"Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 3 42

[jmw]

At 273 posts I guess the time has come to request the old thread archived and continue in a new thread and it is in this thread that I think the latest news has its proper place.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Oh dear,
just what do you have to do to lose the last shreds of credibility?

Tell me honestly folks, how many engineers would still have a job with a track record like Hansen?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not answer that because I suspect the answer is that in any profession there are complete f***-ups who will never be brought to book simply because the credibility of the people who have believed them for so long is also at risk and once one goes then the domino effect comes into being.

I guess that it is only when NASA closes that we will see and end to the career of this fine purveyor of temperature data but we can be sure he will turn up in some other role on the IPCC or as an acolyte of Nobel Laureate, Al Gore.

Success, it seems, depends not on getting it right but on notoriety and why else would so many deadly politicians earn so much on the speaking circuit once they have finally left office and while their dark deeds are still fresh in everyone's mind?


You know I can't help wondering, if it weren't for those "Chads" I wonder what sort of a condition the world would be in now? And, if we are in dire financial straits now, what kind of position would we otherwise be in?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jack256]

Re: Cranky108.

Yup but the shift in land use for corn-to-fuel from corn-to-food should be shift back once grasses and other more robust plants are used for fuel. Corn requires huge imputs but grasses (so-call second generation biofuels) can be grown on "bad" land with much less energy input.

Yes E85 gas is a great example - if we double fuel economy to say ~50mpg shift all cars to E85 within 5 years, we'll put a huge dent in private sector transporation fuel demand. It won't solve the problem of big trucks or power plants but it's a start. The upside is that all that ethanol is produced or at least refined here, providing jobs to americans.

By the way, a pellet stove? What a waste - some guy has to chop your wood, process it into cute little pellets, bag it, and sell it to you at Walmart just so you'll burn it?

 

[cranky108]

Actually corn is a grass, and if the grass part is used with the grain, then you could have a double crop.

The problem with many bad lands is that it won't support the intentency of crops you would expect. Bad meaning rain fall, soil, slope, etc.
Any many bad lands are now used for cattle which if used for biofuels would increase the food cost.

I had a pellet stove and the pellets were a waste fuel. They were made from used wood pallets from the shipping industry. With my consumption of about 3 tons a winter, walmart was a last resort (The baskets just won't hold more than a few hundred pounds).
The advantage was there wasen't all these stupid unknown charges on my bill every month (What's the difference between cost of gas, and energy charge).

 

[SnTMan]

Well, good luck getting 50 mpg on ethanol

Regards,

Mike

 

[jack256]

FYI:

corn = stover (cellulosic) & kernels (starch)

Corn Ethanol is made from the kernels. The remaining stover is typically tilled back into the land (or so i've heard). You could argue for using the stover as a fuel (burned to heat starch-->sugar process) or digesting the stover (cellulases), but it's best to move away to from corn to celluse-rich grasses that can grow with less effort.

 

[cranky108]

Why is ethanol so tied to biofuel, and biodiesel, wood, wood products, methane, straw, and bagwaneese not so thought of as biofuel? Is there a bias to ethonol?
And since biodiesel is the only one that has a energy content close to gasoline, or diesel fuel, and is a liquid, it seems more likely biodiesel will stay.

 

[SnTMan]

"Is there a bias to ethanol?" Recommend asking Archer Daniels Midland.

Regards,

Mike

 

[jack256]

Good point. Seems easier to pump up ethanol content of gas rather than have everyone switch to diesel. You can also use the sugars to make a more energy dense fuel than ethanol. It's the biomass --> stuff part that's important.

 

[cranky108]

Come up with bio-octaine, and you will have a winner.

 

[ivymike]

"Is there a bias to ethanol?" Recommend asking Archer Daniels Midland.

I think they'd struggle to provide an unbiased view. About 4 years ago I shared a bus ride with a couple of chemists from ADM. They complained that the government was unfairly subsidizing alternative fuels other than theirs, and said that they'd really do great things if their fuel had a level playing field.

 

[SnTMan]

ivymike, exactly my point. How much advantage do they need to "level the playing field"?

I've said this before, but, I would like to see all market distorting policies, of whatever description, removed from all forms of energy production and supply, and let them fight it out in the marketplace. Whoever can supply me with the least expensive, most reliable energy gets my business.

Never happen.

Regards,

Mike

 

[cranky108]

I think the sugar lobby, and sugar import restrictions are at the root of the ethonol unlevel playing field. If these were lifted ethonol should be much cheeper because of the cheeper cane sugar.
So here's goverment, restricting something, at the same time adding incentives for it.
So I ask why not grow sugar beets here? (sugar lobby again). My conclusion is we talk about it to be happy, but we don't do it because some one is in the goverment pocket.

 

[KENAT]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30210066/

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[owg]

Seems to me some sort of collection system would be less intrusive. That should lessen the carbon hoofprint of the dairy industry.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[cranky108]

Granted methane emmissions have increased because of man, but don't you think there are other places that would be easer places to capture of methane. And any place you capture it would reduce the total emmissions.

If we do capture the methane, then what do we do with it? Well it makes a nice fuel, however it would then emmit co2.

The grass-cow-co2 cycle is a stable cycle without a gain or loss in total carbon content, so co2 should not be important.

 

[GregLocock]

CO2 and H2O are far less potent greenhouse gases than methane, so burning methane as a fuel is a good thing if you care about greenhouse gases.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[cranky108]

If that's true then coal seam methane harversting should be a good thing. Or the harvesting of methane from land fills.

So not all co2 is bad, but a better option to natural methane production.

But will carbon taxes reflect that?

 

[KENAT]

I've mentioned before my idea that given the cost & mass penalties associated with current hybrid technology it should be focused where it has the best pay-off which is probably in vehicles that see a lot of stop & go. Examples I've mentioned before would be Taxi's & delivery vehicles in urban settings.

Here's one attempt in the van field.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30334501/wid=18298287

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[GregLocock]

"Or the harvesting of methane from land fills."

Being done, and yes they are relying on carbon credits to make it worthwhile.

One of my stupider investments.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[jmw]

Once upon a time, in the UK milk would be delivered door to door using battery powered milk floats.

We also had trams in large towns and cities.

Of course, trams are making a comeback and with sensible measures to support them they appear to have a great advantage over buses (though what, I'm not sure).
I do recall that Santa Barbara has a electric bus between the center and the beach and I would suggest there is a lot of opportunity to expand on such systems.
Let us accept the assumption that electricity is automatically better than fossil fuel and not wonder where the electricity really comes from (maybe the stork brings it?).

Personally I would suggest that every major town or city use its ring road system to serve a rail terminus and that all goods should be shipped by rail, sorted out in the terminus and distributed locally using electric powered vehicles.
Anything that shifts freight of the roads and onto rail for the bulk of its journey has to be a winner with me whether it is environmentally friendly or not.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

Probally a wonderful idea, if only it was workable. At least in some places it maybe.

Here the rail lines go through the middle of town, and they are powered by 4 or 5 4500 Hp diseals, to carry the 100+ rail cars following. And very few stop here, except to allow another train to go the other way.
Rail is not the perfered way to ship things, as it is much slower than truck, and there is more damage.
A good part of the problem with railroads is the shortages of double track, and drivers. Which is about the same problem with trucks, a shortage of wide roads, and drivers.

Shifting isen't so much the problem, as just to increase capacity of all of the above.