Hello

Ethanol fuel from corn.
- it's seasonal as you can't grow corn in the winter 
- Extracting ethanol from corn is a fermentation process
- the biggest byproduct of the process is carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas)
- so the carbon dioxide is captured during the process and purified at special facilities
- the carbon dioxide is then sold to soft drink and alcohol companies
- they use it in drinks (they are the bubbles you see
- we injet them with the soft drink or beer
- then we burp the carbon dioxide out to the atmosphere (greenhouse gas)
- so we still are producing greenhouse gas with ethanol but the buck is being passed on to the consumer
- go figure 

The forest as a carbon sink
- Deciduous trees do not grow in the winter in Canada
- the carbon sink is seasonal and once the forest is saturated it maxes out
- go figure 

The tar sands
- the bitumen is refined using hydrogen extracted from natural gas 
- the byproduct from hydrogen extraction from natural gas is carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) 
- If you build a nuclear power plant in Fort MacMurray  it can be used to extract hydrogen from water with the byproduct being oxygen (which is not a greenhouse gas)
- duhhh

more to come
Tromb Wall and Rock Boxes 
I'd invite you to learn about the wonders of algae. It isn't a permanent solution but it ingests CO2, gives off oxygen and can produce fuel that can be refined in the same way as oil, beneficial chemicals as food additives (e.g., "fish oil"), cosmetics, dies, etc, and also can provide animal and human food and food additives. Best of all, it can located next to the ethanol plant you refer to, or a waste treatment plant to use the water, CO2, heat and nutritional requirements to grow the algae.

Of course, when the fuel from algae is burned, the CO2 is released but it is, in a sense, recycled. See http://www.algaebiomass.org/ and http://allaboutalgae.com/.

Just thought I'd pass that along and that you and others might find it interesting.
What are the pitfalls of continued fossil fuel use (including natural gas)? We set off the methane bomb, and thereby cause the extinction of humanity. That is not "alarmism"; it's science.

CO2 is the trigger, not the actual most serious threat. That most serious threat is methane, CH4; many times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. But the trigger on the bomb is already having a significant impact on the planet, in itself. We already have the global average temperature the highest it's been for millions of years. Tha i's according to NASA scientists who study climate. But I'm sure scientists at NOAA and other climate experts agree with them. There is no debate about the facts among the world's most knowledgeable climate scientists. They all agree: the planet is getting steadily warmer, and it's humans who are doing it.

Just in Arctic permafrost alone, it's thought there is about 1.5 trillion tons of methane (CH4) stored. There is a lot more methane stored in the Arctic Ocean and other oceans. In total amount is unknown, but sure to be many trillions of tons. And remember: whatever the amount is, it has to be multiplied by a factor of at 25 to get CO2 equivalent.

At least 90% of the heat we generate by burning fossil fuels goes into the oceans. Only a small amount remains in the atmosphere. Scientists have been ringing the alarm bells to the best of their ability. Heat the planet enough...the huge amounts of stored methane will be released. Planet's temperature will start to soar. If it starts rising at the rate of an appreciate fraction of 1°C per decade...we're done for. That will mean runaway: unstoppable. All of the "geo-engineering" ideas are quite unrealistic. The only sensible approach is to not cause it to happen.

Temperature would rise not at a steady rate, but faster and faster; exponentially. Just as a house on fire burns faster and faster, as it produces more and more combustible gases, like CO.

About 250 million years ago, methane releases caused a catastrophic extinction of life on Earth. About 90% of all species perished. The oceans also began releasing a poisonous gas. It took the small fraction of life that survived that climate catastrophe many millions of years to recover. That happened long before the dinosaurs walked the earth. Why do we have the planet's temperature higher than it was before humans even existed? Because our species is foolish, short-sighted and arrogant.

We could not hope to survive such an event. But we're currently creating the conditions for it to happen again.

In a matter of a few decades the Earth's surface temperature could rise 10°C or perhaps even 20°C hotter. But even 5°C would cause most of our agriculture to fail, and global famine. But that is what we seem to be intent on causing.

With CO2 we have pushed average global temperature up a full 1°C since 1910, or about 0.01°C per year. But methane could cause temperature rise of many times that, and quickly; probably a few degrees higher per decade. The more methane is released, the faster the planet's temperature will rise.

It would also be beyond human control, because it would be coming from nature. (Which we have never had sufficient respect for. The whole reason the planet's temperature has been quite stable for many millions of years is that life learned how to control it. Humans are now busy stupidly destroying those intricate and delicate control systems, with little thought for tomorrow.)

It may be that runaway has already begun. If so...our gooses are cooked. Runaway means that more and more methane is being released, and that even if we slammed on the brakes and brought fossil fuels use to zero, temperature would continue to rise, and rapidly.

The blind obsession with money, profit and easy (but dumb) ways of getting energy may well lead to human extinction. The tar sands should be shut down, now. Given what's happening already, that development is insane. The need for alternative energy sources is obvious. We need to completely stop using fossil fuels.

The alternatives are available to us. From either wind or solar - either one alone - we could use several times the energy we currently use. We could increase our energy use...safely. But since we are Homo Arrogant, not Homo Sapiens, the total amount of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere every year continues to rise. We are not applying the brakes. The government of Canada is intent on doubling tar sands production! That is pure idiocy. One could quite legitimately call it 'environmental terrorism', because the eventual death toll from that, and similar stupidity, is likely to be not only billions of people dead, from starvation, but indeed, the end of humanity.

Even a full-scale thermonuclear war would not be as destructive to the global biosphere as a methane calamity would be. Probably some humans could survive a full-scale nuclear war; but none will survive nature's wrath.

Since we started using fossil fuels, we've added 1-2 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere; we have almost doubled CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. But that's only part of the story. There iis no way one can keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere without causing temperature to rise. It's governed by the laws of physics; it's literally impossible that it be otherwise. So talk of the global temperature rise slowing, or even halting, is ridiculous. More heat has been going into the oceans because on average, wave heights across the Pacific Ocean have doubled. The jet stream has greatly slowed. It's already having dramatic impacts on climate, and agriculture, around the world.

But what humans have done - so far - is nothing compared to what methane could do. It could easily be 100 times worse than what we have done. And there would be no way to stop it.

It will be nature reacting to our obvious stupidity. It could well cause collapse of the biosphere and human extinction in this century.

Talk of waiting until we've pushed our planet's average temperature 2°C higher is stupid. The long-known danger point is actually 1°C - where we are now; today. Politicians decided that was inconvenient, so they moved it a whole degree higher than what climate scientists had determined it to be. But nature will not obey the politicians, who I regard as generally brainless.

Ending fossil fuel use - completely - is absolutely essential if we wish to avoid destruction of the biosphere that we depend on, and human extinction, in the near future. We don't have any choice. It's wise up or perish. The party's over. Now comes the hangover.
Rod___ wrote: What are the pitfalls of continued fossil fuel use (including natural gas)? We set off the methane bomb, and thereby cause the extinction of humanity. That is not "alarmism"; it's science.

CO2 is the trigger, not the actual most serious threat. That most serious threat is methane, CH4; many times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. But the trigger on the bomb is already having a significant impact on the planet, in itself. We already have the global average temperature the highest it's been for millions of years. Tha i's according to NASA scientists who study climate. But I'm sure scientists at NOAA and other climate experts agree with them. There is no debate about the facts among the world's most knowledgeable climate scientists. They all agree: the planet is getting steadily warmer, and it's humans who are doing it.

Just in Arctic permafrost alone, it's thought there is about 1.5 trillion tons of methane (CH4) stored. There is a lot more methane stored in the Arctic Ocean and other oceans. In total amount is unknown, but sure to be many trillions of tons. And remember: whatever the amount is, it has to be multiplied by a factor of at 25 to get CO2 equivalent.

At least 90% of the heat we generate by burning fossil fuels goes into the oceans. Only a small amount remains in the atmosphere. Scientists have been ringing the alarm bells to the best of their ability. Heat the planet enough...the huge amounts of stored methane will be released. Planet's temperature will start to soar. If it starts rising at the rate of an appreciate fraction of 1°C per decade...we're done for. That will mean runaway: unstoppable. All of the "geo-engineering" ideas are quite unrealistic. The only sensible approach is to not cause it to happen.

Temperature would rise not at a steady rate, but faster and faster; exponentially. Just as a house on fire burns faster and faster, as it produces more and more combustible gases, like CO.

About 250 million years ago, methane releases caused a catastrophic extinction of life on Earth. About 90% of all species perished. The oceans also began releasing a poisonous gas. It took the small fraction of life that survived that climate catastrophe many millions of years to recover. That happened long before the dinosaurs walked the earth. Why do we have the planet's temperature higher than it was before humans even existed? Because our species is foolish, short-sighted and arrogant.

We could not hope to survive such an event. But we're currently creating the conditions for it to happen again.

In a matter of a few decades the Earth's surface temperature could rise 10°C or perhaps even 20°C hotter. But even 5°C would cause most of our agriculture to fail, and global famine. But that is what we seem to be intent on causing.

With CO2 we have pushed average global temperature up a full 1°C since 1910, or about 0.01°C per year. But methane could cause temperature rise of many times that, and quickly; probably a few degrees higher per decade. The more methane is released, the faster the planet's temperature will rise.

It would also be beyond human control, because it would be coming from nature. (Which we have never had sufficient respect for. The whole reason the planet's temperature has been quite stable for many millions of years is that life learned how to control it. Humans are now busy stupidly destroying those intricate and delicate control systems, with little thought for tomorrow.)

It may be that runaway has already begun. If so...our gooses are cooked. Runaway means that more and more methane is being released, and that even if we slammed on the brakes and brought fossil fuels use to zero, temperature would continue to rise, and rapidly.

The blind obsession with money, profit and easy (but dumb) ways of getting energy may well lead to human extinction. The tar sands should be shut down, now. Given what's happening already, that development is insane. The need for alternative energy sources is obvious. We need to completely stop using fossil fuels.

The alternatives are available to us. From either wind or solar - either one alone - we could use several times the energy we currently use. We could increase our energy use...safely. But since we are Homo Arrogant, not Homo Sapiens, the total amount of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere every year continues to rise. We are not applying the brakes. The government of Canada is intent on doubling tar sands production! That is pure idiocy. One could quite legitimately call it 'environmental terrorism', because the eventual death toll from that, and similar stupidity, is likely to be not only billions of people dead, from starvation, but indeed, the end of humanity.

Even a full-scale thermonuclear war would not be as destructive to the global biosphere as a methane calamity would be. Probably some humans could survive a full-scale nuclear war; but none will survive nature's wrath.

Since we started using fossil fuels, we've added 1-2 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere; we have almost doubled CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. But that's only part of the story. There iis no way one can keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere without causing temperature to rise. It's governed by the laws of physics; it's literally impossible that it be otherwise. So talk of the global temperature rise slowing, or even halting, is ridiculous. More heat has been going into the oceans because on average, wave heights across the Pacific Ocean have doubled. The jet stream has greatly slowed. It's already having dramatic impacts on climate, and agriculture, around the world.

But what humans have done - so far - is nothing compared to what methane could do. It could easily be 100 times worse than what we have done. And there would be no way to stop it.

It will be nature reacting to our obvious stupidity. It could well cause collapse of the biosphere and human extinction in this century.

Talk of waiting until we've pushed our planet's average temperature 2°C higher is stupid. The long-known danger point is actually 1°C - where we are now; today. Politicians decided that was inconvenient, so they moved it a whole degree higher than what climate scientists had determined it to be. But nature will not obey the politicians, who I regard as generally brainless.

Ending fossil fuel use - completely - is absolutely essential if we wish to avoid destruction of the biosphere that we depend on, and human extinction, in the near future. We don't have any choice. It's wise up or perish. The party's over. Now comes the hangover.


This day and age, people are exploring the earth and what the earth has to offer us, we test it, finding out what it can do, people will do anything with what they find, and if it is to destroy human lives then they will do it. This is the way of life and has been for centuries. I am with you Rod on how it all happen, but we can not stop it, it how people think, if one don't think of it, the other one will.
Handy60 wrote: Hello

Ethanol fuel from corn.
- it's seasonal as you can't grow corn in the winter 
- Extracting ethanol from corn is a fermentation process
- the biggest byproduct of the process is carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas)
- so the carbon dioxide is captured during the process and purified at special facilities
- the carbon dioxide is then sold to soft drink and alcohol companies
- they use it in drinks (they are the bubbles you see
- we injet them with the soft drink or beer
- then we burp the carbon dioxide out to the atmosphere (greenhouse gas)
- so we still are producing greenhouse gas with ethanol but the buck is being passed on to the consumer
- go figure 

The forest as a carbon sink
- Deciduous trees do not grow in the winter in Canada
- the carbon sink is seasonal and once the forest is saturated it maxes out
- go figure 

The tar sands
- the bitumen is refined using hydrogen extracted from natural gas 
- the byproduct from hydrogen extraction from natural gas is carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) 
- If you build a nuclear power plant in Fort MacMurray  it can be used to extract hydrogen from water with the byproduct being oxygen (which is not a greenhouse gas)
- duhhh

more to come
Tromb Wall and Rock Boxes 



The Government want to do away with nuclear power plant because of the danger, danger of lives, danger of affecting other people (health). Years ago, when I was up there, I was appalled by how it was running and operating and how it would affect not only human lives, but wildlife, so... over the years they have improve to make it operated much better, cleaner. Yup cleaner, I went there as a teenager and was ask to pump water from a picnic site well pump, it was all brown, I thought, isn't there anywhere that they could get clean water, at that time the answer was no, over the years they installed some equipments to make sure that the water is clean for those who are at the picnic site, the last time I heard that they took it out and moved it somewhere else so people can enjoy the outdoor living (picnics).
In the early sixties in Germany the chemical company BAYER (I think it was) produced a car that every item on that car was produced from fossil fuel components with the idea that instead of using fossil fuel to burn, to use it to make things or use it for pharmaceutical purposes. At the time they were promoting their plastic manufacturing capabilities.

In the same decade again in Germany a Company, which was run by Ferdinand Porsche  (I think and am not sure about the first name of the guy) devised a method of running cars on liquid hydrogen. There was a lot of bad publicity as they said it was dangerous etc (no more combustible than Petrol or similarly dangerous). This was being developed for racing cars.

Now hydrogen is interesting..... as one can get that from electrolytic conversion of the water using sun's energy and as you burn the hydrogen you release water into the atmosphere that eventually is going back to the ocean, which is where you got it in the first place. The electrical power for conversion may be generated for the electrolytic conversion  by  using solar power using different techniques. 

 I believe General Motors Germany (OPEL) was interested in both projects and it made some noise. I am not sure of this but last I remember either GM bought the ideas and shelved it or pressure from oil companies forced them to shelf the project. No one ever heard of those SPECIFIC breaking news again.

Profit rather than the Prophet prevails or so it seems. 


While I am at it it may be worth to mention why this topic on this site glows in the dark
 Image


Disclaimer
 I produced this article from my memory and so the little details of names may be sketchy



Mutley




 Image

  
Bayer or Botch? I know Botch did a lot inventions, not just staples :wink:
Broadcaster wrote: (interesting comments)


I love your nuclear logo. :-) There are nuclear designs much safer than traditional designs, including "pebble bed" reactors, that cannot melt down, Fukushima style, even in the event of loss of all coolant. The fuel is made into spheres, not rods. If they over-heat, they expand in size; that naturally slows the reaction and keeps it below the point where they could melt. But there are also advanced designs that can use the "waste" of other nuclear reactors, as fuel.

Hydrogen and solar are both nifty. Energy available from the sun at the Earth's surface is impressive; about 1,000 watts per square meter. Anyone who's stood in the sun on a bright day knows: a lot of energy comes from it. One nifty solar design is simply a large parabolic mirror and a Stirling engine at the focal point. Unlike a steam engine, a Stirling engine doesn't use any water; just heat alone is enough to make it work. A parabolic mirror with a surface area of 10 sq. meters can generate several hundred degrees and a few kilowatts of energy with that very simple engine; easily enough to run a washing machine and other heavy appliances.

Electrolysis to generate hydrogen is relatively inefficient. Ideal would be direct generation of hydrogen from solar power (or wind). But as you've noted, hydrogen is ideal as a safe, clean fuel. Stored and available at night...that and other technologies could easily free us from the traditional fuels we must stop using.

The problem isn't a lack of alternative energy technologies. It's the disgraceful lack of investment in alternate technologies, already developed. 56% of Republican governors in the U.S. don't believe that global warming is real. That's appalling ignorance. The evidence is everywhere. In my opinion, support for alternate energy sources should come from public funds, there should be heavy investment, and support for fossil fuels should end, completely. As well as heavy taxes on fossils. That would put much of the financial burden on the fossil fuel industries, rather than on the public. They should be made to pay for all the damage they're doing, which has been estimated to be already in the hundreds of billions a year...and headed toward trillions a year.

The damage being done by continued fossil fuels use will inevitably eat up more and more of the global economy, like a tear in the hull of a sinking ship. Civilization as the Costa Concordia. Bad piloting made that ship sink, and the same will happen to civilization, if we don't avoid the reef we're now headed toward. That reef being the natural limits of the Earth. As for how such small creatures can really damage a planet...well ask termites what they can do a house. We're the termites...currently wrecking a beautiful home.

One example of the serious effects of fossil fuels. Climate scientists at NOAA have determined that the reason for the very serious drought in California - a year ago deemed to be the driest period since 1895, and it's now close to four years running - is global warming. A warmer Arctic has resulted in a big shift in the jet stream; that has created a standing high pressure area over California during the winter; which means little precipitation on that part of the world, just when they should be getting lots of rain; so...drought. And that's not going to change. It can only get worse. Ten straight years of severe drought in California and a very dire water shortage problem there won't surprise me. One just has to understand the mechanics of it. But there are similar problems all over the world now. It's a huge issue, not a small one.

Strong support for alternate energy would be the government doing its job properly; i.e. looking to the future and working to spare everyone the serious grief that's sure to come if they don't. Talk of "adaptation" makes me sigh. That's a much more foolish attitude than not messing up the Paradise planet we inherited.
Rob wrote: 56% of Republican governors in the U.S. don't believe that global warming is real. That's appalling ignorance.

It disturbs me when people make the remark: "I won't be around that long for it to effect me anyway!"

It is ignorance, yes, and also a portrayal of selfishness and greed.

When we believe that the earth's resources are for us to deplete and destroy in our lifetime without regard for future generations and the earth's inhabitants, who is it then that has the mentality of "entitlement"??

What gives us that right??

Like Rod said, "We're the termites...currently wrecking a beautiful home."
Is there a way, a solution to this problem?  I do not see a solution which is possible, probable, or doable, now or in the future that we have left to us.  I do see, that it is not likely for any strong group to ever be able to gather enough like minds, to come near a solution, in the lifetime of our universe, even if that group were able to get a high percentage of agreement, and workable plan up and in the running in time to save our planet, or any life might be left on it when our reign ends.

What would happen if a mass suicide was attempted and successful, to the extent that some few humans, animals and plant life could exist for more time to try and solve a more acceptable way of life for the remainder of what would be the last generation ever?

Even this drastic a measure, will also have it's own natural effect on this earth, planet, universe, heavens and other life or matter.