Cephalotus
10 kW
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 755
furcifer said:Cephalotus said:
Lol.
http://www.hybritdevelopment.com/
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
http://www.hybritdevelopment.com/
Exactly.Cephalotus said:
There are two things many people miss when talking about energy. The first is that we care about USEFUL energy, not waste heat. For example, moving from NY to California currently takes tons of energy. But the amount of energy absolutely needed to do that? Zero. The goal is to move someone from one place to another, and right now the best way we have to do that is via car, bus, train or plane, and all those things take a lot of energy. But the TASK does not, just the methods we use to accomplish it.
Same thing with light. We care about the light we use to see with, not the energy used to produce it. Skylights, for example, take zero energy, and work just fine. LED lights use 4 to 10 times less energy as incandescents - but the amount of light is the same. Higher SEER air conditioners keep you just as cool, but use less energy. In all cases, it is the work done (to transport you, to light your home, to cool you) that has value, not the energy used to make that all happen.
The second is that a large percentage of our energy use is heat, and that's the easiest form of energy to get. A solar concentrator is a cheap and easy way to produce an almost unlimited amount of heat. But fuel is so cheap that it's cheaper to use fossil fuels to make cement.
the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.
Hillhater
100 TW
So,...thats 12.6 GW of “faceplate” capacity for wind/solar giving about 3.5 GW of real output....
Vs, 67.9 GW of coal capacity ..say 60.0 GW useable...
I wonder why , if wind and solar are so cheap ?....alledgedly .
Cephalotus said:
Ahh, for some reason I was thinking you meant the traditional way, but with wood or some biomass.
For sure, just about any process that uses coal to provide heat can be replaced. It's the cost per BTU that really determines how that goes. You have to think, if it costs a lot to make steel would we even use it? 2035 is a long ways away.
jimw1960
10 kW
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.
It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
Hillhater
100 TW
Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?jimw1960 said:
It’s. pretty obvious you do not have a clue what the actual figure really is !
wuz talkin bout waste, not transferrence.jimw1960 said:Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.
It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
Wikpedia said:
kay, if it werkz for the goose i may as well give the ole strawman a shot:
an asteroid strike (a big wun, which is inevitable) would also transfer all that carbon into the atmosphere (along with everything/one else).
do you even know about entropy??
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:
True dat.
Fun new source of CO2 - burning permafrost! Over 2 million acres of (former) permafrost is burning in Russia. As the climate warms, the tundra dries out and starts burning. The now-warm permafrost then melts, and the organics in the permafrost starts to burn as well, liberating their carbon into the atmosphere.
Perhaps we should change the name "permafrost." Tempafrost? Permacarbon?
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
35 billion tons of fossil co2 emissions each year amounts to about 10 billion tons carbon. Multiply that by 100 years and what do you get, genius?
billvon said:
I'm not sure I'd call it a "source", it's kind of borderline. I believe most of that carbon is still part of the active carbon cycle and not really sequestered.
Sorry it this seems like a bit of a lecture, but people like hillhater really need to learn how to make the distinction between active CO2 and sequestered CO2. One is good and part of the "natural variation" and one isn't. You and I may get this but I think this is one of the things the Average Joe doesn't, and it tends to confuse them.
More to the point, I think this is one of those things that scientists worry about. Worry in the sense that climate change can have a cascade effect and make it that much harder to put the Genie back in the bottle. As much as I criticize people for being "alarmists" it's hard to see things like this and not wonder if we've already put things in motion and are completely powerless to stop it.
Hillhater
100 TW
A hundred years ago it was less than 1.0 Gtjimw1960 said:
In 1950 it was still less than 2.0 Gt
So,..... try again !
Whilst you are at it, would you care to guess how much of that is still in the atmosphere ?
No guessing required. Take the current mass of the atmosphere and multiply by the current CO2 concentration (w/w) to get total tonnes of CO2. Divide by the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 100 or 150 years to get the mass of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes, it makes a difference whether you talk CO2 or just C and whether you talk total emitted (just by fossil fuels or all human activities) or total remaining in the atmosphere (ignoring that taken by the oceans and forests) but the, which a 30 second google search would tell you, is roughly the same: 1 trillion tonnes. Or in simpler terms "a lot".
True, permafrost isn't truly sequestered like fossil fuels are, on a geological timescale. But on a human timescale they are. We're concerned about a critical period of only a few hundred years. We consider forests as sequestring CO2 and they're probably less permanent than permafrost.
Yep, climate tipping points are a concern. For something with such a potentially dangerous disastrous outcome they could approach so quietly we don't even notice till it's much too late.
Yes, it makes a difference whether you talk CO2 or just C and whether you talk total emitted (just by fossil fuels or all human activities) or total remaining in the atmosphere (ignoring that taken by the oceans and forests) but the, which a 30 second google search would tell you, is roughly the same: 1 trillion tonnes. Or in simpler terms "a lot".
furcifer said:
True, permafrost isn't truly sequestered like fossil fuels are, on a geological timescale. But on a human timescale they are. We're concerned about a critical period of only a few hundred years. We consider forests as sequestring CO2 and they're probably less permanent than permafrost.
Yep, climate tipping points are a concern. For something with such a potentially dangerous disastrous outcome they could approach so quietly we don't even notice till it's much too late.
Hillhater
100 TW
That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).Punx0r said:
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
Punx0r said:
Actually I don't think we do unless they are brand new forests, which are pretty rare.
I believe technically a process needs to remove atmospheric carbon for thousands of years to be considered sequestration. The only way I can see that changing is if we somehow returned to pre-industrial levels of CO2. Till then we're so far in the red nothing really counts unless it's gone.
I completely agree that it's not technically sequestered until it's buried in the ground as a solid or liquid compound. Perhaps forests (I agree they have to be new) and permafrost should be considered more of a temporary store. But for our practical purposes any such things that either remove CO2 or keep it out of the atmosphere long enough for the natural carbon cycle to take up the excess is an effective mechanism.
Type "total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" into google and click the top link.
Hillhater said:
Type "total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" into google and click the top link.
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
We are on track to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration before the end of this century if no action is taking. That's adding a over trillion tons since pre-industrial. As to guessing how much is still in the atmosphere, I don't have to guess. People a lot smarter than you have already done the math and it will take thousands of years to get back to preindustrial levels even if we stop emitting today: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
When you are getting deeper and deeper into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. That applies to both CO2 emissions and your misinformed opinions on the subject.
Hillhater
100 TW
Since the question was about CARBON...try searching that instead !Punx0r said:
Or perhaps you might prefer to find the conversion factor of how much Carbon in a tonne of CO2 :wink:
Hillhater
100 TW
jimw1960 said:
Who is in the hole here ?
I notice you have now changed your ranting to CO2, from just Carbon..
And why dont you state that figure for remaining ANTHROPOGENIC carbon in the atmosphere if you are so familiar with it ?
You guys are handy with bullsh1t , but a bit shy on real answers !
Have you figured out how that “fridge” idea was going to chill the icecap yet ?
Similar threads
