Randall Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Just a quick shout out to DMD and company... Thank you for letting this discussion continue, I have found it to be informative (even if it did move away from my original question). Also, thank you to those posting, I'm glad to see that nobody has resorted to name-calling and everyone seems to be sticking with the topic at hand. That's a good sign. There are a lot of people here who are so convinced they are right a lot of partisan bickering erupts. But many of these people have a lot to add to debates when they don't turn ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 With an excess of CO2, wouldn't plant life become superchaged? Don't they eat CO2 for breakfast? Wouldn't they grow legs and kick our ass? Yeah! Something like that! C3 grains (like corn) and the other crop grains would grow faster with higher CO2 concentrations. Does anyone know what is the dominant gas in our "thin shell of an atmosphere"? With a warmer planet, doesn't it make sennse that there would be higher evaporation off of the ocean causing more rain to fall? Sure their would be some local climate shifts, but just cross your fingers and hope you live where it is a beneficial shift! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The corn/ethanol lobby is already squashing the fact that switchgrass is a more efficient source than corn (540% energy gain versus 140%) and can be grown on marginal land already removed from crop production. Yep, we're looking at elephant grass. These babies sequester tons of CO2 from the atmoshere, for those of us that care... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Liquified coal Coal Liquefication is a controversial technology that turns coal into a high carbon liquid. The resulting fuel can be substituted for gasoline in cars, trains, and planes. It’s controversial because the process that produces liquefied coal is energy intensive and it releases a lot of carbon dioxide during production and again when it’s burned. All told, a gallon of liquified coal has about twice the carbon footprint of a gallon of gas. To put it another way, a Prius burning liquified coal will release as much carbon as a Hummer burning regular gasoline. Many environmental groups oppose Coal Liquification. If liquid coal replaced gasoline at the pump, the American auto fleet would have to become twice as fuel efficient just to maintain current CO2 emissions. Increased coal use could also accelerate environmental damage from coal mining. Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." LINK The coal industry is spending a lot of money trying to convince us there is clean coal technology, but it is a long way away if possible at all. I agree we should pursue it but not sure it is the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 I moved to Denver for when the polar caps melt Yes, but you are living right down glacier highway! What if it goes the other way! Oh, you'll be dead by the time it gets there. GOOD MOVE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Just a quick shout out to DMD and company... Thank you for letting this discussion continue, I have found it to be informative (even if it did move away from my original question). Also, thank you to those posting, I'm glad to see that nobody has resorted to name-calling and everyone seems to be sticking with the topic at hand. good info here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 By the way, I think this link was missed in the last thread. Billionaire Texas oil man makes big bets on wind wind and water energy are at least decently funded right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 (edited) it really is funny (and ecouraging) how things will turn when oil starts to become just one of many sources of power. When hydrogen becomes a mainstream fuel, Iceland will be the Middle East of hydrogen production. They already use geothermal power to convert it. Edited April 22, 2008 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 it really is funny (and ecouraging) how things will turn when oil starts to become just one of many sources of power. When hydrogen becomes a mainstream fuel, Iceland will be the Middle East of hydrogen production. They already use geothermal power to convert it. while encouraging....it's still a problem because the funding is being spread out instead of being focused on a few sources and driven to the forefront of everyones attention.. I think we could effectively use solar, wind and water energy...but the funding for oil needs to stop and be poured into this direction before we can even begin talking about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 (edited) while encouraging....it's still a problem because the funding is being spread out instead of being focused on a few sources and driven to the forefront of everyones attention.. I think we could effectively use solar, wind and water energy...but the funding for oil needs to stop and be poured into this direction before we can even begin talking about it... Analyzing this requres what we call a "life cycle analysis". It is extremely complex and costly. Lots of this going on the Europe and Canada, but in the US, nobody wants to pay for it: "Hydrogen is usually found bound to other elements, such as oxygen and carbon, which means it must be extracted for instance by using electricity. Much of the world's electricity comes from oil or natural gas. In order for hydrogen to be a true, long-term, renewable alternative to fossil fuels, it would need to be produced with a clean, low-cost source of electricity such as hydroenergy. That's where the Icelandic Committee for Alternative Fuel sees Iceland coming in. The country possesses abundant amounts of hydroenergy and geothermal energy. Recent estimates show that only 16 percent of the country's hydroelectric and geothermal energy potential has been harnessed. If hydrogen becomes the fuel of choice, Iceland would be uniquely positioned to produce it and export it without resorting to oil or gas to power the process." We need to evaluate the life cycle costs of alternative sources of energy such as this. As examples, what is the overall cost and emissions footprint of manufacturing, commissioning, and operating fuel cells and their fuel? I did a project that evaluated co-firing forest trimmings with coal in Minnesota to generate power (great walleye sammiches by the way, eh?). Sounds like a no-brainer, but the cost and associated emissions of gathering, processing, and transporting said biomass to the power plant is not well understood. EPA could not fund completion of the study. I have tried (mostly in vain) to convince EPA and state reg agencies to fund these studies, but they just don't have the cash. Of course, Washington has no interest in this and has zeroed, thats right I said zeroed, our funding to conduct these studies. I don't want to edge on politics, but it seems all the federal money goes to protection and manipulation of middle eastern and domestic oil sources, and not these long term alternatives. Can you say lobbyist??? One more note on my rant, wind is huge...harness it. Edited April 22, 2008 by whoopazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 filled up my car with gas today ...i should be able to eat by Thursday night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I moved to Denver for when the polar caps melt We've had a 70 degree day followed by a blizzard 3 times this year already. Now that's climate change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.