The environment thread

[iamshack]

SO would you feel safe in stating that you basically thought he was full of crap?

[mr_genius]

So what else did he say?

 

Seems to me that scientists always do this...they choose the data that best supports their theories and go from there...it's too bad he did the same, but are you really surprised?

 

 

They should also note any data which contradicts any conclusion they have reached. . . should. . . but they don't want to lose out on any funding. especially on an issue as politically charged as global warming.

[Balta1701]

May as well note something non-candidate related, eh? This is kind of cool (pun intented), and continues the trend of business being far, far, far ahead of the Bush Administration on the needs of the country/world.

Three of Wall Street's biggest investment banks are set to announce today that they are imposing new environmental standards that will make it harder for companies to get financing to build coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

 

Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley say they have concluded that the U.S. government will cap greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants sometime in the next few years. The banks will require utilities seeking financing for plants before then to prove the plants will be economically viable even under potentially stringent federal caps on carbon dioxide, the main man-made greenhouse gas.

 

The move shows Wall Street is the latest U.S. business sector that sees some kind of government emissions-capping as inevitable. But it shows disagreement about what to do.

 

It also marks the latest obstacle to coal, which provides about half of U.S. electricity but emits large amounts of CO2. Citing costs, the U.S. government last week pulled support for a project called FutureGen that many utilities saw as a step toward burning coal cleanly.

 

The standards, which would apply to all but the smallest plants, result from nine months of negotiations among the three banks and some of the biggest U.S. utilities and environmental groups. The standards could hurt coal-dependent utilities that haven't begun factoring a future price of CO2 emissions into their planning. But they could help utilities that have.

[knightni]

Converting land for biofuel worsens global warming

[Balta1701]

Another Antarctic Peninsula ice shelf is going.

[NorthSideSox72]

Converting land for biofuel worsens global warming

Bad link.

 

[Balta1701]

Bad link.

That's because his post is a month old.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's because his post is a month old.

So it is. Weird. That was the post my update pointed to. Oh well.

 

[knightni]

Converting land for biofuel worsens global warming

 

New Link

[iamshack]

Converting land for biofuel worsens global warming

 

New Link

 

Isn't this old news?

[knightni]

Isn't this old news?

Read above

[Balta1701]

Over the past 4 years or so, India has quietly constructed some 1500 miles of a 2000+ mile, double-layered, 10 foot high barbed wire fence fthat will essentially separate itself from Bangladesh...basically, it seems that they're expecting a crush of refugees coming from that low lying, poor, heavily populated country to appear at some point in the near future. I wonder what they might be thinking about...

[NorthSideSox72]

ComEd is still doing their math, but, it appears that the reduction in electricity used during Earth Hour on Saturday night in the Chicago area resulted in a reduction of 840,000 pounds of CO2 output. That's 420 tons less CO2, which normally would need about 104 acres of forest to soak up during that period.

 

[StrangeSox]

ComEd is still doing their math, but, it appears that the reduction in electricity used during Earth Hour on Saturday night in the Chicago area resulted in a reduction of 840,000 pounds of CO2 output. That's 420 tons less CO2, which normally would need about 104 acres of forest to soak up during that period.

 

Based on my rough math (10M in Chicagoland area, 7.5 tons/ person/ year), this area puts out about 208000 tons of CO2 a day, or 8700 tons an hour. This wasn't even a 10% reduction.

 

One of the biggest wastes I see on a regular basis are the open freezers and refrigerators in grocery stores. Do these really need to be wide open like that?

Edited April 1, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Based on my rough math (10M in Chicagoland area, 7.5 tons/ person/ year), this area puts out about 208000 tons of CO2 a day, or 8700 tons an hour. This wasn't even a 10% reduction.

 

One of the biggest wastes I see on a regular basis are the open freezers and refrigerators in grocery stores. Do these really need to be wide open like that?

If you're referring to the horizontal freezers, like the ones in the foreground of this picture, that's actually not a big waste, because of thermodynamics.

 

 

What happens in these freezers is that the air they cool has its density increased, via the temperature change. Basically, at constant pressure, if you decrease the temperature of a gas, you are going to decrease its density. This sets up a normal density gradient; i.e. you have warmer air above the freezers and cooler air below them. In this case, the air will not convect. And diffusion of heat, especially in air, is a slow process compared to convection. If you keep a normal density gradient, then you have very little problem with wasted energy.

 

The freezers in the background are another story...they are vertical. When these do their job, they set up, across the door, a gradient between cold air on one side and warm air on the other. When you open the door, you're guaranteed to get air flow, because the 2 parcels of air will have different temperatures and therefore different densities. The air in the cooler will sink and will flow out the bottom if the door is opened. This is why the door is important...it allows the freezer to do its job...and this is why you shouldnt' stand with your refrigerator door open, because it induces convection.

 

The only bad setup will be a cooler with no door but with a vertical setup. Although, this could be done well, if you introduce the cold air at the top of the cooler, expect it to flow down, and then pump the air out at the bottom of the cooler, you could set up an artificial barrier that would do the job.

[StrangeSox]

If you're referring to the horizontal freezers, like the ones in the foreground of this picture, that's actually not a big waste, because of thermodynamics.

 

 

What happens in these freezers is that the air they cool has its density increased, via the temperature change. Basically, at constant pressure, if you decrease the temperature of a gas, you are going to decrease its density. This sets up a normal density gradient; i.e. you have warmer air above the freezers and cooler air below them. In this case, the air will not convect. And diffusion of heat, especially in air, is a slow process compared to convection. If you keep a normal density gradient, then you have very little problem with wasted energy.

 

The freezers in the background are another story...they are vertical. When these do their job, they set up, across the door, a gradient between cold air on one side and warm air on the other. When you open the door, you're guaranteed to get air flow, because the 2 parcels of air will have different temperatures and therefore different densities. The air in the cooler will sink and will flow out the bottom if the door is opened. This is why the door is important...it allows the freezer to do its job...and this is why you shouldnt' stand with your refrigerator door open, because it induces convection.

 

The only bad setup will be a cooler with no door but with a vertical setup. Although, this could be done well, if you introduce the cold air at the top of the cooler, expect it to flow down, and then pump the air out at the bottom of the cooler, you could set up an artificial barrier that would do the job.

 

I meant both the vertical and horizontal ones that are open. Around here at least, a lot of the dairy and meats are in open, vertical refrigerator units that are just pouring cold air out into the aisles.

 

I get the lack of convective heat transfer on the horizontal ones, but that doesn't take into account the ambient air flow in the building due to circulation and the motion of people, not the mention people stirring up the air by reaching in and out of the coolers with product.

[NorthSideSox72]

The administration continues to push the wall on the US-Mexico border as a way to get tough on those who break the law by entering this country illegally. So naturally, since they are running into problems with existing laws and regulations on the environment, as well as those protecting people's economic livelihoods and their property, what to they do? They decide to ignore those laws by special waiver. Because of course, the best thing for the government to do in cracking down on lawbreakers is to choose to ignore the law.

 

January cannot come soon enough.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm surprised I don't post more links to the Oil Drum (excellent energy issue blog) here, but this one I found especially good. Long description of the various solar energy systems that are now coming on line and how rapidly they may be able to take over for the junk we're using now.

[Balta1701]

In some bad environmental news, the city of New York has been considering attempting a congestion pricing plan of the sort that has appeared in London, which is basically a tax on driving in to the city. It seems like a solid environmental proposal, because it encourages use of mass transit, and also cuts down on the time people spend stuck in traffic (which accounts for a non trivial percentage of emissions).

 

Unfortunately, the plan seems to have died. And it was the Democrats that killed it.

[mr_genius]

IBM, pwning as usual

 

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/23592.wss

 

Single z10 equal to nearly 1,500 x86 servers

Up to 85% less energy costs

Up to 85% smaller footprint

 

And for the inevitable, "who cares, it's not solar panels" response; large scale computer processing consumes large amounts of energy, and requires massive amounts of air conditioning as heat sink. So building servers / processors which cut energy costs by 85% not only cuts the amount used by the machine, but the heat sink needed. Large scale computation uses a substantial amount of energy world wide.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

IBM, pwning as usual

 

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/23592.wss

 

 

 

And for the inevitable, "who cares, it's not solar panels" response; large scale computer processing consumes large amounts of energy, and requires massive amounts of air conditioning as heat sink. So building servers / processors which cut energy costs by 85% not only cuts the amount used by the machine, but the heat sink needed. Large scale computation uses a substantial amount of energy world wide.

That's great. IBM has been a leader in this area. Last year they were testing laptops with hydrogen fuel cells, extending battery life and cutting down the energy needed to run the machines.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Tidal turbines installed off of Northern Ireland, to come online later this year and produce 1.2 megawatts/day. Cool stuff.

 

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34319

[BigSqwert]

Tidal turbines installed off of Northern Ireland, to come online later this year and produce 1.2 megawatts/day. Cool stuff.

 

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34319

I've never heard of tidal turbines before. I'm surprised they aren't used more widely since they aren't as big of an eyesore compared to wind turbines.

[Balta1701]

I've never heard of tidal turbines before. I'm surprised they aren't used more widely since they aren't as big of an eyesore compared to wind turbines.

The issue with those is that you need to have an area with strong enough tides for them to be practical. The North sea is a very good area to do that. Most of the U.S. coastlines aren't.

[Texsox]

The administration continues to push the wall on the US-Mexico border as a way to get tough on those who break the law by entering this country illegally. So naturally, since they are running into problems with existing laws and regulations on the environment, as well as those protecting people's economic livelihoods and their property, what to they do? They decide to ignore those laws by special waiver. Because of course, the best thing for the government to do in cracking down on lawbreakers is to choose to ignore the law.

 

January cannot come soon enough.

 

I cannot begin to tell you the b.s. they are pulling on this. Money buys a lot of privilege.