon sequestration, yet in the next few paragraphs, you indicate there isn't. Now which is it?
This is one subject that I do not like having my leg pulled on. I am personally tired of hearing "sorry, but we are not looking into new projects right now."
An artificial tree in every backyard...
A TV in every room, two cars in every garage...
It is unlikely to be solid carbon. The CO2 is captured using other materials and must be processed. You could turn it into solid carbon, but that would take even more energy. You'd need to reduce CO2 probably.
Mel, are you even reading my posts? Several of the processes I am speaking of reduce the CO2 into carbon. That includes the one at Columbia University, a magnesium-based system developed a few decades ago, and an acidic-based system that I have the plans to here. Take your pick; they all turn CO2 into carbon: simple, black, powdery graphite.
Seat-belt regulations - damn taxes!
Do you really believe the cost of seat belts is not calculated into the price of a new car?
You know the outline of Waxman-Markey already. I explained it twice in t'other subforum.
Yes, you did. The carbon credits are issued and sold off by the government. The moneys from the sale go to the government.
The idea of C&T is to force emitters to be involved in 'Privately operated manufacturing of a product', for example, capture at the point of origin is a cheaper option than some embryonic process. Geez, at least it's been run as a pilot. The second part is to force them to be more efficient. That actually saves money, lol. And we should see more 'Privately operated manufacturing of a product' in the production of sustainable energy sources. Amazingly, you might even be investing that money in your own economy and american jobs, rather than funding some Arab donkeys at the Epsom derby and bleedin' Manchester City.
The idea is not necessarily the outcome. You say it will make energy producers more efficient. Possibly, but you are also stating earlier that the cost of CO2 sequestration is too high. Is it somehow cheaper to do so at one location than another? Do you believe for one moment that the costs will be less for power to do more? Sure, the cost of moving that massive amount of air would be reduced some, but the technology is basically the same: energy must be expended in order to separate the molecular bonds.
It's at least been run as a pilot? OK, I'll grant you that. It's hard to run a competing technology as a pilot program when there are no finances available to run it. That doesn't mean it won't work; it usually means it works better, and doesn't make as much money for those who have the money already.
Keeping jobs and money in America sounds great on the surface, but so did all those NAFTA and CAFTA programs from years ago which have now led to high unemployment rates in America. It was a simple concept back then too: if we open up our borders, other countries will open theirs, meaning we will actually have more jobs. It didn't happen like that. Not a single TV set is made in the US; all the US-based auto manufacturers are hurting; some department stores have nothing, literally not one single solitary product, made in the USA. Unemployment is soaring, prices are rising, poverty is rising, crime is increasing... gee, seems like things didn't work out like they were meant to.
Mel, I understand you have this rosy view of the future and of governments, but as much as I would like to share it, it simply isn't true. There is carbon sequestration technology available, there is not financing to get it from development to marketing, Cap & Trade has not been tried in the US, and government programs over here typically accomplish the opposite of their stated goals.
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin
A pre-prototype.
LOL!
I think you are referring to a 'proof of concept'. It is a prototype, but one intended to demonstrate to the developer that the concepts involved are feasible.
A prototype is a single-run construction of a device, intended for demonstration. To call such a 'pre-prototype' is to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the process involved in research/development.
No, they call it a pre-prototype. Geez, you do like to wield a gold-plated shovel.
From Synthetic Trees to Carbon Sponges: an interview with Scientist Klaus Lackner
...
"We developed a pre-prototype that shows that all the pieces of this system work."
linky
You really are terrified of CO2, aren't you?
Not particularly.
You have had a successful cap and trade for SO2 for years.
Firstly, we were discussing CO2. When did we switch to SO2 (a deadly poison)?
Secondly, we do not have Cap & Trade for SO2.
I don't know if I can be bothered anymore, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.
The Acid Rain Program was established under Title IV
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to reduce acid
rain and improve public health by dramatically reducing
emissions of SO2 and NOx. Using a market-based cap
and trade approach, the program sets a permanent cap
on the total amount of SO2 that may be emitted by
electric power plants nationwide.
linky
The line of discussion was focusing on these comments from you:
Cost: demonstrated to be viable, as opposed to Cap & Trade being potentially disastrous economically, to the tune of trillions of dollars in price increases and lost jobs.
C&T has been demonstrated to be viable. Both in europe and in the US for SO2 regulation.
Development time: almost immediate, compared to a few years for Cap & Trade to fully engage.
Except it isn't. C&T saw good reductions once implemented in europe. Same for the US for SO2.
Effectiveness: one ton of CO2 per day per unit, as opposed to questionable Cap & Trade efficiency which has yet to be tested or proven with results.
C&T is tested and proven.
Overall consequences: one ton of CO2 removed per day per unit. Isn't that what Cap & Trade is supposed to do as well, reduce CO2?
Yes, C&T worked well-enough in Europe. Could have been better, and I'm sure you'll use our experiences and your own for the future.
Process: simple chemical reactions. Nothing uncertain about it. There is still plenty of uncertainty about every aspect of Cap & Trade, except that it will cost a lot of money to the public at large.
So will air capture. And lots of uncertainty about how to fully implement it, it's little more than an early-stage technology with serious technical hurdles.
You just agreed it is feasible, then proceeded to state that it isn't feasible.
Pick a side?
Pick a side what? I already mentioned earlier that the chemistry is pretty simple.
" So we remove CO2, pretty simple chemistry on the small scale, and then what" Me
And I've said multiple times that I have no issue with the idea, it will be very useful.
An artificial tree in every backyard...
A TV in every room, two cars in every garage...
Yeah, at a level of hundreds of trillions of dollars total cost. Who's buying them?
Mel, are you even reading my posts? Several of the processes I am speaking of reduce the CO2 into carbon. That includes the one at Columbia University, a magnesium-based system developed a few decades ago, and an acidic-based system that I have the plans to here. Take your pick; they all turn CO2 into carbon: simple, black, powdery graphite.
No, they don't. Are you being purposefully contrary here? In my last post...
The team is working to build a prototype at a laboratory in Tuscon, Arizona. Run by a company called Global Research Technologies (GRT), of which Lackner is vice president of research, the laboratory unveiled a "pre-prototype" air capture machine last year, based on a different technique -rinsing trapped CO2 off the membrane with liquid sodium carbonate, and then using electricity to liberate the CO2 from the fluid.
Lackner's method actually releases CO2 in the gaseous state. To even do that takes about 1.3kwh per kilogram of CO2. To reduce it to carbon would be silly and even more energy intensive. And so we use artificial trees to further soak up the CO2 from that energy?
Do you really believe the cost of seat belts is not calculated into the price of a new car?
And the cost of acting on climate change legislation will be factored into the cost of energy.
Yes, you did. The carbon credits are issued and sold off by the government. The moneys from the sale go to the government.
But the vast majority aren't sold.
The idea is not necessarily the outcome. You say it will make energy producers more efficient. Possibly, but you are also stating earlier that the cost of CO2 sequestration is too high. Is it somehow cheaper to do so at one location than another? Do you believe for one moment that the costs will be less for power to do more? Sure, the cost of moving that massive amount of air would be reduced some, but the technology is basically the same: energy must be expended in order to separate the molecular bonds.
You have already said that the cost is too high. I just said it's no better and perhaps even worse.
potentially disastrous economically, to the tune of trillions of dollars in price increases
You complained earlier of costs of trillions of dollars for legislative action, yet even the best idealised estimates of air capture of the order of $325 trillion dollars - but that involves waiting for economies to grow using cheap energy and then acting around 2050, lol.
Even those involved in air capture accept it's the most expensive approach to mitigation.
It's at least been run as a pilot? OK, I'll grant you that. It's hard to run a competing technology as a pilot program when there are no finances available to run it. That doesn't mean it won't work; it usually means it works better, and doesn't make as much money for those who have the money already.
But why would you want to support something that costs more money? Carbon capture at source is cheaper. The idea is to compel those controlling the likes of coal-plants to implement carbon capture and even see moves to NEW sustainable energy sources. It's the same problem. The artificial trees won't grow on trees, someone needs to pay for their implementation and upkeep.
Keeping jobs and money in America sounds great on the surface, but so did all those...
lol
Mel, I understand you have this rosy view of the future and of governments...
Not really, just not a paranoid ideologue.
[edit on 15-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
'They' can call it a purple-plated whatsis for all that. There is no law against showing ignorance of standardized techniques.
That's the way it works. If someone wants to deviate from this procedure, I wish them well. They will need it.
Want to know one of the big differences between us, mel? I can admit when I was wrong. Listen closely now:
Yes, there was an SO2 Cap & Trade program in the USA which I was unaware of. Thank you for denying my ignorance of that fact.
See? That wasn't so hard to do.
Of course, that then begs the question: if Cap & Trade was so effective, why do we have such severe regulations now on sulfur content of fuels? Was Cap & Trade not enough? And if it wasn't, then why will it be on carbon emissions?
Interestingly enough, I came across a linky of my own earlier today that might be interesting on this subject:
It would seem that these attorneys make an excellent case as to why SO2 and CO2 emission reductions are not the same.
Oh, and we do still have reports of acid rain... just not as bad...
It would appear some dare disagree with this:
You also fail to consider the time frame involved to implement it. Even if Cap & trade were to somehow miraculously reduce carbon emissions the day after it takes effect, the bills do not take effect immediately.
Needing financing for a politically unpopular idea that has been proven in testing to work as proposed is not a 'technical hurdle'. It is a financial and political hurdle.
Who is buying TV sets that cost close to $1000? Who is buying cars at costs of $30,000 and up?
I'd like to know how you arrived at 'hundreds of trillions' of dollars as an estimate. At an estimated cost of $5000 per unit, that only comes to about $375 billion total cost, not that much in a global economy.
We spent more than that on parties for AIG executives.
You do realize that there are other scrubber technologies available, right? Mel, read the next line very closely:
I have, in my possession right now, plans for a device that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, with a 50% (+/- 10%) capture rate, and that produces pure carbon as an output.
Got it? Or do I need to continue repeating this?
Talk about embarrassing... I described three different technologies, and you can't get past one that apparently doesn't perform...
Are you switching sides? That is what I have been saying.
Aren't they? Remember not so long ago, the Senator form Illinois resigned his Senate seat to become President? Then-Governor Blagojevich sold the vacant Senate seat.
Senate seats are not allowed to be sold. Even if carbon credits aren't allowed to be sold, do you really believe they won't be?
Did I mention I have some nice ocean-front land in Kansas I could let you have for a reduced price?
See my calculations above. I can only assume that these 'experts' you allude to are the same ones building devices which do not reduce the carbon, and who are busy on their 'pre-prototypes'.
I support true market-based technologies. Requiring a utility to conform to red tape is not market-based. Implementing manufacturing to solve a need is market-based. Now, it does not bother me if the scrubbers are placed at the power plants themselves, outside people's homes, or on rafts floating in the ocean. Columbia University's design is scalable.
As are the two other designs I mentioned.
Obviously not! Let's see, so far you appear to believe:
Please, we were doing so well this time. Can we get back to reality now?
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]
No, they call it a pre-prototype.
'They' can call it a purple-plated whatsis for all that. There is no law against showing ignorance of standardized techniques.
- An
objective is identified.
- Methods of achieving the objective are investigated.
- Uncertain elements of these methods are subjected to a proof-of-concept prototype.
- A method is chosen based on many factors, including efficiency, public attractiveness, ease and cost of manufacturing, etc.
- A demonstration prototype is created.
- The demonstration prototype is tested to verify performance.
- If needed, additional prototypes are created and tested to enhance performance.
- Financing is arranged for production.
- Production is started.
- Advertising is used to create interest in the product as it is being produced.
- The product is sold to distribution solutions.
That's the way it works. If someone wants to deviate from this procedure, I wish them well. They will need it.
I don't know if I can be bothered anymore, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.
Want to know one of the big differences between us, mel? I can admit when I was wrong. Listen closely now:
Yes, there was an SO2 Cap & Trade program in the USA which I was unaware of. Thank you for denying my ignorance of that fact.
See? That wasn't so hard to do.
Of course, that then begs the question: if Cap & Trade was so effective, why do we have such severe regulations now on sulfur content of fuels? Was Cap & Trade not enough? And if it wasn't, then why will it be on carbon emissions?
Interestingly enough, I came across a linky of my own earlier today that might be interesting on this subject:
It would seem that these attorneys make an excellent case as to why SO2 and CO2 emission reductions are not the same.
Oh, and we do still have reports of acid rain... just not as bad...
C&T has been demonstrated to be viable. Both in europe and in the US for SO2 regulation.
Except it isn't. C&T saw good reductions once implemented in europe. Same for the US for SO2.
It would appear some dare disagree with this:
Source: Cap and Trade Doesn't Work, The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2009
According to European Commission figures, emissions from the 27 member states rose by 1.9% in the first three years of the regime. Following criticism, the caps for the period to 2012 were reduced for the majority of member states, but only to a little lower than actual emissions in 2005, and the evidence is that the recession is having a much more direct impact on emissions than the trading scheme (incidentally putting a lot of low-priced permits on the market).
Mike Carey delivered a message against Cap and Trade, citing the horrors that similar legislation has visited on coal communities in the European Union. Carey points to research that in addition to supporting their own families, each of the 200,000 plus employees of the coal industry provide the buying power to support 11 other families. Carey stated that clean coal is not around the corner, and that the 2.2 million job footprint is in serious jeopardy from cap and trade.
Source: Cap and Trade takes a Beating in Senate Committee posted by ecofactory.com
Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute states otherwise, citing the failure of cap and trade in Europe to create a reduction in emissions beyond what is attributed to the recession (U.S. emissions went down 2.8% due to the 3 million job decline). Murray cites how the EU is almost certain to miss their 2020 targets, despite the surplus of available carbon credits in the market.
Source: Cap-and-Trade Does More Harm than Good, hosted on CommonDreams.org, originally published by The Philadelphia Inquirer on June 25, 2009
In Europe, cap-and-trade has failed to deliver on climate change. It yielded windfall profits for utilities, but few reductions in emissions or investments in clean technology.
You also fail to consider the time frame involved to implement it. Even if Cap & trade were to somehow miraculously reduce carbon emissions the day after it takes effect, the bills do not take effect immediately.
So will air capture. And lots of uncertainty about how to fully implement it, it's little more than an early-stage technology with serious technical hurdles.
Needing financing for a politically unpopular idea that has been proven in testing to work as proposed is not a 'technical hurdle'. It is a financial and political hurdle.
Yeah, at a level of hundreds of trillions of dollars total cost. Who's buying them?
Who is buying TV sets that cost close to $1000? Who is buying cars at costs of $30,000 and up?
I'd like to know how you arrived at 'hundreds of trillions' of dollars as an estimate. At an estimated cost of $5000 per unit, that only comes to about $375 billion total cost, not that much in a global economy.
We spent more than that on parties for AIG executives.
No, they don't. Are you being purposefully contrary here? In my last post...
The team is working to build a prototype at a laboratory in Tuscon, Arizona. Run by a company called Global Research Technologies (GRT), of which Lackner is vice president of research, the laboratory unveiled a "pre-prototype" air capture machine last year, based on a different technique -rinsing trapped CO2 off the membrane with liquid sodium carbonate, and then using electricity to liberate the CO2 from the fluid.
Lackner's method actually releases CO2 in the gaseous state. To even do that takes about 1.3kwh per kilogram of CO2. To reduce it to carbon would be silly and even more energy intensive. And so we use artificial trees to further soak up the CO2 from that energy?
You do realize that there are other scrubber technologies available, right? Mel, read the next line very closely:
I have, in my possession right now, plans for a device that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, with a 50% (+/- 10%) capture rate, and that produces pure carbon as an output.
Got it? Or do I need to continue repeating this?
Talk about embarrassing... I described three different technologies, and you can't get past one that apparently doesn't perform...
And the cost of acting on climate change legislation will be factored into the cost of energy.
Are you switching sides? That is what I have been saying.
But the vast majority aren't sold.
Aren't they? Remember not so long ago, the Senator form Illinois resigned his Senate seat to become President? Then-Governor Blagojevich sold the vacant Senate seat.
Senate seats are not allowed to be sold. Even if carbon credits aren't allowed to be sold, do you really believe they won't be?
Did I mention I have some nice ocean-front land in Kansas I could let you have for a reduced price?
You complained earlier of costs of trillions of dollars for legislative action, yet even the best idealised estimates of air capture of the order of $325 trillion dollars - but that involves waiting for economies to grow using cheap energy and then acting around 2050, lol.
Even those involved in air capture accept it's the most expensive approach to mitigation.
See my calculations above. I can only assume that these 'experts' you allude to are the same ones building devices which do not reduce the carbon, and who are busy on their 'pre-prototypes'.
But why would you want to support something that costs more money? Carbon capture at source is cheaper. The idea is to compel those controlling the likes of coal-plants to implement carbon capture and even see moves to NEW sustainable energy sources. It's the same problem. The artificial trees won't grow on trees, someone needs to pay for their implementation and upkeep.
I support true market-based technologies. Requiring a utility to conform to red tape is not market-based. Implementing manufacturing to solve a need is market-based. Now, it does not bother me if the scrubbers are placed at the power plants themselves, outside people's homes, or on rafts floating in the ocean. Columbia University's design is scalable.
As are the two other designs I mentioned.
Not really, just not a paranoid ideologue.
Obviously not! Let's see, so far you appear to believe:
- Only one form of carbon sequestration is possible, and it cannot reduce the
carbon.
- Governments always operate in the best interest of their constituents.
- There is no greed or corruption in US politics.
- Only the IPCC understands science.
- There is always enough money to do what needs to be done.
- No one will ever be advesely impacted by Cap & Trade.
- Policies always achieve their stated objectives.
- Individual innovation is a myth.
Please, we were doing so well this time. Can we get back to reality now?
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]
Originally posted by TheRedneck
'They' can call it a purple-plated whatsis for all that. There is no law against showing ignorance of standardized techniques.
...
That's the way it works. If someone wants to deviate from this procedure, I wish them well. They will need it.
But don't you think that's indicative of this project still being in the developmental phase? Remember that's all I said...
Ain't my fault they decided to break some SOP of the Designing Guild.
Yes, there was an SO2 Cap & Trade program in the USA which I was unaware of. Thank you for denying my ignorance of that fact.
See? That wasn't so hard to do.
Again, you gain kudos from me for accepting that, kudos points knocked off for the extraneous and erroneous prologue.
It would seem that these attorneys make an excellent case as to why SO2 and CO2 emission reductions are not the same.
Yeah, seen it before. That's their opinion. Hansen is also not a fan of C&T, much preferring straight taxation.
It would appear some dare disagree with this:
I'm sure some do. But europe still more than met the expectations of Kyoto. It wasn't a perfect system (indeed, much less than), but it was just an initial trial phase. It wasn't even aimed at producing significant reductions, just to put the system in place.
As for costs, you'd probably need to look at the suppliers for that. Had little to do with the C&T system. It caused an increase initially, but the rest was mainly supply costs.
Fuel costs more, prices rise. You might have noticed it at the fuel pump until fairly recently. Or did C&T in europe cause your costs to rise as well, lol.
In Europe, cap-and-trade has failed to deliver on climate change...
Except we've done more to move towards an active emissions regulation than almost all others, and we did actually meet our Kyoto requirements.
Needing financing for a politically unpopular idea that has been proven in testing to work as proposed is not a 'technical hurdle'. It is a financial and political hurdle.
Wasn't even speaking of financing for development. I'm talking about actually putting such a complete system into action on the ground in the scales we need it.
It's not politically unpopular. Obama seems keen on air/carbon capture. Look, during the Bush years anything to do with the climate and action was the red-haired kid in the corner, don't blame people wanting action for lack of funding of such projects. At least Obama is open to focused funding of sustainable energy and climate change projects.
Potential Energy has learned that Energy Secretary Steven Chu met with representatives of the FutureGen Alliance today, reinforcing positive signals from Chu two weeks ago that the troubled project could be revived. The public-private partnership to prove the integration of coal gasification, carbon capture, and sequestration technologies was killed by the Bush Administration in January 2008 using what Congressional investigators have shown to be specious accounting.
linky
Or is Chu another of your bogeymen? Or is that too much government for you?
Who is buying TV sets that cost close to $1000? Who is buying cars at costs of $30,000 and up?
Do you actually think these artificial trees are like home humidifiers or something?
I'd like to know how you arrived at 'hundreds of trillions' of dollars as an estimate. At an estimated cost of $5000 per unit, that only comes to about $375 billion total cost, not that much in a global economy.
We spent more than that on parties for AIG executives.
You really don't understand what's required here, do you?
Pielke Jr is generally seen as not a friend of people wanting action. I like to see him as a bit of a concern troll. A delayer at heart, a bit like Lomborg.
You do realize that there are other scrubber technologies available, right? Mel, read the next line very closely:
I know there is. There multiple designs being assessed. When they are actually workable, they'll be taken on their merits.
I have, in my possession right now, plans for a device that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, with a 50% (+/- 10%) capture rate, and that produces pure carbon as an output.
Got it? Or do I need to continue repeating this?
Talk about embarrassing... I described three different technologies, and you can't get past one that apparently doesn't perform...
Forgive me for focusing on that one just a little bit...
That's the one you said a few posts ago was ready to be marketed, but now you say it doesn't perform...
Columbia University was asking for governmental grants to market, not to develop. Their device was already tested and they had concrete results. This was not some design on paper; it was an actual, functioning, tested unit
And in its place you have 'designs', cool. Could be millions to be made here, get to it! We're still short of an actual functional tested unit for pilot testing.
Senate seats are not allowed to be sold. Even if carbon credits aren't allowed to be sold, do you really believe they won't be?
Did I mention I have some nice ocean-front land in Kansas I could let you have for a reduced price?
Okie doke.
See my calculations above. I can only assume that these 'experts' you allude to are the same ones building devices which do not reduce the carbon, and who are busy on their 'pre-prototypes'.
I'm not sure you really get this issue at all. Hey-ho.
I support true market-based technologies. Requiring a utility to conform to red tape is not market-based. Implementing manufacturing to solve a need is market-based. Now, it does not bother me if the scrubbers are placed at the power plants themselves, outside people's homes, or on rafts floating in the ocean. Columbia University's design is scalable.
Yes, a free-market ideologue who wants householders to buy an artificial tree in an large-scale effort to remove CO2 emitted at the levels of billions of tonnes every year. I can see consumers rushing to spend your rather silly calculation of $5000 to install such a system. This would need to be implemented at the governmental level.
It's hard enough to get people to use CFL bulbs that cost a pound or two, lol.
Obviously not! Let's see, so far you appear to believe:
- Only one form of carbon sequestration is possible, and it cannot reduce the carbon.
I never said there was only one system, I was saying that the system you were putting forward as ready to implement was not as you thought.
It wasn't me who said:
Mel, are you even reading my posts? Several of the processes I am speaking of reduce the CO2 into carbon. That includes the one at Columbia University, a magnesium-based system developed a few decades ago, and an acidic-based system that I have the plans to here. Take your pick; they all turn CO2 into carbon: simple, black, powdery graphite.
If you're going to snark like that, and I have no issues with it, at least read my posts before trying to wedgie me.
Please, we were doing so well this time. Can we get back to reality now?
TheRedneck
TBH, I'm pretty grounded already. When you come down from Randland or whatever, we'll be waiting.
Cheers.
[edit on 15-11-2009 by melatonin]
reply to post by melatonin
OK, it's definitely in the design stage. And it would appear to me that it will remain in the design stage until it is obsolete.
Which ain't such a bad thing, necessarily, since it doesn't even reduce the CO2. Heck, I could make a separator in my shop in a couple days time.
Straight taxation would at least be a more open and transparent means of implementation.
It wasn't aimed to reduce emissions? You guys went through the price increases for what, show?
If I lived in Europe, I would be outraged at that statement. But seeing as I don't live there, I am just amazed.
That must be extremely convenient. Do you always lay the blame for failure on others?
Yes, fuel supply affects prices. That much is obvious. Government intervention also affects prices. Demand affects prices. Everything that affects the bottom line of energy companies affects their prices. To declare that one variable does not (Cap & Trade) because the others did (supply) is just plain...
Gah, I can't even think of a word for that.
Perhaps where CO2 is concerned. I would say the USA has done pretty good lately with nitrate and sulfur reductions.
You remember nitrates and sulfur compounds? Actual pollution? I'd hate for anyone to forget about them.
*sigh* OK, mel, I give up. Enjoy your little fantasy about technology not existing.
Obama pays lip service to energy concerns; that's all.
You keep saying there is all this investment capital in new technologies. I have been actively trying for over a year to get one energy project backed. So far, all I can do is proceed as personal finances allow. Now, either give me some names and contact info, or let it go. You obviously don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
There is little crueler than holding a picture of a feast in front of a starving man.
As I understand the proposal, more like heat pumps. About the same size, about the same cost.
'You don't understand what's possible.
There's that blind faith in the system again.
They will not be assessed on thier merits toward carbon sequestration. They have been assessed on their profit to those in power.
Different systems, mel... need a scorecard?
OK, if you are going to continue to act dumb, this conversation is over. Good talking to you mel.
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]
But don't you think that's indicative of this project still being in the developmental phase? Remember that's all I said...
OK, it's definitely in the design stage. And it would appear to me that it will remain in the design stage until it is obsolete.
Which ain't such a bad thing, necessarily, since it doesn't even reduce the CO2. Heck, I could make a separator in my shop in a couple days time.
Yeah, seen it before. That's their opinion. Hansen is also not a fan of C&T, much preferring straight taxation.
Straight taxation would at least be a more open and transparent means of implementation.
I'm sure some do. But europe still more than met the expectations of Kyoto. It wasn't a perfect system (indeed, much less than), but it was just an initial trial phase. It wasn't even aimed at producing significant reductions, just to put the system in place.
It wasn't aimed to reduce emissions? You guys went through the price increases for what, show?
If I lived in Europe, I would be outraged at that statement. But seeing as I don't live there, I am just amazed.
As for costs, you'd probably need to look at the suppliers for that. Had little to do with the C&T system. It caused an increase initially, but the rest was mainly supply costs.
Fuel costs more, prices rise. You might have noticed it at the fuel pump until fairly recently. Or did C&T in europe cause your costs to rise as well, lol.
That must be extremely convenient. Do you always lay the blame for failure on others?
Yes, fuel supply affects prices. That much is obvious. Government intervention also affects prices. Demand affects prices. Everything that affects the bottom line of energy companies affects their prices. To declare that one variable does not (Cap & Trade) because the others did (supply) is just plain...
Gah, I can't even think of a word for that.
Except we've done more to move towards an active emissions regulation than almost all others, and we did actually meet our Kyoto requirements.
Perhaps where CO2 is concerned. I would say the USA has done pretty good lately with nitrate and sulfur reductions.
You remember nitrates and sulfur compounds? Actual pollution? I'd hate for anyone to forget about them.
Wasn't even speaking of financing for development. I'm talking about actually putting such a complete system into action on the ground in the scales we need it.
*sigh* OK, mel, I give up. Enjoy your little fantasy about technology not existing.
It's not politically unpopular. Obama seems keen on air/carbon capture. Look, during the Bush years anything to do with the climate and action was the red-haired kid in the corner, don't blame people wanting action for lack of funding of such projects. At least Obama is open to focused funding of sustainable energy and climate change projects.
Obama pays lip service to energy concerns; that's all.
You keep saying there is all this investment capital in new technologies. I have been actively trying for over a year to get one energy project backed. So far, all I can do is proceed as personal finances allow. Now, either give me some names and contact info, or let it go. You obviously don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
There is little crueler than holding a picture of a feast in front of a starving man.
Do you actually think these artificial trees are like home humidifiers or something?
As I understand the proposal, more like heat pumps. About the same size, about the same cost.
You really don't understand what's required here, do you?
'You don't understand what's possible.
I know there is. There multiple designs being assessed. When they are actually workable, they'll be taken on their merits.
There's that blind faith in the system again.
They will not be assessed on thier merits toward carbon sequestration. They have been assessed on their profit to those in power.
Forgive me for focusing on that one just a little bit...
That's the one you said a few posts ago was ready to be marketed, but now you say it doesn't perform...
Different systems, mel... need a scorecard?
And in its place you have 'designs', cool. Could be millions to be made here, get to it! We're still short of an actual functional tested unit for pilot testing.
OK, if you are going to continue to act dumb, this conversation is over. Good talking to you mel.
TheRedneck
[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]
Originally posted by TheRedneck]
OK, it's definitely in the design stage. And it would appear to me that it will remain in the design stage until it is obsolete.
Which ain't such a bad thing, necessarily, since it doesn't even reduce the CO2. Heck, I could make a separator in my shop in a couple days time.
lol, it's supposed to work at the smaller-scale. But it still needs to be scaled-up and the full process assessed.
You must have a few spare weekends, hook one up and get it out there.
Straight taxation would at least be a more open and transparent means of implementation.
That's what some think. I sort of explained my issues with it earlier. But if you're fine with a tax which fits up to $500 per tonne of CO2, when air capture is ready it could be implemented over time. Say about 6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year for USA.
The C&T system was actually a solution suggested by free-marketeers.
It wasn't aimed to reduce emissions? You guys went through the price increases for what, show?
If I lived in Europe, I would be outraged at that statement. But seeing as I don't live there, I am just amazed.
Why? You'd need to spend cash to have billions of artificial trees made and put in action before they started producing results...
That must be extremely convenient. Do you always lay the blame for failure on others?
Please.
Yes, fuel supply affects prices. That much is obvious. Government intervention also affects prices. Demand affects prices. Everything that affects the bottom line of energy companies affects their prices. To declare that one variable does not (Cap & Trade) because the others did (supply) is just plain...
Gah, I can't even think of a word for that.
Well, the words that come to mind at the moment are 'did you even read my post'? I just said that their was an associated initial increase in energy prices, but fuel prices were in the main association with energy prices.
linky
EUAs being the units of the C&T system.
Perhaps where CO2 is concerned. I would say the USA has done pretty good lately with nitrate and sulfur reductions.
The system did really well.
*sigh* OK, mel, I give up. Enjoy your little fantasy about technology not existing.
This will be my last post for now, you're getting pretty ridiculous. I like you too much to get pissed.
Obama pays lip service to energy concerns; that's all.
Time will tell. I think he's actually being clever - well, I hope he is. He has a pretty hard job to get anything useful through your oil/coal-stained political system.
You keep saying there is all this investment capital in new technologies. I have been actively trying for over a year to get one energy project backed. So far, all I can do is proceed as personal finances allow. Now, either give me some names and contact info, or let it go. You obviously don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
There is little crueler than holding a picture of a feast in front of a starving man.
Well, if true, I'm really sorry to hear that. Honestly. But I'm sure you know there are numerous projects around the world under development, many in the US. It wasn't Obama who reduced funding for clean energy and mitigation projects. And more funding for various climate/renewable projects is meant to be part of Obama's stimulus plans.
I don't know much about the process of actually gaining cash for such projects, but I would suggest finding venture vultures to help. There is cash, as Keith mentions - in the order of millions. If all you have is paper designs, you might be lucky as others are well into the process - you're well-behind. Lackner's idea was still on paper several years ago. But, you know, markets are meant to be these magic rational things so if your idea is better, I'm sure money will motivate...
Do you have Dragon's Den in the US?
As I understand the proposal, more like heat pumps. About the same size, about the same cost.
Eeek.
More like wind farms...
You don't understand what's possible.
Cool. I'm not sure you understand what's required.
There's that blind faith in the system again.
I thought you had faith in the ability of markets...
They will not be assessed on thier merits toward carbon sequestration. They have been assessed on their profit to those in power.
Okie doke.
Different systems, mel... need a scorecard?
It was Lackner's system you posted originally. The same dude who has the pre-prototype. From your original link...
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team
OK, if you are going to continue to act dumb, this conversation is over. Good talking to you mel.
TheRedneck
I think it's best. Take care.
[edit on 15-11-2009 by melatonin]
those that claim knowledge of the future are no better than the nutters who gather a few hundred followers to some forest in anticipation of some
world ending event occurring- all those who so fanatically believe in cataclysmic human generated global warning *let us say, at best 40% of the
population* can make fundamental changes to their lifestyles which would vastly outweigh any alleged difference a slight tinkering of everyone's
behaviour could manage.
So the climate change alarmists, lead by example, all of you cease using electricity, stop eating meat and stop travelling except by bicycle- if 40% of the population *if we use that as an example of climate change alarmist believers* do that, then it will trump anything that tinkering by the whole can do.
LEAD THE WAY ALARMISTS!
[edit on 16-11-2009 by blueorder]
[edit on 16-11-2009 by blueorder]
So the climate change alarmists, lead by example, all of you cease using electricity, stop eating meat and stop travelling except by bicycle- if 40% of the population *if we use that as an example of climate change alarmist believers* do that, then it will trump anything that tinkering by the whole can do.
LEAD THE WAY ALARMISTS!
[edit on 16-11-2009 by blueorder]
[edit on 16-11-2009 by blueorder]
new topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 3 hours ago, 10 flags -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago, 9 flags -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago, 6 flags -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 9 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 1026 • : Encia22 -
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events • 14 • : nugget1 -
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking • 18 • : network dude -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness • 9 • : network dude -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3810 • : 777Vader -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7953 • : underpass61 -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People • 1 • : soulrevival -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat • 3 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 44 • : Oldcarpy2 -
1 Billion dollars
General Entertainment • 12 • : Blueracer