EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:47 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 10:58:11 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
Quote:
On 5/01/2017 2:00 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Mass air-tourism does seem to be a luxury that we will all have to
give up until somebody designs a plane bulbous enough to accommodate
liquid hydrogen fuel tanks - liquid hydrogen offers good energy
density per unit mass, but not per unit volume.

There's no great point in running them on hydrogen, given that the
hydrogen has to be produced in a way that consumes energy. The existing
jet engine technology will pretty much run on bio-diesel out of the box,
with at most a few tweaks.


George Monbiot in "Heat" didn't fancy generating enough biodiesel to keep the air tourism industry in business. Liquified methane might have better energy density than liquid hydrogen - practically everything does - and it doesn't form explosive mixtures with air over quite as wide a range of concentrations. Flame propagation rates aren't great but gas turbines in power stations seem to run fine on natural gas, which is mainly methane.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/sep/30/featuresreviews.guardianreview6

He's still active, and may have changed his mind - ask him. He gets paid for knowing stuff like this, mostly by "The Guardian". I don't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:00 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 10:43:46 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
"Extraordinarily long-winded "solution". "

Yeah, and with very little substance. Reads more like a sociology textbook in one of those feegood countries.

Fact is more CO2 is produced by electricity generation than any other sector, and they want electric cars ? Good luck with that.


http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

says electricity generation and heating currently contribute 41% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and transport 22%.

We've got to pretty much eliminate both of them. It's a bit easier to generate electricity from renewable sources than it is to find a an acceptable substitute for the internal combustion engine in cars, but we don't get to choose which problem we deal with - both have to be fixed..

Dimbos like Jim Thompson and John Larkin think that the problem isn't urgent because it isn't actually inconveniencing them right now, but they are just being idle and ignorant.

You are pretty much as ignorant, but you don't have to stay that way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:13 pm   



Quote:

If someone said in 1900 that we were going to build a 200 Mw
powerstation, and run it with a computer, it would never have been
built. But a 5 Kw coal fired steam engine coupled to an alternator
could be built, and was.


and likewise alternative energy infrastructure will be built as the technology develops to make it practical.

But __forcing__ it to be built BEFORE it's practical is counter productive.

Research is not cheap. Companies will only do it when they see a
payoff. In order to get research going we can either have the
government pay for it directly, or find a way to create a payoff for the
companies. One way is to subsidize existing technology so they have
profit to reinvest in research in order to increase their profits. Once
that reaches some point it becomes self-sustaining. Before that point
progress will be very slow if not funded somehow.

That's a good standard approach when the resulting products have real utility. Now that they don't it's cheaper to pay for research directly. And since none of the existing technologies have a real likelihood of becoming viable, it make sense to restrict funding to the few projects that have a shot at changing the map.

Wind turbines and photovoltaic cells are perfectly viable. Thermal solar power stations with big tanks of molten nitrate salts have been built - essentially as prototypes - and are generating power. Your idea of viability seems to be that if something hasn't already dominated the industry, it hasn't shown itself to be viable.

That's a rather brainless comment.

Your reply seems to match your claim. Why are these technologies
unlikely to be viable? Photovoltaic solar is already producing
electricity at a profit. The costs will continue to fall and
installations will increase.

One nice thing about photovoltaic is that it matches the timing of the
work day. That means we can stop discouraging electricity use during
the day which will be business friendly. It also can provide power to
charge electric cars which don't need power on demand some 90+% of the
time. They can be charged at a time that best suits supply.



if / when the technology is technically and __economically__ viable, then it will be used by choice. no argument and no problem...

the point of the discussion is, should the government force these choices..



m

rickman
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:26 pm   



On 1/6/2017 11:13 PM, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:53:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:34:22 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Friday, 6 January 2017 22:09:41 UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/6/2017 10:24 AM, makolber_at_yahoo.com wrote:


If someone said in 1900 that we were going to build a 200 Mw
powerstation, and run it with a computer, it would never have been
built. But a 5 Kw coal fired steam engine coupled to an alternator
could be built, and was.


and likewise alternative energy infrastructure will be built as the technology develops to make it practical.

But __forcing__ it to be built BEFORE it's practical is counter productive.

Research is not cheap. Companies will only do it when they see a
payoff. In order to get research going we can either have the
government pay for it directly, or find a way to create a payoff for the
companies. One way is to subsidize existing technology so they have
profit to reinvest in research in order to increase their profits. Once
that reaches some point it becomes self-sustaining. Before that point
progress will be very slow if not funded somehow.

That's a good standard approach when the resulting products have real utility. Now that they don't it's cheaper to pay for research directly. And since none of the existing technologies have a real likelihood of becoming viable, it make sense to restrict funding to the few projects that have a shot at changing the map.

Wind turbines and photovoltaic cells are perfectly viable. Thermal solar power stations with big tanks of molten nitrate salts have been built - essentially as prototypes - and are generating power. Your idea of viability seems to be that if something hasn't already dominated the industry, it hasn't shown itself to be viable.

That's a rather brainless comment.


Your reply seems to match your claim. Why are these technologies
unlikely to be viable? Photovoltaic solar is already producing
electricity at a profit. The costs will continue to fall and
installations will increase.

One nice thing about photovoltaic is that it matches the timing of the
work day. That means we can stop discouraging electricity use during
the day which will be business friendly. It also can provide power to
charge electric cars which don't need power on demand some 90+% of the
time. They can be charged at a time that best suits supply.

--

Rick C

rickman
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:30 pm   



On 1/7/2017 12:45 AM, Adrian Jansen wrote:
Quote:
On 7/01/2017 8:09 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/6/2017 10:24 AM, makolber_at_yahoo.com wrote:


If someone said in 1900 that we were going to build a 200 Mw
powerstation, and run it with a computer, it would never have been
built. But a 5 Kw coal fired steam engine coupled to an alternator
could be built, and was.


and likewise alternative energy infrastructure will be built as the
technology develops to make it practical.

But __forcing__ it to be built BEFORE it's practical is counter
productive.

Research is not cheap. Companies will only do it when they see a
payoff. In order to get research going we can either have the
government pay for it directly, or find a way to create a payoff for the
companies. One way is to subsidize existing technology so they have
profit to reinvest in research in order to increase their profits. Once
that reaches some point it becomes self-sustaining. Before that point
progress will be very slow if not funded somehow.

Yes, but one of my points is that its not research we need, its the will
( and to a large extent ) the willingness to increase the price to
offset the damage we are doing.


I agree, but it is a hard thing to accomplish. In Maryland we have a
tax intended to pay for restoring the Chesapeake bay. It shows up on
our property tax bills and as far as I can tell just goes into the state
coffers without accountability. People don't like taxes and if a "cost"
is assigned to there needs to be a way to assure the collected fees are
spent on solving the problems.


Quote:
We dont need research, we already know how to build PV, Wind, Solar
heat, chemical or thermal storage, CO2 to methanol, etc


Of course we need research into making them more cost effective and
finding the best combinations of all the solutions for each area of the
country.


Quote:
What we have to do is put all these well known technologies together
into a useful system which actually supplies power on a substantial
scale. Prototypes are good to prove technology works, but they dont
solve the problem.


Hmmmm.... do you really do your design work without building a prototype?

--

Rick C

Tom Gardner
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:44 pm   



On 10/01/17 11:26, rickman wrote:
> Photovoltaic solar is already producing electricity at a profit.

"Costs" are a very variable concept. IMNSHO renewables costs
ought to include the cost of keeping conventional plant available
for when the renewable has gone AWOL.


Quote:
One nice thing about photovoltaic is that it matches the timing of the work
day.


.... in some places. In higher latitudes that is only vaguely true.

Quote:
It also can provide power to charge electric cars
which don't need power on demand some 90+% of the time. They can be charged at
a time that best suits supply.


There's a little truth to that, provided you only want to
drive in summer Smile

Sylvia Else
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:58 pm   



On 5/01/2017 2:00 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Quote:
Mass air-tourism does seem to be a luxury that we will all have to
give up until somebody designs a plane bulbous enough to accommodate
liquid hydrogen fuel tanks - liquid hydrogen offers good energy
density per unit mass, but not per unit volume.


There's no great point in running them on hydrogen, given that the
hydrogen has to be produced in a way that consumes energy. The existing
jet engine technology will pretty much run on bio-diesel out of the box,
with at most a few tweaks.

Sylvia.

whit3rd
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:07 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-8, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:
... Why are these technologies
unlikely to be viable? Photovoltaic solar is already producing
electricity at a profit.

if / when the technology is technically and __economically__ viable, then it will be used by choice. no argument and no problem...

the point of the discussion is, should the government force these choices.


Yes. In the case of pollution, where no external cost to the producer is evident in
a balance sheet, the only known effective countermeasures are enforced by laws.
Hereabouts, there's no 'black fog' causing mass deaths; because I can't legally put
a fire in my fireplace. That's not an economic decision on my part, it's an
air-quality regulation for my region.

A week of (what we would now call an inversion layer) black fog, in London, circa 1950,
had about twice the death toll as the 9/11 terrorist attack. The danger has been
suppressed rather well in recent years (China still working out the details), and NOT
by governmental noninterference.

Yet, you suggest this question is new, and still in the 'open discussion' stage. Where
in the world do you live?

whit3rd
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:10 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 11:12:54 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

> The best way to store hydrogen is to stick it to carbon.

Yeah, by physisorption. Chemical bonding makes the next step,
a fuel cell, more difficult. Graphite, though, might not be the best choice
for an intercalation storage medium.


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:28 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:08:03 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-8, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:

... Why are these technologies
unlikely to be viable? Photovoltaic solar is already producing
electricity at a profit.

if / when the technology is technically and __economically__ viable, then it will be used by choice. no argument and no problem...

the point of the discussion is, should the government force these choices.

Yes. In the case of pollution, where no external cost to the producer is evident in
a balance sheet, ....


I would agree with that except..

1) the external costs (if any) of emitting CO2 are NOT well established, is CO2 really "pollution"?

2) the revenue neutral tax solution proposed by the scientists to impose an external cost on CO2 has been bastardized by the politicians into a money grabbing scheme.

If the proposals were for truly revenue neutral tax on CO2 and govt money for pure research of alternative and renewable energy, a lot more people including myself would no longer oppose it.


m


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:26 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:58:11 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
Quote:
On 5/01/2017 2:00 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Mass air-tourism does seem to be a luxury that we will all have to
give up until somebody designs a plane bulbous enough to accommodate
liquid hydrogen fuel tanks - liquid hydrogen offers good energy
density per unit mass, but not per unit volume.

There's no great point in running them on hydrogen, given that the
hydrogen has to be produced in a way that consumes energy. The existing
jet engine technology will pretty much run on bio-diesel out of the box,
with at most a few tweaks.

Sylvia.


The Kola Borehole reportedly produced some hydrogen at very deep depths. (But sure, energy is required to drill the wells to begin with)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/733026/Russia-science-Kola-borehole-Noah-floodwater-Bible-Genesis-theory-of-12

Jet engines... sure, as long as care is taken to avoid biodiesel gel at very cold temperatures above 30,000 ft

Michael


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:28 am   



On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:11:27 PM UTC-8, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:03:31 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian_at_qq.vv.net
wrote:

On 4/01/2017 1:06 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Interesting article on the "tragedy of the commons" and what kind of international CO2 emission regulation system might work.

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/1/7.full

As usual in engineering-type problems, the devil is in the fine detail, and this article goes deep enough to be interesting.

Interesting article.

Here is my take on a way to improve CO2 recycling, and cut the total
fossil fuel input:

There are 3 main systems where we use energy.
Ground transport, cars, trucks, etc
Air transport, airplanes
Fixed base ( non - nuclear ) power stations, the electricity supply.
These are roughly equal in size, and contribute about the same both to
total energy and total co2 production.
So some significant reduction in co2 generation from any one of these
would help reduce co2 emissions globally.

Ground transport mostly uses liquid fuel, oil derived, and its pretty
efficient in terms of energy use, but cannot easily store or cycle the
co2 produced. The extra work to do that would kill the efficiency and
raise the cost of transport very significantly.
There is the possibility though to replace fuel burning with
battery/electric systems, at least for short haul. And battery
technology is still improving. But that places an even heavier load on
power stations, to generate the electricity required. And the total
efficiency drops, so the fossil fuel input and co2 output from the base
stations goes up significantly.

Air transport is similar to ground, but the energy density required,
and the recycling problem, is even higher. I really doubt there is much
room to change there. Best would be just to limit air transport to some
acceptable level, to limit the total load.

But fixed base power stations have a unique possibility to be improved.

We have plenty of energy available from the sun, pv, heat, wind, etc.
What we dont have is a good cheap, efficient way of storing it for use
when no sun, eg night, cloudy day, etc. Electric batteries at the size,
energy density and lifetime we need are only just barely possible for
small installations. The chemistry puts a hard limit on the energy
density, and we are already pretty much at that limit. Safety
considerations are also an issue with more exotic chemistry.
So instead we burn fossil fuel, and throw the co2 into the atmosphere.
2 effects from that, we lose the non renewable fossil fuel, and we add
co2 to the atmosphere. Imho the first of these is more important than
the second, since eventually we will run out of fuel. That will fix the
second problem too.

There is a lot of work being done on carbon capture, after burning the
fuel, but almost all on permanently storing the carbon in some
inaccessible place, so it wont end up in the atmosphere. But that means
we have to dig up more fossil fuel, and cope with the mess that makes,
as well as finding a place to store the co2. Both of these are really
difficult problems.

So far all the proposals I have seen for carbon capture suffer from
serious efficiency problems. If you burn fossil fuel, and use a
significant part of the energy processing the carbon into permanent
storable form, you dont get enough energy left over to run civilisation.
Thats a dead end. As well nobody seems to take account of the fact that
co2 is roughly 3 times the mass of the original carbon ( as coal ). So
if you dig up and burn 1 million tons of coal, and capture all the co2,
you get 3 million tons of co2. Coal has density roughly 2.0, CO2 as
liquid under pressure has density 1.1. So the 3 million tons of C02 has
volume roughly 6 x the volume of coal mined. Where are you going to put
it ? It sure wont fit in the hole you got the coal from.

But there may be a better way. Hydrocarbon fuel (chxx, eg diesel) is an
ideal energy store, with a very high energy density, much higher than
any electric battery. Wikipedia gives energy density of lithium
rechargable battery at around 1.8 Mj/kg. Diesel is around 48. So why
not convert co2 to chxx using the energy in sunlight, the hydrogen of
course we can get from water, of which we have plenty, and even that is
recyclable, if it matters, using a suitable process. But only enough to
create a reservoir of fuel to use at night, and over a couple of weeks,
to allow for weather events. Recapture the co2 in a fully closed cycle,
and use the energy from the sun both as primary source, and to convert
the co2 back to chxx. Then the chxx becomes the energy store, much
easier to handle using existing technology than big electric batteries.
So the whole system is still driven by solar energy, whether as pv or
heat, depending on what is needed both to run civilisation, and the
chxx-co2 cycle is purely an energy store, using well known technology,
tanks, pumps, gas turbines, etc to do the storage and conversion. The
only piece missing is the co2 to chxx chemical process. That process
has already been done, at least to make methanol, which can either be
used directly, or processed further into chxx.

All we need now is the will and the planning to convert our major ground
based power systems over to this form of generation. At least the
technology for each part is already available, we just have to rearrange
the components into the correct configuration.

Extraordinarily long-winded "solution". Disposing of all leftists
would be easier, more fun, and more efficient reduction of energy
consumption >:-}

...Jim Thompson


While that also sounds interesting, word is that the Saudis only have 5 years of oil left.

Michael


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:57 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:26:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
On 1/6/2017 11:13 PM, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:53:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:34:22 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Friday, 6 January 2017 22:09:41 UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/6/2017 10:24 AM, makolber_at_yahoo.com wrote:


If someone said in 1900 that we were going to build a 200 Mw
powerstation, and run it with a computer, it would never have been
built. But a 5 Kw coal fired steam engine coupled to an alternator
could be built, and was.


and likewise alternative energy infrastructure will be built as the technology develops to make it practical.

But __forcing__ it to be built BEFORE it's practical is counter productive.

Research is not cheap. Companies will only do it when they see a
payoff. In order to get research going we can either have the
government pay for it directly, or find a way to create a payoff for the
companies. One way is to subsidize existing technology so they have
profit to reinvest in research in order to increase their profits. Once
that reaches some point it becomes self-sustaining. Before that point
progress will be very slow if not funded somehow.

That's a good standard approach when the resulting products have real utility. Now that they don't it's cheaper to pay for research directly. And since none of the existing technologies have a real likelihood of becoming viable, it make sense to restrict funding to the few projects that have a shot at changing the map.

Wind turbines and photovoltaic cells are perfectly viable. Thermal solar power stations with big tanks of molten nitrate salts have been built - essentially as prototypes - and are generating power. Your idea of viability seems to be that if something hasn't already dominated the industry, it hasn't shown itself to be viable.

That's a rather brainless comment.

Your reply seems to match your claim. Why are these technologies
unlikely to be viable? Photovoltaic solar is already producing
electricity at a profit. The costs will continue to fall and
installations will increase.

One nice thing about photovoltaic is that it matches the timing of the
work day.


But the heating day.

Quote:
That means we can stop discouraging electricity use during
the day which will be business friendly. It also can provide power to
charge electric cars which don't need power on demand some 90+% of the
time. They can be charged at a time that best suits supply.


Freeze at night. Good idea.

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:12 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:58:02 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote:

Quote:
On 5/01/2017 2:00 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Mass air-tourism does seem to be a luxury that we will all have to
give up until somebody designs a plane bulbous enough to accommodate
liquid hydrogen fuel tanks - liquid hydrogen offers good energy
density per unit mass, but not per unit volume.

There's no great point in running them on hydrogen, given that the
hydrogen has to be produced in a way that consumes energy. The existing
jet engine technology will pretty much run on bio-diesel out of the box,
with at most a few tweaks.

Sylvia.


The best way to store hydrogen is to stick it to carbon.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:14 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 03:43:43 -0800 (PST), jurb6006_at_gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
"Extraordinarily long-winded "solution". "

Yeah, and with very little substance. Reads more like a sociology textbook in one of those feegood countries.


Have you ever read a sociology textbook? I have. Everyone should.
Amazing nonsense.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map