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

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:20 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:10:10 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:
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.


The fuel cell has been the power source of the future since 1838. And
still is.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

Tom Gardner
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:25 am   



On 11/01/17 00:59, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:58:11 UTC, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Hydrogen filled lighter than air machines have potential. Hindenberg has terrified people, but in reality it's not hard to not make the same mistakes twice - the Hindenberg was a crude and ill researched machine by today's standards. And the hard truth is all other types of air transport have the same horrible results as the Hindenberg at times.


Yes, but there are degrees of horribleness.

I remember an argument in the 70s about the relative merits
of two different aviation fuels, Jet A1 and Jet A4 from memory.
The debating point that stuck in my mind was that you could
stand in a pool of one (Jet A1) when a match was dropped,
but not in the other.

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:07:55 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com>
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, the only known effective countermeasures are enforced by laws.


CO2 is not pollution. Overall, it's good stuff.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:27:04 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:07:55 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

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, the only known effective countermeasures are enforced by laws.

CO2 is not pollution. Overall, it's good stuff.


What would beer be without it?

Sylvia Else
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 am   



On 11/01/2017 11:59 AM, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:58:11 UTC, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Hydrogen filled lighter than air machines have potential. Hindenberg
has terrified people, but in reality it's not hard to not make the
same mistakes twice - the Hindenberg was a crude and ill researched
machine by today's standards. And the hard truth is all other types
of air transport have the same horrible results as the Hindenberg at
times.


Airships and blimps are slow. Not only does this limit their usefulness
for travel, but their slow speed reduces the number of trips they can
make, increasing the cost of capital for each trip.

They have their uses, but transport is not one of them.

Sylvia.

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 am   



On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:53:21 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote:

Quote:
On 11/01/2017 11:59 AM, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:58:11 UTC, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Hydrogen filled lighter than air machines have potential. Hindenberg
has terrified people, but in reality it's not hard to not make the
same mistakes twice - the Hindenberg was a crude and ill researched
machine by today's standards. And the hard truth is all other types
of air transport have the same horrible results as the Hindenberg at
times.

Airships and blimps are slow. Not only does this limit their usefulness
for travel, but their slow speed reduces the number of trips they can
make, increasing the cost of capital for each trip.

They have their uses, but transport is not one of them.

Sylvia.


Their short lifetimes inflate their capital costs too. When the wind
kicks up, they had better be in a gigantic hangar.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:59:37 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:58:11 UTC, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Hydrogen filled lighter than air machines have potential. Hindenberg has terrified people, but in reality it's not hard to not make the same mistakes twice - the Hindenberg was a crude and ill researched machine by today's standards. And the hard truth is all other types of air transport have the same horrible results as the Hindenberg at times.


NT


Recent airbags have had silly accidents too. The surface area to power
ratio is awful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 am   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:12:44 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkinxyxy_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

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

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.


Why "stick it"? It comes that way.

dcaster@krl.org
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:56 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 8:47:42 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:


but CO2 really is pollution. 270ppm in the atmosphere didn't do anybody any harm -
Quote:
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


CO2 is not pollution. If all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, it would be a disaster. 270 ppm in the atmosphere did everyone a lot of benefit.

Agreed too much is a problem. Just like rain. Some is essential, none is a disaster, too much is also a disaster.

Dan


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:49 pm   



Quote:

NT is happy to gloss over the price of not moving over to renewable energy sources, less happy about paying for any extra cost that might come up along the way.

If his waterfront property was eventually going to be submerged by the 10 metre sea level rise that is now looking pretty much inevitable, one could see it as poetic justice. Since he will probably be dead before this happens, justice will probably be too delayed to be particularly satisfying.


I am in the market for some "distressed" beach front property.
I've always wanted a beach house.
The prices should be dropping since they are going to be worthless soon...

right?

m


Guest

Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:24 am   



On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:49:54 AM UTC+11, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:

NT is happy to gloss over the price of not moving over to renewable energy sources, less happy about paying for any extra cost that might come up along the way.

If his waterfront property was eventually going to be submerged by the 10 metre sea level rise that is now looking pretty much inevitable, one could see it as poetic justice. Since he will probably be dead before this happens, justice will probably be too delayed to be particularly satisfying.


I am in the market for some "distressed" beach front property.
I've always wanted a beach house.
The prices should be dropping since they are going to be worthless soon....

right?


For a very unpredictable value of soon.

What wipes out beach front property is unusually intense local storms, and global warming is allowing typhoons/hurricanes to form and grow further away from the equator than they used.

When the Greenland and East Antarctic ice sheets finally decide to start sliding off into the ocean, sea levels will go up rapidly.

At the end of the last ice age, sea level rose by 120 metres, at an average rate of a about a metre per century, but the sea level didn't rise at the average rate - there were spots where an ice sheet was slipping into the sea, when it went up at 2.5 metres per century.

We've only got about 10 metres of sea level rise to look forward to, but it's likely to happen fast when it does happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:32 am   



On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:56:25 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 8:47:42 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:


but CO2 really is pollution. 270ppm in the atmosphere didn't do anybody any harm - "it had been at that level since we moved into the current inter-glacial. The current 400ppm is good for more intense cyclones in the tropics, does seem to be melting the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, and does seem to have started moving rainfall patterns around."


<I've restored Dan's unmarked snip, which he went to the trouble of rewriting as his own contribution below>

> CO2 is not pollution. If all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, it would be a disaster. 270 ppm in the atmosphere did everyone a lot of benefit.

The fact that 270ppm isn't pollution doesn't mean that 400ppm isn't pollution.

The dose is important. Low levels of arsenic in your diet do good things for your skin and don't create any problem, but higher levels of arsenic definitely are pollution.

> Agreed too much is a problem. Just like rain. Some is essential, none is a disaster, too much is also a disaster.

Any amount of Dan is pollution. He contributions may not be disasterous, but they are a waste of space.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

rickman
Guest

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:30 am   



On 1/10/2017 7:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Quote:
On 11/01/2017 8:04 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/10/2017 3:10 PM, whit3rd wrote:
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.

He is suggesting we are better off burning hydrocarbons in ignorance of
the problem it creates by releasing greenhouse gasses and adding to AGW.


Since the production of bio-diesel removes carbon dioxide from the air,
burning it just returns that, with no net increase, particularly if any
additional energy inputs required for production are also derived from
bio-diesel, or other renewable source.


What makes you think the only carbon involved is from CO2 from the air?

--

Rick C

rickman
Guest

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:30 am   



On 1/10/2017 7:55 PM, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:26:22 UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/6/2017 11:13 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:53:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

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.

Peak electricity use here is in the evening in winter. Solar PV output then? Zero. Here it would not replace a single watt of conventional generation. So loads more generating plant & the endless stream of activity that goes to support it, AND more grid capacity.

And fwliw charging cars overnight makes far more sense than daytime charging. If you don't know why you're in much the same camp as Bill.


If you can't see the advantage of charging cars from photovoltaic power,
then you are the one who is having trouble. It is only "best" to charge
cars at night if those cars are being powered by excess capacity in the
fossil fuel powered plants. Yeah, it is great to reduce the requirement
to have other power plants, but that is a separate issue from reducing
the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

Currently businesses are billed at a rate defined by their peak use. If
we have more capacity during the day this won't be such a problem for
businesses and they may in fact add their own solar capacity.

--

Rick C

Sylvia Else
Guest

Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:24 pm   



On 12/01/2017 5:54 PM, rickman wrote:
Quote:
On 1/10/2017 7:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/01/2017 8:04 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/10/2017 3:10 PM, whit3rd wrote:
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.

He is suggesting we are better off burning hydrocarbons in ignorance of
the problem it creates by releasing greenhouse gasses and adding to AGW.


Since the production of bio-diesel removes carbon dioxide from the air,
burning it just returns that, with no net increase, particularly if any
additional energy inputs required for production are also derived from
bio-diesel, or other renewable source.

What makes you think the only carbon involved is from CO2 from the air?


It's clear where you're coming from on this.

Some energy is used to build a biodiesel production plant, and more
energy is used to run the plant. The energy used to build the plant has
to be invested before any biodiesel is produced, and some energy to run
the plant has to be invested before the first batch is produced. Those
energy inputs therefore cannot have been derived from biodiesel produced
by the plant, and may involve carbon.

Thereafter the plant *could* use part of its output to provide the
energy for processing. In practice, it probably won't, but that means
that more biodiesel is available to displace fossil fuel, so the net
effect is roughly the same, which is that once the plant is up and
running, it no longer contributes to the carbon problem.

There may be some energy input in the form of fertiliser, but a similar
argument applies.

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