Comments on: The technologies needed to beat 450 ppm, Part 1 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:16:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Cecile Lawrence http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-175855 Cecile Lawrence Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:33:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-175855 It would be really great if those writing on energy alternatives who insist on referring to natural gas favorably would seriously take into account the devastation wrought by the process of extraction, especially the current technique of horizontal hydraulic fracturing into tight formations like the Barnett and now the Marcellus. Diesel fuel and compression station exhaust, rendering a formerly rural area into an industrial zone with extensive air pollution, millions of gallons of water sucked from rivers, streams, lakes and aquifers, mixed with cancer causing chemicals then forced deeply into the ground down a well. Toxic flow back waste fluid with up to 70% left deep in the ground to wander at will around formations. This is not even close to an exact science. We have no idea of the full impact of these drilling procedures now or generations down the road. It would be really great if those writing on energy alternatives who insist on referring to natural gas favorably would seriously take into account the devastation wrought by the process of extraction, especially the current technique of horizontal hydraulic fracturing into tight formations like the Barnett and now the Marcellus. Diesel fuel and compression station exhaust, rendering a formerly rural area into an industrial zone with extensive air pollution, millions of gallons of water sucked from rivers, streams, lakes and aquifers, mixed with cancer causing chemicals then forced deeply into the ground down a well. Toxic flow back waste fluid with up to 70% left deep in the ground to wander at will around formations. This is not even close to an exact science. We have no idea of the full impact of these drilling procedures now or generations down the road.

]]> By: Pavol http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-159588 Pavol Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:10:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-159588 What would help really, especially in the US, if you set your AC's to higher temperature. When I go into a shop, cinema, office or restaurant, everywhere is freezing cold. You could save a lot of energy just to set thermostats from let's say 16C to 20-22C. I am not sure if biofuels would work, last time it cause increase of food prices with highest impact on poorest people. Concerning solar panels, I would like to see calculation how much CO2 is emitted during their manufacturing. Re wind turbines the same, do not forget they need maintenance (car driving), spare parts... But my biggest concern is for electric cars - batteries manufacturing, do we have enough precious metals? what about recycling? would it be possible? And also how we will produce so much electricity? I see so many claims that electric cars are CO2 free, but when we take the whole cycle...? Do we have precise calculations how it looks? What would help really, especially in the US, if you set your AC’s to higher temperature. When I go into a shop, cinema, office or restaurant, everywhere is freezing cold. You could save a lot of energy just to set thermostats from let’s say 16C to 20-22C.

I am not sure if biofuels would work, last time it cause increase of food prices with highest impact on poorest people.
Concerning solar panels, I would like to see calculation how much CO2 is emitted during their manufacturing.
Re wind turbines the same, do not forget they need maintenance (car driving), spare parts…
But my biggest concern is for electric cars – batteries manufacturing, do we have enough precious metals? what about recycling? would it be possible? And also how we will produce so much electricity?
I see so many claims that electric cars are CO2 free, but when we take the whole cycle…? Do we have precise calculations how it looks?

]]> By: Douglas Hvistendahl http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-37746 Douglas Hvistendahl Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:04:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-37746 On agriculture, read "How to grow more vegetables ... ." by John Jeavons "Square Foot Gardening" by Mel Bartholomew "Solar Gardening" by LeAndre & Gretchen Poisson On house heating, look at Conserval Engineering's Solarwall (tm) (especially their PV variation) combined with a heat pump and annualized geo solar. I've been using the first, with a large reduction in my expenses, and am working on the second. At this time investing in personal and household energy techniques can pay off very well. PS we've been using a clothesline since way back, and drying racks inside the house in the winter help with the low humidity! On agriculture, read “How to grow more vegetables … .” by John Jeavons
“Square Foot Gardening” by Mel Bartholomew
“Solar Gardening” by LeAndre & Gretchen Poisson

On house heating, look at Conserval Engineering’s Solarwall ™ (especially their PV variation) combined with a heat pump and annualized geo solar.

I’ve been using the first, with a large reduction in my expenses, and am working on the second. At this time investing in personal and household energy techniques can pay off very well. PS we’ve been using a clothesline since way back, and drying racks inside the house in the winter help with the low humidity!

]]> By: speakforthose http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10769 speakforthose Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:40:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10769 My own view is that combined heat & power -- mentioned briefly above -- is the real key. I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that turns waste heat into electricity and steam, thus saving money and cutting greenhouse pollution at the same time. The big picture: more energy recycling would cut greenhouse emissions by 20% nationally while saving money. You don't hear that on the evening news, but it's the convenient truth. My own view is that combined heat & power — mentioned briefly above — is the real key. I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that turns waste heat into electricity and steam, thus saving money and cutting greenhouse pollution at the same time. The big picture: more energy recycling would cut greenhouse emissions by 20% nationally while saving money. You don’t hear that on the evening news, but it’s the convenient truth.

]]> By: Hal Levin http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10701 Hal Levin Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:17:39 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10701 Joe: "Buildings now: Efficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical appliances and heating and cooling devices; improved cook stoves, improved insulation; passive and active solar design for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and recycle of fluorinated gases." Has anyone (since the late 1970s) actually calculated the lost potential energy in passive solar? Residences use twice as much energy for heating as for cooling in the U.S., so why are houses built with windows that ignore insolation? I would really like to see a calculation that shows what a reasonable passive solar house can do compared to the typical modern house with willy-nilly window sizing and orientation. Suggestions for accessible published sources of info would be appreciated. Better would be some peer-reviewed papers. Mazria claims that there is way more than enough insolation even in cloudy, gray Seattle, not to mention the majority of the country. @Jim Bullis: "... data on hour by hour fuel usage in power plant operation." You can find that in a large number of huge files with hour-by-hour data for every power plant in America. Go to this URL and pick your data -- the files are limited by the size of an excel spreadsheet, so there are lots of files to cover every hour of the day, every day of the year for all ~4700 power plants in the U.S. -- 24*365*4700=41,000,000 hours of data (read, rows in spread sheets which are limited to 65,000 rows each). But it's worth it. You will find the operational patterns, fuel, fuel consumption, and all the federally-regulated emissions that friendly power plant near you. Lots of options on how to download the detailed files. Be careful, you WILL get what you ask for. Joe "Landfill methane recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting of organic waste; controlled waste water treatment; recycling and waste minimization." and @Peter Woods: Low methane meat production, yes! AND less consumption of meat too! Does anybody really need to eat as much meat as Americans and Europeans do? Methane is given a 25 GWP by UNFCCC and IPCC, but that is based on a 100 year time frame. On a 20 to 25 year time frame, it should be more like 50. It's important to address methane soon because 1) you can make money doing it -- burn the stuff to power the equipment at your land fill, dairy, or barn, 2) its CC impacts are so immediate, and 3) it's actually very easy to eat less meat or even no meat at all. I gave up meat 36 years ago simply because I didn't want it any more, and I have not been tempted to revert. It's obviously better overall for your health and that of the planet not to eat it. At 66, my health indicators as reported by modern medical science, such as it is, are outstanding. Joe:
“Buildings now: Efficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical appliances and heating and cooling devices; improved cook
stoves, improved insulation; passive and active solar design for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and recycle of fluorinated gases.”
Has anyone (since the late 1970s) actually calculated the lost potential energy in passive solar? Residences use twice as much energy for heating as for cooling in the U.S., so why are houses built with windows that ignore insolation? I would really like to see a calculation that shows what a reasonable passive solar house can do compared to the typical modern house with willy-nilly window sizing and orientation. Suggestions for accessible published sources of info would be appreciated. Better would be some peer-reviewed papers. Mazria claims that there is way more than enough insolation even in cloudy, gray Seattle, not to mention the majority of the country.

@Jim Bullis:
“… data on hour by hour fuel usage in power plant operation.”
You can find that in a large number of huge files with hour-by-hour data for every power plant in America. Go to this URL and pick your data — the files are limited by the size of an excel spreadsheet, so there are lots of files to cover every hour of the day, every day of the year for all ~4700 power plants in the U.S. — 24*365*4700=41,000,000 hours of data (read, rows in spread sheets which are limited to 65,000 rows each). But it’s worth it. You will find the operational patterns, fuel, fuel consumption, and all the federally-regulated emissions that friendly power plant near you. Lots of options on how to download the detailed files. Be careful, you WILL get what you ask for.

Joe
“Landfill methane recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting of organic waste; controlled waste water treatment; recycling and waste minimization.”
and
@Peter Woods:
Low methane meat production, yes! AND less consumption of meat too! Does anybody really need to eat as much meat as Americans and Europeans do?

Methane is given a 25 GWP by UNFCCC and IPCC, but that is based on a 100 year time frame. On a 20 to 25 year time frame, it should be more like 50. It’s important to address methane soon because 1) you can make money doing it — burn the stuff to power the equipment at your land fill, dairy, or barn, 2) its CC impacts are so immediate, and 3) it’s actually very easy to eat less meat or even no meat at all. I gave up meat 36 years ago simply because I didn’t want it any more, and I have not been tempted to revert. It’s obviously better overall for your health and that of the planet not to eat it. At 66, my health indicators as reported by modern medical science, such as it is, are outstanding.

]]> By: Michael Hoexter http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10673 Michael Hoexter Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:52:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10673 I try to shed some light on this dispute with a list of 20 technologies that can mitigate over 90% of GHGs within 3 decades time. http://terraverde.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/20technologies/ or www.greenthoughts.us I try to shed some light on this dispute with a list of 20 technologies that can mitigate over 90% of GHGs within 3 decades time.

http://terraverde.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/20technologies/

or

http://www.greenthoughts.us

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10653 Robert Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:45:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10653 Paul, The "global authority" is called the UN. There can only be one UN and if countries such as the US continue to undermine it then it will never be effective, in which case we might as well give up now. Having people going around proclaiming that the US is the defacto world government really doesn't help. If alternatives could be developed which could out-compete fossil fuel on a level playing field then I believe the market would have exploited them. This has not happened to any great extent yet and the signs are not good that it ever will. My main point is that, even if alternatives could become competitive I don't think it will be enough to stop us eventually consuming the majority of the available oil, coal, gas and other sources of hydrocarbon, in which case we have lost the battle against climate change. James Hansen is saying that we need to leave the rest of the coal in the ground, otherwise we are sunk. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf Paul,
The “global authority” is called the UN. There can only be one UN and if countries such as the US continue to undermine it then it will never be effective, in which case we might as well give up now. Having people going around proclaiming that the US is the defacto world government really doesn’t help.

If alternatives could be developed which could out-compete fossil fuel on a level playing field then I believe the market would have exploited them. This has not happened to any great extent yet and the signs are not good that it ever will.

My main point is that, even if alternatives could become competitive I don’t think it will be enough to stop us eventually consuming the majority of the available oil, coal, gas and other sources of hydrocarbon, in which case we have lost the battle against climate change. James Hansen is saying that we need to leave the rest of the coal in the ground, otherwise we are sunk.

http://www.columbia.edu/ ~jeh1/ mailings/ 20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf

]]> By: DOUG C. HEMSTREET, {PhD) http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10651 DOUG C. HEMSTREET, {PhD) Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:34:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10651 check power research, ALCL2 BATTERY, and other project proposals ON WEB www.serendipityassn.org 190 ARTICLES ON 35 CULTURAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, FANTASIES, AND SOCIOLOGY INFO ON WHY HUMANS GOOF., SAIC, ACLU, HEALTH, SECURITY, GOVT, PROF MILTON SAIER, BIOLOGY, UCSD, WROTE 1994, EARTH CAN ONLY SUPPORT 500 MILLION 2100, WITH CLIMATE CHANGES AND NO OIL FOR AGRICULTURE. I WROTE THIS IN 1998. ADD OCEANS 10'-12' HIGHER BY 2100, 22" BY 2200. seek critique, volunteers, members, SERENDIPITY ASSOCIATION IS A 501c3 NONPROFITADDRESSING ALL 35 CULTURAL ERRORS, THEIR INTERRELATEDNESS, AND HOW TO PREVENT THEM. CAUSES OVERPOP[ULATION AND FAILURE TO CORRECT 22 ERRORS IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS. SEE WEB EDUCATION SCIENTIFIC METHOD. PHYSICS REQUIRES A NEW ELEVEN ELEMENT SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO DEAL SCIENTIFICALLY WITH OUR MULTIDIMENSIONAL HOLOGRAPHIC SUBSYSTEM OF OUR MULTIDIMENSIONAL HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE. POWER RESEARCH USING SCIENCE, A OAK RIDEGE TYPE PROJECT, MAY SOLVE NEW POWER SOURCES FROM THE UNDERLYING STRUCTURE OF MATTER WITHIN 60 YEARS AND $1.7 TRILLION, YET NOT STARTED. IN LITERATURE SINCE 1987. CALL ME AT 619-284-2468 PT, SAN DIEGO, CA, WITH HELP, CRITIQUE, GRANTS, VOLUNTEERING, STAFF, DIRECTOR, AND IDEAS. FIX ALL BASIC CAUSES, NO PROBLEMS WILL EXIST. WE CAN WORK ON SYMPTOMS TOR ANOTHER 50,000 YEARS AND STILL HAVE SAME PROBLEMS. WE REDUCE POPULATIONS 93% TO 500 MILLION, OR STARVE 600 BILLION BY 2200, 1 BILLION BY 2100. CURRENT INCREASED RATE OF POLAR MELTS. DR DOUG HEMSTREET, SCIENTIST HEMSTREET CONSULTANTS SINCE 1960. I WILL GUAREENTEE ALL FIRMS AND GOVTS THAT THEY HAVE A WINNABLE LAWSUIT AGASINST THE ENTIRE MD HHS SYSTEM, AS IT PAID CONGRESS UNDER THE TABLE TOR 82 YEARS TO SUPPRESS MD'S COMPEITITION, PUT MD'S IN CHARGE, SUPPRESS SCIENCE IN HEALTH. EXAMINE 25 STUDIES VALIDATING HOLISTIC HEALTH SYSTEMS SAVINGSD OF 80%+++, ABILITY TO CURE ALL PROBLEMS, PREVENT MOST, HEAL ALL BUT POLITICAL STUPIDITY. WRITE US AT 4154 46TH ST #12, SAN DIEGO CA 92105-1850 check power research, ALCL2 BATTERY, and other project proposals ON WEB http://www.serendipityassn.org 190 ARTICLES ON 35 CULTURAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, FANTASIES, AND SOCIOLOGY INFO ON WHY HUMANS GOOF., SAIC, ACLU, HEALTH, SECURITY, GOVT, PROF MILTON SAIER, BIOLOGY, UCSD, WROTE 1994, EARTH CAN ONLY SUPPORT 500 MILLION 2100, WITH CLIMATE CHANGES AND NO OIL FOR AGRICULTURE. I WROTE THIS IN 1998.
ADD OCEANS 10′-12′ HIGHER BY 2100, 22″ BY 2200.
seek critique, volunteers, members, SERENDIPITY ASSOCIATION IS A 501c3 NONPROFITADDRESSING ALL 35 CULTURAL ERRORS, THEIR INTERRELATEDNESS, AND HOW TO PREVENT THEM. CAUSES OVERPOP[ULATION AND FAILURE TO CORRECT 22 ERRORS IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS. SEE WEB EDUCATION SCIENTIFIC METHOD. PHYSICS REQUIRES A NEW ELEVEN ELEMENT SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO DEAL SCIENTIFICALLY WITH OUR MULTIDIMENSIONAL HOLOGRAPHIC SUBSYSTEM OF OUR MULTIDIMENSIONAL HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE.

POWER RESEARCH USING SCIENCE, A OAK RIDEGE TYPE PROJECT, MAY SOLVE NEW POWER SOURCES FROM THE UNDERLYING STRUCTURE OF MATTER WITHIN 60 YEARS AND $1.7 TRILLION, YET NOT STARTED. IN LITERATURE SINCE 1987.
CALL ME AT 619-284-2468 PT, SAN DIEGO, CA, WITH HELP, CRITIQUE, GRANTS, VOLUNTEERING, STAFF, DIRECTOR, AND IDEAS.
FIX ALL BASIC CAUSES, NO PROBLEMS WILL EXIST.
WE CAN WORK ON SYMPTOMS TOR ANOTHER 50,000 YEARS AND STILL HAVE SAME PROBLEMS.
WE REDUCE POPULATIONS 93% TO 500 MILLION, OR STARVE 600 BILLION BY 2200, 1 BILLION BY 2100.
CURRENT INCREASED RATE OF POLAR MELTS.

DR DOUG HEMSTREET, SCIENTIST HEMSTREET CONSULTANTS SINCE 1960.
I WILL GUAREENTEE ALL FIRMS AND GOVTS THAT THEY HAVE A WINNABLE LAWSUIT AGASINST THE ENTIRE MD HHS SYSTEM, AS IT PAID CONGRESS UNDER THE TABLE TOR 82 YEARS TO SUPPRESS MD’S COMPEITITION, PUT MD’S IN CHARGE, SUPPRESS SCIENCE IN HEALTH.
EXAMINE 25 STUDIES VALIDATING HOLISTIC HEALTH SYSTEMS SAVINGSD OF 80%+++, ABILITY TO CURE ALL PROBLEMS, PREVENT MOST, HEAL ALL BUT POLITICAL STUPIDITY.
WRITE US AT
4154 46TH ST #12, SAN DIEGO CA 92105-1850

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10644 Paul K Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:25:57 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10644 Robert, You are correct that high prices are certainly NOT an indicator that fossil fuel use will decline. That is why I advocate focusing instead on lowering the cost of alternatives. I think your proposal to increasingly restrict extraction is appealing but not possible in the real world. There is no global authority extant or on the horizon which could set up and enforce such a regime without the force of arms. There is no diplomatic process that could bring it about. Even the tamest of global climate conventions have been elusive. Robert,
You are correct that high prices are certainly NOT an indicator that fossil fuel use will decline. That is why I advocate focusing instead on lowering the cost of alternatives. I think your proposal to increasingly restrict extraction is appealing but not possible in the real world. There is no global authority extant or on the horizon which could set up and enforce such a regime without the force of arms. There is no diplomatic process that could bring it about. Even the tamest of global climate conventions have been elusive.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10637 Robert Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:17:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/08/the-technologies-needed-to-beat-450-ppm-part-1/#comment-10637 Paul K "As I sit here in my woolly jumper, it strikes me that the way to make alternatives competitive is not to make fossil fuel more expensive. It is doing a pretty good job of that right now by itself." But the problem is that globally we are consuming more fuel and emitting more CO2 each year. Price is irrelevant to this - high prices are just an indicator of strong demand from a booming global economy. They are certainly NOT an indicator that fossil fuel use will decline. As I keep saying (any everyone refuses to engage in the discussion) we won't start using less fuel until, er..., we decide to limit and progressively reduce extraction. Most of the debates I see on this blog are akin to letting the air out of the rear tyres to steer your car round the next corner when what you should really be doing is fixing the steering. Paul K

“As I sit here in my woolly jumper, it strikes me that the way to make alternatives competitive is not to make fossil fuel more expensive. It is doing a pretty good job of that right now by itself.”

But the problem is that globally we are consuming more fuel and emitting more CO2 each year. Price is irrelevant to this – high prices are just an indicator of strong demand from a booming global economy. They are certainly NOT an indicator that fossil fuel use will decline.

As I keep saying (any everyone refuses to engage in the discussion) we won’t start using less fuel until, er…, we decide to limit and progressively reduce extraction.

Most of the debates I see on this blog are akin to letting the air out of the rear tyres to steer your car round the next corner when what you should really be doing is fixing the steering.

]]>