The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, it could very well be a real solution, even within a decade...the chemistry and physics actually work to make it practical, but we're not there yet, and we have to be quite careful about how it's done (for reasons like those BS outlined).

 

In most cases though, it's basically used as greenwashing; an effort to say that the politicians are doing something when they're really not.

To me, its burying the problem and asking for the law of unintended consequences to kick in. They way to save more resources, quite simply, is to use less of them. This other stuff is IMO not going to help things.

 

[Balta1701]

To me, its burying the problem and asking for the law of unintended consequences to kick in. They way to save more resources, quite simply, is to use less of them. This other stuff is IMO not going to help things.

The answer to the discussion of course is applying a fee to carbon emissions and letting the market sort itself out.

[NorthSideSox72]

The answer to the discussion of course is applying a fee to carbon emissions and letting the market sort itself out.

That is one answer, but I'm honestly on the fence about it. Lots to like, lots to not like.

 

What I'd rather do is invest in putting the US in front of the technologies, reap the financial benefits of the exports and inflow of money, and gain energy independence to boot (while drastically reducing pollution).

 

My overall point being, carbon capture is quite literally burying our problems instead of dealing with them.

 

[Balta1701]

That is one answer, but I'm honestly on the fence about it. Lots to like, lots to not like.

 

What I'd rather do is invest in putting the US in front of the technologies, reap the financial benefits of the exports and inflow of money, and gain energy independence to boot (while drastically reducing pollution).

 

My overall point being, carbon capture is quite literally burying our problems instead of dealing with them.

Heck, long-term it's even a potential way of getting what we've already put into the atmosphere out of there...so at some level, it actually does solve a need that green-energy doesn't solve.

 

If it's buried correctly...it can dissolve into untapped groundwater and then react with the surrounding rocks, just using it up.

[NorthSideSox72]

Heck, long-term it's even a potential way of getting what we've already put into the atmosphere out of there...so at some level, it actually does solve a need that green-energy doesn't solve.

 

If it's buried correctly...it can dissolve into untapped groundwater and then react with the surrounding rocks, just using it up.

Am I the only one who thinks that shoving metric megatons of a chemical or gas into the bedrock is a lot more likely to cause unknown side effects than simply using less energy? Or setting up solar panels?

 

[BigSqwert]

Am I the only one who thinks that shoving metric megatons of a chemical or gas into the bedrock is a lot more likely to cause unknown side effects than simply using less energy? Or setting up solar panels?

No. I'm with you on this one.

[Balta1701]

Am I the only one who thinks that shoving metric megatons of a chemical or gas into the bedrock is a lot more likely to cause unknown side effects than simply using less energy? Or setting up solar panels?

Honestly...the chemistry of carbonate-rich waters at high pressure in bedrock is something we know quite well.

 

The thing we don't know as well is the permeability of the surrounding rocks...most notably becasue this country's been drilled so much for oil that you can barely walk a few hundred feet without hitting a hole down to bedrock in most places.

[StrangeSox]

Am I the only one who thinks that shoving metric megatons of a chemical or gas into the bedrock is a lot more likely to cause unknown side effects than simply using less energy? Or setting up solar panels?

 

We can't use-less-energy or increase-efficiency our way out of the AGW problems, not without crippling economic output. Solar, wind and other renewables are a long way off from being large-scale power sources because we don't have a good way to store it yet and use those technologies as baseload power.

 

So we're left with "clean" coal technologies like carbon capture or investment in nuclear (which of course has its own issues) for the time being.

[BigSqwert]

We need a global plan to curb the population explosion. How we do that I have no idea.

[NorthSideSox72]

We can't use-less-energy or increase-efficiency our way out of the AGW problems, not without crippling economic output. Solar, wind and other renewables are a long way off from being large-scale power sources because we don't have a good way to store it yet and use those technologies as baseload power.

 

So we're left with "clean" coal technologies like carbon capture or investment in nuclear (which of course has its own issues) for the time being.

We're a long way away at current rates of work towards the solution. We spent a ton of money on short term stimulus that could have gone a long way towards increasing the pace of production or real solutions and actually created long term jobs. Obviously, some of the AGW problem is going to happen no matter what, because its already in the stream. But these technologies are very much capable of being large-scale sources, if we wanted it to be a priority.

 

[Balta1701]

We're a long way away at current rates of work towards the solution. We spent a ton of money on short term stimulus that could have gone a long way towards increasing the pace of production or real solutions and actually created long term jobs. Obviously, some of the AGW problem is going to happen no matter what, because its already in the stream. But these technologies are very much capable of being large-scale sources, if we wanted it to be a priority.

I totally agree that they'd work if we were committed to doing so...but we're not.

[iamshack]

I totally agree that they'd work if we were committed to doing so...but we're not.

What do you call being committed?

 

The current RPS's are pretty strong, with 2/3 of the country having them and all but 5 of those being mandates, not goals.

 

The south, not surprisingly, is lagging behind.

[StrangeSox]

What do you call being committed?

 

The current RPS's are pretty strong, with 2/3 of the country having them and all but 5 of those being mandates, not goals.

 

The south, not surprisingly, is lagging behind.

 

Multi-billion dollar federal investments in research and engineering would be my guess.

[Balta1701]

I think any comparison with China's spending on the subject makes the case quite well.

[StrangeSox]

Any idea of what sort of technologies are being pursued to turn wind/solar into baseload power?

[iamshack]

I think any comparison with China's spending on the subject makes the case quite well.

Yeah, maybe so. But it also helps that they are building resources for the first time for a large part for their growing population. They are also building coal plants left and right.

 

For us, you're talking about replacing cheap energy with energy that is 5 to 10 times more expensive, and those units you are replacing are in many cases fairly new. In China, they are building needed resources for the first time. It's a little different.

Edited January 11, 2011 by iamshack

[iamshack]

Any idea of what sort of technologies are being pursued to turn wind/solar into baseload power?

From what I understand, they think they can store compressed air underground or even underwater that can be released when the wind stops blowing. Some companies are working on batteries. Some think it can be stored in ice.

 

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, maybe so. But it also helps that they are building resources for the first time for a large part for their growing population. They are also building coal plants left and right.

 

For us, you're talking about replacing cheap energy at all with energy that is 5 to 10 times more expensive, and those units you are replacing are in many cases fairly new. In China, they are building needed resources for the first time. It's a little different.

 

The problem being that the "cheap" energy has a bunch of externalities that we get to pay for down the road, and that's something taxing carbon would capture.

[iamshack]

The problem being that the "cheap" energy has a bunch of externalities that we get to pay for down the road, and that's something taxing carbon would capture.

Very true. The problem is that when the utilities stop delivering the cheap energy, the public tends to stop caring about climate change.

[Balta1701]

From what I understand, they think they can store compressed air underground or even underwater that can be released when the wind stops blowing. Some companies are working on batteries. Some think it can be stored in ice.

Here's the remarkable thing though...no one's really going to care if 10% of the power grid is supplied by natural gas for a baseload/suns down/wind's not blowing power level. Especially given unconventional gas resources that we're working on.

 

Even with that though, a combination of solar thermal and a large battery system, say, of the sort that would exist if a large chunk of the population had plug-in hybrid cars...that takes care of a lot of it.

[StrangeSox]

Can the existing power transmission infrastructure handle that? Or are we talking multi-billions/trillions for revamping the whole damn thing?

[iamshack]

Can the existing power transmission infrastructure handle that? Or are we talking multi-billions/trillions for revamping the whole damn thing?

All depends on the resources we develop. If they can find a way to store intermittent energy sources in batteries, or as compressed air, where it can be released reliably, the existing grid would probably not need that much work. However, if you're talking about having a very large percentage based on intermittent sources with nothing but fossil fuel units used as backup, you're probably going to need a much more advanced grid.

[Balta1701]

Can the existing power transmission infrastructure handle that? Or are we talking multi-billions/trillions for revamping the whole damn thing?

Frankly, the existing power transmission infrastructure can't handle what it's being asked to do right now, and we need to spend on the order of hundreds of billions just to keep it going.

[iamshack]

Frankly, the existing power transmission infrastructure can't handle what it's being asked to do right now, and we need to spend on the order of hundreds of billions just to keep it going.

Eh....honestly, it is vulnerable, and some areas are pressed more than others, but it's actually pretty darn reliable for the most part. It could certainly benefit from investment, but what infrastructure in this country wouldn't?

[HuskyCaucasian]

NOAA: 2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record

NOAA says 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880, according to new posting on NOAA.gov.

 

"This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average," the post said. "For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record."

 

Nothing to see here, there is no such thing as global warming, move along people, move along...