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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Guest

Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:06 am   



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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:47 am   



On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:03:38 PM UTC+11, Adrian Jansen wrote:
Quote:
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.


George Monbiot's "Heat" went into the problem posed by air-transport in some detail, and came to the conclusion that mass tourism by air was a luxury we couldn't afford, at least until we got the kind of bulbous air-planes that could carry enough liquid hydrogen to get someplace useful - it's not a dense liquid.

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

Quote:
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 don't have is a good cheap, efficient way of storing it for use
when no sun, eg night, cloudy day, etc.


Not entirely accurate. Thermal solar can store several days worth of heat as molten sodium nitrate - big tanks have a long thermal time constant, and if you insulate them carefully, you can make the time constant even longer.

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

Storing the energy before you turn it into electricity is a lot cheaper than turning electric power into stored energy and recovering that stored energy.

There are a couple of practical examples running today.

Quote:
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..


I'm not so sure about that.

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

uses a liquid electrolyte which can be charged up, pumped into storage tanks and pumped back into the battery when you need power. If you want lots of power you need big batteries, but if you only need to store lots of energy, you just need big storage tanks and they can be a lot larger than your battery.

Quote:
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.


Not fast enough. We can afford to burn most of the oil we know about, but nowhere near all the coal.

Quote:
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 don't get enough energy left over to run civilisation.


You could run our current civilisation on solar power. You'd probably make a few compromises about when the power was used, and you might end up using a bit less of it.

There's nothing magical about our current level of energy use. We already do more with the energy than we use than we used to, and there are quite a few social choices which would allow us to use less. The free market way of encouraging people to make those choices would be to raise the price of energy, but there are a lot of commercial interests that want to make more money by selling more energy, and they don't like the idea of selling less, even if they can get a higher price for what they do sell.

> That's a dead end.

Probably. But it might be useful step along the road to completely renewable energy sources.

Quote:
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.


The deep ocean comes to mind. That's where half the CO2 we are injecting into the atmosphere ends up anyway. It won't stay there forever - the time constant seems to be about 800 years - but it would stay there long enough to tide us over until we had got close to fully renewable.

Quote:
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.


But a whole lot less efficient.

Quote:
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.


Sure, but not a lot of the energy captured from sunlight ends up in the fuel.

Capturing CO2 from places where it is fairly concentrated is a necessary part of the process - 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 is not an ideal feedstock.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915009071

Solar cells capture a lot more energy from incident sunlight than photosynthesis usually does, and they do pretty cheaply. Photovoltaic energy is currently level-pegging with regular grid generators, and if we built enough of them to do most of the job we'd almost certainly at least halve the price.

The rule of thumb for economies of scale is that ten times the volume halves the unit price, and the cost of solar power is still pretty much the interest on the capital invested in the solar cells themselves.

Quote:
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.


Building lots more photovoltaic cells makes a good deal more economic sense..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

makes the point that if everybody has electric cars, there will be a great many more electric batteries doing nothing at any given moment than there will be shifting commuters around. The smart grid could exploit them for lot of the energy smoothing required. You still need clever domestic appliances that can unload the grid when too many solar cells are clouded over, but it does look like a more feasible way to go.

Friedman's book - from 2008 - does predate any working thermal solar plants, and more modern solutions might be less reliant on a smart grid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:00 am   



On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:36:13 PM UTC+11, John Larkin 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:


<snip - Adrian hasn't got it quite right>

Quote:
Just tell all those billions of poor people in China and India and
Africa and South America that they can't have electric lights or cars
or tractors or clean water or ever fly in airplanes.


Solar power can give them electric lights, electric-powered cars and tractors and clean water.

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.

Quote:
Tell them that they have to recycle their CO2 first.

Lots of luck.


If you make enough solar cells to satisfy that energy market, they'll get their electric power at half the price they'd pay now for getting it from burning fossil carbon.

Since fossil carbon is a finite resource, and we've been digging it up from progressively more difficult and expensive sites for the last century or so, it's getting progressively more expensive.

Making solar energy dispatchable is tricky and expensive - unless you build big and capital intensive solar thermal stations.

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

It's possible that the third world will work out how to live with cheap power that isn't available exactly when you want it. Getting it for half the price would encourage quite a bit of ingenuity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:39 am   



On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:11:27 PM UTC+11, 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 >:-}


Trust Jim not to notice that rightists are even more prone to drive gas-guzzling muscle cars.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Adrian Jansen
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:03 am   



On 4/01/2017 1:06 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
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.


--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen

John Larkin
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 am   



On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:03:31 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian_at_qq.vv.net>
wrote:

Quote:
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.


Just tell all those billions of poor people in China and India and
Africa and South America that they can't have electric lights or cars
or tractors or clean water or ever fly in airplanes.

Tell them that they have to recycle their CO2 first.

Lots of luck.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

Jim Thompson
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 am   



On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:03:31 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian_at_qq.vv.net>
wrote:

Quote:
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
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

DEMOCRAT PARTY

The Party of Sexual Deviants, COP Haters, College Campus Morons
with Phenomenal Ignorance, and Unions Covering for Bad Teachers

rickman
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 am   



On 1/4/2017 8:36 PM, John Larkin 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.

Just tell all those billions of poor people in China and India and
Africa and South America that they can't have electric lights or cars
or tractors or clean water or ever fly in airplanes.

Tell them that they have to recycle their CO2 first.

Lots of luck.


Yes, tell the "poor" Chinese that they can't manufacture any more solar
panels until they recycle their CO2.

--

Rick C


Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 am   



On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:36:02 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkinxyxy_at_highlandtechnology.com> 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.

Just tell all those billions of poor people in China and India and
Africa and South America that they can't have electric lights or cars
or tractors or clean water or ever fly in airplanes.


Of course not. Only Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, and Barak Obama are
allowed to fly anywhere.
Quote:

Tell them that they have to recycle their CO2 first.

Lots of luck.


gregz
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:14 am   



<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
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.


I have an article saying the 35% global deforestation replacement would
take care of all vehicle emissions.

Greg

whit3rd
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:50 pm   



On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 7:00:58 PM UTC-8, bill....@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 some hope for that, actually; orbital solar power installations, with laser output,
can get enough energy on a wing dorsal surface to drive electric motors. Can't do it
with microwaves, though, they won't focus as small as a wing.

So, you use fuel for takeoff, emergency maneuvers, and landing. You cruise on rays.

rickman
Guest

Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:22 pm   



On 1/5/2017 6:50 AM, whit3rd wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 7:00:58 PM UTC-8, bill....@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 some hope for that, actually; orbital solar power installations, with laser output,
can get enough energy on a wing dorsal surface to drive electric motors. Can't do it
with microwaves, though, they won't focus as small as a wing.

So, you use fuel for takeoff, emergency maneuvers, and landing. You cruise on rays.


So you have both gas engines as well as electric? That's going to be
one heavy aircraft. I guess you save on fuel weight.

It might be a bit expensive. How large will the sat have to be to power
just one airplane? Then multiply it by how many thousands of planes?

--

Rick C

Adrian Jansen
Guest

Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:26 am   



On 5/01/2017 12:47 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:03:38 PM UTC+11, Adrian Jansen 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:
.... snip ...


All good comments, thanks Bill.

My aim was to point out that there is enough existing technology to make
some major improvements to how we run our energy supply.

The major problem seems to me to get started, which is a political
problem, not an engineering one. But new unproven technology, no matter
how seemingly good, suffers from the risk averse nature of big
enterprises, and political systems.

So rather than endlessly debate over which is the better of many
competing solutions, how about we start with stuff we already know how
to do, and build from there. That after all is how we built our current
systems.

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.



--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen

Jasen Betts
Guest

Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:30 am   



On 2017-01-05, gregz <zekor_at_comcast.net> wrote:
Quote:
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.


I have an article saying the 35% global deforestation replacement would
take care of all vehicle emissions.


sounds unlikely to be correct.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software


Guest

Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:24 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.

m

Goto page 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