Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? 25

[owg]

josephv - Thanks for your helpful posts. I would like to clarify the use of the term "naturally occurring" elements. Here is my understanding of the term. Elements are usually classified as naturally occurring to distinguish them from some man-made radioactive elements. This is unfortunate since many of these elements don't show up in their elemental form in the earth's crust, oceans or atmosphere. Of the three you chose, elemental lead does occur rarely but more often as the ore galena. Elemental mercury also occurs rarely, but more commonly as methylmercury. As far as I can tell elemental cadmium does not occur in nature, it is usually found in small amounts in zinc sulfide. Picky, picky, picky.

I agree with your point that classifying stuff as "naturally occurring" or "natural occurring" does not do much for us.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[cranky108]

I can just see it now, the EPA trying to prove in cort that CO2 is a hazard and should be regulated. This will take years, and cost millions (tax and industry dollars).

Can we get a union exemption on that?

 

[NomLaser]

They don't have to, the Supreme Court has already done so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/americas/03iht-scotus.1.5124385.html

 

[owg]

If the Supreme Court only ruled "...that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions" then someone still has to prove that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas. However I suppose there is something in the ruling that defines carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas or a heat-trapping gas.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[NomLaser]

Helps if I read the entire article. I missed the section stating:

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could "avoid taking further action" now is "if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change" or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.

 

[cranky108]

So what if it is a heat traping gas, the law suits whould also be about the levels set, and what determined those levels. Also law suites about organic, and fossel sources.

Also law suits about exemptions, and forgen imports.

It comes down to a new import tax, and tax on business.

 

[NomLaser]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...pcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

Seems that we have someone admitting to over-hyping in the IPCC reports.

 

[jmw]

That there is a [problem of major proportions.
The original story revolved round a "campaign" document.
What business do scientists have putting out "campaign reorts" and trying to influence policy decsions?

Policy is made by polic makers, usually governments. The politicos are not scientists so they need scientists to provide factual, language neutral reliable accurate and dependable reports from scientists.
When in the position of "government scientists" the scientist has an absolute duty to be neutral, honest and objective in his reports. It is essential that the politicians and the public can trust the scientists.

There is a very serious risk to the integrity of any scientist when they propagandise in their own speciality and what can and should then suffer is their own credibility.
Outside their speciality and outside any official role position they can say and do what they like except that they should always be jealous of their reputation as scientists.

I have been very disturbed by some of the "peer reviewed" scientific reports" which I have seen that have been written like Greenpeace campaign documents. I trust them and the scientists who wrote them not one little bit.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[NomLaser]

That's the problem with climate science. If there were one or two scientists falsifying data and writing policy then they would have been outed and blacklisted from publishing anything from a very early stage. Climate Science is full of high ranking people that forgot what science should be about and started following the money. It is clear when you can find data manipulation in all of the long-term datasets; from NASA, CRU, GISS, NOAA...etc. Soon everyone will jump ship and wonder how it became the mess that it did.

 

[cranky108]

So if this falls apart, how long will we still have tax incentives for wind and solar power?

Not that renewable power is bad, but verable power should have limits. Maybe something like a maximum allowed 15% verable power, to make the developers pay for the cost of leveling out the power generaed.

However, solar somewhat follows the load shape, and small hydro maybe seasonal.

 

[NomLaser]

I still feel that we should try to move away from oil whenever possible. I don't see us moving completely away from it unless we invest in more nuclear plants, similar to what France has done. As for vehicles, the technology will drive where this goes; hydrogen, plug-in electric, ethanol hybrid...something will come out on top and we will eventually move to it.

 

[owg]

cranky108 and nNomLaser have summarized the situation well. There is no harm in making the oil last longer, especially the domestic (North American) oil. However money spent on carbon capture and storage may be wasted since this technology increases our energy consumption. If applied in the oil sands it will increase energy consumption, likely oil or gas.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[cranky108]

owg, not exactly. In the electric business, coal is king, and we have lots of it.
The problem is simple, the conversion of coal to electricty, involves making steam. The process delay from throwing the coal in the boiler, to the output of electricity, is very long in respect. The speed of generation ups and downs for wind is very quick, in relitive terms.
So to solve this we use natural gas for faster responce to the changing wind (or lack there of). This gas costs more in terms of energy output.
So the whole wind power movement, which is asking for twice the asking price of coal, actually costs more even when it isen't producing.
So beside the subsidies, it also costs more. And to the customers we are the bad guys, 1. for not buying more wind. 2. for higher energy rates.

Nucular has a simular lead time as coal, actually longer, from heat produced to energy output. So it also dosen't wotk well with wind, and it costs more than coal energy wise.

 

[owg]

Thanks cranky108 for the information on generator responses to load changes. I guess when the wind drops we will hear the gas lines singing. I was really just thinking of oil when I wrote that bit.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

Cranky108

So if this falls apart, how long will we still have tax incentives for wind and solar power?

Ah, now there's the n-trillion dollar question!

The problem for many environmentalists with Copenhagen and Hansen (or was it Mann?) saying Copenhagen should fail, is that whoever started this wagon rolling have found they are no longer in the drivers seat.
Climate change has become less about saving the planet than about amassing huge personal and corporate fortunes.
The danger is that whether AGW stays or goes, the money making will have assumed a life of its own.

Once these guys have their snouts in the trough, don't anyone try to come between them and the moolah.
The initial position is to deny everything and maintain that AGW is real.
Somewhere along the line, some goats will be chosen and sacrificed, e.g. Phil Jones - I think his day is done, possibly a few others.
At some point maybe a few more heads will roll. Maybe Al gore will, in public, be sacrificed (but "don't you go worrying, Al, we look after our own. Jest set tight for a while and we all gonna see you right).
But the grey men in the background, content for a few luminaries to hog the limelight, will be too deep to winkle out and they''l keep making money long after the event - like ageing pop stars collecting royalties in their dotage.

I guess we'll be lucky if we can trim some of the more grotesque schemes back a bit but this sort of thing will be hard to eradicate. Look at the bankers, the newsprint is hardly dry and they're back collecting huge bonuses and the RBS guy not only collected his pension, he has a new place back a the trough.

In the end, it may not matter whether AGW is true or false, we screwed whatever. It's just how badly screwed that is in question.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

ong, As much as I don't like admiting it, T Bone is right that natural gas is one of the few fuels that can displace oil for transportation.
Admit it wood and coal just require much more inflexable engines (or equivlents).
So for transportation fuels (less ships, and some trains), we need liquid or gas fuels. But if we are using then for electricity generation they are less available for transportation.

In general we can crack oil into smaller chained liquids, but how easy is it to lengthen natural gas to longer chains?

 

[owg]

Assuming natural gas is mostly methane, I don't know of any current industrial processes that can make methane into gasoline. There is research on polymerizing methane but it is not directed towards gasoline. Poly gasoline was made from joining propylene and butylene but it was not very good stuff. Alkylate is a very good gasoline component but comes from propylene, butylene, and isobutane, all a long way from methane. Methane is good for making hydrogen, guess what the byproduct is, starts with C and ends with a small 2.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

LPG is used in Europe quite a bit compared to the UK. SOme cars can be dual fuelled but not in some countries, as I recall.
The problem for the UK has been fear of the government.
If you promote a fuel as being clean and efficient and cheap, people may sit up and take notice and invest in using that fuel but the fear has been that as soon as it starts to displace petrol, Bang! up go the taxes and sudenly it loses its advantage.
It is notable that in most of Europe diesel is cheaper than petrol so that and the better mileage makes diesel car sales pretty respectable, especially with modern diesels.
But in the UK diesel cost more per gallon than petrol. Less advantage, fewer sales.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

Compressed natural gas (mostly methane) is a reasonable fuel for road vehicles, especially trucks. The biggest problem is the fuel filling and handling side, once it is in the vehicle it is fine.

Liquid petroleum gas (propane/butane) is a terrific fuel for cars. With the right (slightly expensive) engine technology you get more power, Euro IV or V emissions, and the same range, just about, from the same size tank, as from the gasoline car. If you use a more traditional setup you lose some of those advantages but it doesn't cost as much.

I don't know about cold weather performance for either system.

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[cranky108]

Why would expect cold weather proformance problems with LNG or Compressed natural gas? It's not like someone is going to add water or ethonol to it.

While on the subject, does anyone know how easy it is to convert an IC engine from LNG, to compressed natural gas, to hydrogen? I am just interested to know how interchangable the fuels are, given a flexable fuel tank.

And is it possible to compress syngas, from coal or wood?