Even if both numbers are simply accepted it is still no contest. Something like the Kindle still wins hands down because it is reusable, unlike the book - recycling still uses energy. Don't forget a device like the kindle not only replaces many books (200 gets you to parity) but you have used fewer newspapers, magazines, etc. etc. A kindle device (or a computer) is a much more efficient distribution system for information.
These arguments are akin to those that argue that burning ethanol is 'carbon neutral'. Nothing could be more incorrect. The 'carbon neutral' argument is that since the plant (lets assume corn for convenience but the plant is immaterial) that produced the ethanol captured the carbon from the atmosphere then putting it back is neutral. This is an artificial linking of the two processes. There are two paths.
1)
-grow corn - capture carbon
- burn corn - release carbon
2)
-grow corn - capture carbon
- leave corn on/in the ground - soil/fertilizers - carbon still captured
- burn oil - release carbon
Same net results (approximately) for the two paths.
Ethanol is important as a renewable source, not as a carbon-free source.
There are only three sources of energy on the earth period.
1) Solar
- Oil captured it millions of years ago
- Ethanol, food, etc. - captured it weeks ago
- 'Solar' power captured it moments ago as did wind, etc.
2) Nuclear
- Fission - captured in some supernova eons ago
- fusion - captured in the Big-Bang
3) Gravity
- Tidal
- Geo-thermal
Cheers
It's a lot more complicated that that.
If the corn isn't burned in a car, but is burned instead in our stomachs, exactly the same amount of carbon is released. If the corn is grown, and then left in the field, and buried for fertilizer, then the same exact amount of carbon is released.
"Burning" corn in an engine makes no difference in the amount of carbon released.
The reason why burning oil, or coal, releases carbon into the atmosphere that isn't here, while burning corn (or sugar cane, or sawgrass) doesn't, is simple.
Coal, oil, etc, was sequestered millions of years ago, removing that carbon from the environment. Burning it now, releases that sequestered carbon. Therefore, there is more carbon now from that fuel.
Burning plant matter that is being grown now, is reusing the carbon that is present in the environment now. It adds nothing.
When insects eat fallen trees, and bacteria do the same, carbon is released. That's nature.
Those who don't get this from Jobs' comments should understand that misdirection is one of his foremost strategies. Nobody needed a PDA until the iPod Touch was ready, there was no subnotebook market until the Air was released. Oh yes, and all flash players were junk until the Nano was ready.
I hope you're right - the main thing which plagues all ePaper/eBook readers at the moment is they all look *awful*. I've been hoping Apple may step up to the plate and do something about that.
I just want to be sitting in bed with a cool little (but not too little) ePaper device with the great look and feel of an Apple product.
If the corn isn't burned in a car, but is burned instead in our stomachs, exactly the same amount of carbon is released. If the corn is grown, and then left in the field, and buried for fertilizer, then the same exact amount of carbon is released.
"Burning" corn in an engine makes no difference in the amount of carbon released.
The reason why burning oil, or coal, releases carbon into the atmosphere that isn't here, while burning corn (or sugar cane, or sawgrass) doesn't, is simple.
Coal, oil, etc, was sequestered millions of years ago, removing that carbon from the environment. Burning it now, releases that sequestered carbon. Therefore, there is more carbon now from that fuel.
Burning plant matter that is being grown now, is reusing the carbon that is present in the environment now. It adds nothing.
When insects eat fallen trees, and bacteria do the same, carbon is released. That's nature.
Actually, its not quite that complicated. If you eat the corn, some of it does get converted to CO2, methane, etc. but our digestion is not that efficient, most goes to 'fertilizer' (can't digest that cell wall material very well). This is very evident if you've ever mucked out a horse stall. Almost all of the carbon containing plant material is still there, and remains there in the resulting piles for years, if you don't compost it, burn it, ethanol it, etc. Bacteria can do some more on that, but again not so efficient in terms of conversion back to gases, specifically CO2. If its turned under (in the ground) and limited exposure to oxygen then again, not so efficient conversion back to gas. If there weren't carbon capture by plants then we would be stuck with what's in the air now and might as well give up.
All I'm saying is that the claim of 'carbon neutral' is not accurate, by quite a bit. If you don't burn the corn in a car it doesn't get back into the atmosphere for years - its captured, and the same amount can be captured the next year.
Another way to look at it - conservation of matter
X amount of carbon is released by burning fuels ( no matter what the source)
Y amount of carbon is captured by plant growth ( not effected by what material is burned)
The imbalance between fossil and current fuels in carbon is the difference in efficiency of 'natural' release of carbon from plants (bacteria, animals, etc.) and man-made release of carbon from plants (burning, fuels, etc.). As the economics of ethanol and its variant will (and are) driving the efficiency (the most fuel per pound of plant material, per acre of growth) I think its clear which is likely to be most efficient. Yet another way is that the reason we have fossil fuels is that the previously captured carbon was not put back in the atmosphere by the 'natural' processes.
Actually, its not quite that complicated. If you eat the corn, some of it does get converted to CO2, methane, etc. but our digestion is not that efficient, most goes to 'fertilizer' (can't digest that cell wall material very well). This is very evident if you've ever mucked out a horse stall. Almost all of the carbon containing plant material is still there, and remains there in the resulting piles for years, if you don't compost it, burn it, ethanol it, etc. Bacteria can do some more on that, but again not so efficient in terms of conversion back to gases, specifically CO2. If its turned under (in the ground) and limited exposure to oxygen then again, not so efficient conversion back to gas. If there weren't carbon capture by plants then we would be stuck with what's in the air now and might as well give up.
All I'm saying is that the claim of 'carbon neutral' is not accurate, by quite a bit. If you don't burn the corn in a car it doesn't get back into the atmosphere for years - its captured, and the same amount can be captured the next year.
Another way to look at it - conservation of matter
X amount of carbon is released by burning fuels ( no matter what the source)
Y amount of carbon is captured by plant growth ( not effected by what material is burned)
The imbalance between fossil and current fuels in carbon is the difference in efficiency of 'natural' release of carbon from plants (bacteria, animals, etc.) and man-made release of carbon from plants (burning, fuels, etc.). As the economics of ethanol and its variant will (and are) driving the efficiency (the most fuel per pound of plant material, per acre of growth) I think its clear which is likely to be most efficient. Yet another way is that the reason we have fossil fuels is that the previously captured carbon was not put back in the atmosphere by the 'natural' processes.
Even that "fertilizer has the same amount of CO2 returned. I'm not saying it's neutral. It isn't. There's a fuel cost to making ethanol.
There's no such thing as "conservation of matter". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
All of the carbon that can be released by plant matter, will be. It may be delayed a few years by burying, but that's all. Bacteria are VERY efficient at oxidizing plant matter, and animal matter as well.
What you have to understand is that the few years delay only matters up front. That is, when it's first done, it takes a few years to cycle. But if it's done every growing season (burying), there is a steady emission, year after year thereafter.
As for your final paragraph, there is no difference in efficiency. It's the difference in speed. That is, releasing the carbon over a long period so that it has a chance of being sequestered by the oceans (the way most is), or is released quickly, so that it builds up in the atmosphere. Our problem comes from the quick release, and also the fact that much of it was not present currently in the ecology, so that it isn't being recycled at about a break even rate, but much faster than that (mostly from petrochemical fuels).
Unfortunately, ethanol from corn is a bad choice, as corn is not every efficient at delivering energy per pound of plant matter. If sugarcane, or sawgrass, were to be used instead, then the equation would be different.
It's interesting about "fossil" fuels. We aren't even certain where they came from. The assumption had been that they came from "fossils". But that may not be the case. It was suggested a number of years ago that it could have been produced underground originally, but that idea was discarded. Now, from what we have learned about underground bacteria that live well below the normally thought of "life zone", it's likely that fossil fuel may be from that instead. Its now estimated that bacteria living in the rocks well below us may constitute most of the living mass on the planet.
In a way, this makes it even worse, as little of the carbon from fossil fuels was ever present in the ecology at all!
At any rate, something must be done, and soon. What scientists are now afraid of, is that the planet is warming up much faster than thought, and that it may reach a tipping point this century, from where there may be no turning back.
Think a 300 foot rise in sea levels sometime in the early next century.
Even that "fertilizer has the same amount of CO2 returned. I'm not saying it's neutral. It isn't. There's a fuel cost to making ethanol.
This makes no sense as the fuel cost to make ethanol would also be neutral according to your theory so that would have no bearing on the neutrality of the process, only the cost. If the fuel is neutral it matters not how much you use, other than cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There's no such thing as "conservation of matter". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
Except for nuclear processes, which convert matter to energy, in basic chemistry this is a fundamental principal - what goes into a reaction comes back out somewhere. Matter is conserved, it neither appears nor dissapears - basic chemistry 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
All of the carbon that can be released by plant matter, will be. It may be delayed a few years by burying, but that's all. Bacteria are VERY efficient at oxidizing plant matter, and animal matter as well.
This is only possibly true given that there is sufficient oxygen present - hence burying. Also, all of that does not go back into CO2 as part of the carbon is used to build the structure (proteins) of the consuming organism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What you have to understand is that the few years delay only matters up front. That is, when it's first done, it takes a few years to cycle. But if it's done every growing season (burying), there is a steady emission, year after year thereafter.
The assumption here is incorrect - that the emission would necessarily be steady. The conversion from plant/animal matter to CO2 is, of necessity, limited by the surface area of the material exposed to air - this limits the rate of oxygen availability and therefore the reaction rate, independent of the amount of plant/animal matter available to the reaction. O2 availability would become the rate limiting part of the equation. If this weren't the case then, for just one example, peat bogs wouldn't form (an accumulation of unconverted plant matter). BTW peat bogs are commonly thought to represent the beginning of coal deposits, one of our 'fossil fuels'. bogs
This is why material pulled to the bottom of the ocean also is effectively taken out of the near-term equation - minimal oxygen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As for your final paragraph, there is no difference in efficiency. It's the difference in speed. That is, releasing the carbon over a long period so that it has a chance of being sequestered by the oceans (the way most is), or is released quickly, so that it builds up in the atmosphere. Our problem comes from the quick release, and also the fact that much of it was not present currently in the ecology, so that it isn't being recycled at about a break even rate, but much faster than that (mostly from petrochemical fuels).
Unfortunately, ethanol from corn is a bad choice, as corn is not every efficient at delivering energy per pound of plant matter. If sugarcane, or sawgrass, were to be used instead, then the equation would be different.
Re choice of material - again, by your reasoning this has no bearing on neutrality, only cost.
Re time - time is the essential ingredient. Efficiency involves both time and completeness, not just completeness. Envisage two reactions which both of which consume the entire input but one takes 100 years the other 1 year. The second one is more efficient.
The only claimed problem with the current situation (not withstanding your theory below for which I am not aware of any references re source of fuels - a reference would be appreciated) is that we are releasing CO2 faster than it's being absorbed. The length of time of return to the atmosphere is a (probably the most) critical part of the equation. If, as you claim, plant growth can't sequester the carbon in the near term (100's of year) then there is NO solution for the current situation and prevention becomes moot and we better look instead to mitigation. BTW I'm trying to advocating this position here, just pointing out the inconsistencies. Full disclosure - I do believe that given these inconsistencies in the generally presented positions, mitigation is far more important as we seem to have no choice in the warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's interesting about "fossil" fuels. We aren't even certain where they came from. The assumption had been that they came from "fossils". But that may not be the case. It was suggested a number of years ago that it could have been produced underground originally, but that idea was discarded. Now, from what we have learned about underground bacteria that live well below the normally thought of "life zone", it's likely that fossil fuel may be from that instead. Its now estimated that bacteria living in the rocks well below us may constitute most of the living mass on the planet.
In a way, this makes it even worse, as little of the carbon from fossil fuels was ever present in the ecology at all!
While I can't debate this about oil either way it is certainly not true about Coal which is the major concern going forward. (e.g. see above reference)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
At any rate, something must be done, and soon. What scientists are now afraid of, is that the planet is warming up much faster than thought, and that it may reach a tipping point this century, from where there may be no turning back.
Think a 300 foot rise in sea levels sometime in the early next century.
This makes no sense as the fuel cost to make ethanol would also be neutral according to your theory so that would have no bearing on the neutrality of the process, only the cost. If the fuel is neutral it matters not how much you use, other than cost.
I didn't say that. I said the opposite. What would be used as the fuel to make ethanol? "Fossil" fuel, which brings us right back to the beginning.
Quote:
Except for nuclear processes, which convert matter to energy, in basic chemistry this is a fundamental principal - what goes into a reaction comes back out somewhere. Matter is conserved, it neither appears nor dissapears - basic chemistry 101.
I have a masters in bio, and I've never heard it described that way. We call it balancing the equation.
Quote:
This is only possibly true given that there is sufficient oxygen present - hence burying. Also, all of that does not go back into CO2 as part of the carbon is used to build the structure (proteins) of the consuming organism.
Anaerobic bacteria live where there is NO oxygen. And the consuming organisms die, and release the carbon right back.
Quote:
The assumption here is incorrect - that the emission would necessarily be steady. The conversion from plant/animal matter to CO2 is, of necessity, limited by the surface area of the material exposed to air - this limits the rate of oxygen availability and therefore the reaction rate, independent of the amount of plant/animal matter available to the reaction. O2 availability would become the rate limiting part of the equation. If this weren't the case then, for just one example, peat bogs wouldn't form (an accumulation of unconverted plant matter). BTW peat bogs are commonly thought to represent the beginning of coal deposits, one of our 'fossil fuels'. bogs
You have to stop talking about air. Only some processes require air as you are thinking about it. Bacteria do very well dozens, and even hundreds, of feet down. Peat bogs are a very small fraction of 1% of the processes of decay on this planet. And it's the ph of the bog that does the preservation.
Quote:
This is why material pulled to the bottom of the ocean also is effectively taken out of the near-term equation - minimal oxygen.
'
It's taken out for several reasons. The main one is that it gets converted into shells of diatoms, which then drift down to form chalk, and such. Dead animals also drift down, and are consumed by the life lower down. Another is that the currents several miles down don't churn quickly. There is sufficient oxygen all the way down. That's why life exists on the ocean floor. Low temperatures slow processes down as well.
Quote:
Re choice of material - again, by your reasoning this has no bearing on neutrality, only cost.
Re time - time is the essential ingredient. Efficiency involves both time and completeness, not just completeness. Envisage two reactions which both of which consume the entire input but one takes 100 years the other 1 year. The second one is more efficient.
Time has nothing to do with efficiency. Conversion percentage equals efficiency, along with the amount of energy expended to complete the process.
Quote:
The only claimed problem with the current situation (not withstanding your theory below for which I am not aware of any references re source of fuels - a reference would be appreciated) is that we are releasing CO2 faster than it's being absorbed. The length of time of return to the atmosphere is a (probably the most) critical part of the equation. If, as you claim, plant growth can't sequester the carbon in the near term (100's of year) then there is NO solution for the current situation and prevention becomes moot and we better look instead to mitigation. BTW I'm trying to advocating this position here, just pointing out the inconsistencies. Full disclosure - I do believe that given these inconsistencies in the generally presented positions, mitigation is far more important as we seem to have no choice in the warming.
There are several articles about this. I'm not sure which ones are public. Some require subscription, or membership. I'll try to find the one I seem to remember from Scientific American.
Of course, the problem is that we are releasing carbon faster than it can be sequestered. Mitigating that is going to be very difficult. Various schemes are being tried. The best hope is to stop releasing so much. That's a political problem.
The near term is considered to be 50 years, not hundreds. The old estimate was that sea levels might rise by 3 to 6 feet by the end of this century. That was with older figures and models, from 2001, or thereabouts.
The new numbers being bandied about is that about a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is possible. Some scientists working on this are concerned that with the much faster melting of Greenland's ice, the shockingly fast retreat of the northern polar ice, and the loss of much more sea ice from the Antarctic, we could see even more acceleration than was thought possible. All of these problems have speeded up several times in the past five years. There's also a good program on this that;'s been shown several times recently. It may still be airing.
With the loss of the covering, more heat is absorbed from the sun than before, causing a speedup in melting, which allows more absorption, etc. At some point, there is a tipping point, where there is no turning back, and the whole thing collapses. The estimates are that if the Greenland cover melts, and most of the Antarctic cover melts, a rise could be 300 feet, more or less.
Quote:
While I can't debate this about oil either way it is certainly not true about Coal which is the major concern going forward. (e.g. see above reference)
There's nothing for you to debate, you're not an expert on this, nor am I. I'm just reporting what the current thinking is from what I've read in my journals.
Coal is a big part of the problem because it is a poor source of energy. It can be made better, but that requires energy, so nothing is really gained.
I didn't say that. I said the opposite. What would be used as the fuel to make ethanol? "Fossil" fuel, which brings us right back to the beginning.
Huh? why would you use fossil fuel to do this? Of course for the first batch in principal but not after that. Intelligent design of the system would make it self sustaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I have a masters in bio, and I've never heard it described that way. We call it balancing the equation.
And I have a Ph.D. in physics. Balancing the equation is how you take into account conservation of matter when trying to document a chemical reaction, conservation is the underlying physical principal. But so what - my point is only that everyone needs to read these pronouncements critically and question inconsistencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Anaerobic bacteria live where there is NO oxygen. And the consuming organisms die, and release the carbon right back.
You have to stop talking about air. Only some processes require air as you are thinking about it. Bacteria do very well dozens, and even hundreds, of feet down. Peat bogs are a very small fraction of 1% of the processes of decay on this planet. And it's the ph of the bog that does the preservation.
I'm talking about oxygen. C6H12O6 + 6 O2 -> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O Oxygen is required to oxidize carbohydrates like glucose. Anaerobic bacteria get the O2 from sources other than air but are less efficient (slower) in oxidation. A number of bacteria are both aerobic and anaerobic switching between energy extraction method depending on the environment in which they find themselves. They are generally significantly more efficient when O2 is available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's taken out for several reasons. The main one is that it gets converted into shells of diatoms, which then drift down to form chalk, and such. Dead animals also drift down, and are consumed by the life lower down. Another is that the currents several miles down don't churn quickly. There is sufficient oxygen all the way down. That's why life exists on the ocean floor. Low temperatures slow processes down as well.
Time has nothing to do with efficiency. Conversion percentage equals efficiency, along with the amount of energy expended to complete the process.
Don't forget the sulphur based eco-systems that don't need O2 but have adapted to geo-thermal energy sources. I do know about these processes but again time and rate are the KEY issues, not completeness.
If I'm creating CO2 at 10 tons/minute and only binding it at 5 tons/minute the CO2 goes up 5 tons/minute. If the other way around, CO2 goes down 5 tons/minute. The size of the reservoirs at the two ends of these processes is irrelevant to discussions about CO2 gas. Its a dynamic system not a static system. You even state this below (see bold).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There are several articles about this. I'm not sure which ones are public. Some require subscription, or membership. I'll try to find the one I seem to remember from Scientific American.
Of course, the problem is that we are releasing carbon faster than it can be sequestered. Mitigating that is going to be very difficult. Various schemes are being tried. The best hope is to stop releasing so much. That's a political problem.
I'm not talking about mitigating the CO2 but the possible consequences - higher temperatures, sea levels, etc. Temperatures have been rising, whatever the cause, it is likely to have some of these consequences, whatever the cause and no matter what is done a this point in time, the latter according to those sounding the alarm. Despite the seeming inevitability of these consequences there is no, or little, ongoing discussion of mitigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The near term is considered to be 50 years, not hundreds. The old estimate was that sea levels might rise by 3 to 6 feet by the end of this century. That was with older figures and models, from 2001, or thereabouts.
The new numbers being bandied about is that about a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is possible. Some scientists working on this are concerned that with the much faster melting of Greenland's ice, the shockingly fast retreat of the northern polar ice, and the loss of much more sea ice from the Antarctic, we could see even more acceleration than was thought possible. All of these problems have speeded up several times in the past five years. There's also a good program on this that;'s been shown several times recently. It may still be airing.
With the loss of the covering, more heat is absorbed from the sun than before, causing a speedup in melting, which allows more absorption, etc. At some point, there is a tipping point, where there is no turning back, and the whole thing collapses. The estimates are that if the Greenland cover melts, and most of the Antarctic cover melts, a rise could be 300 feet, more or less.
There's nothing for you to debate, you're not an expert on this, nor am I. I'm just reporting what the current thinking is from what I've read in my journals.
Coal is a big part of the problem because it is a poor source of energy. It can be made better, but that requires energy, so nothing is really gained.
Not sure what your definition of poor is. Coal is not a poor source of energy, its actually quite good and since the US has one of ( if not the largest I can't remember) proven reserves of coal it requires attention as to how to utilize it, as does any energy source.
In the end, as I tried to intimate in the original post, the major energy source for the bulk of power requirements that is being ignored is nuclear. France is already 100%+ nuclear in their electricity generation. The are a net exporter of electricity from nuclear. Japan is close. The U.S. has very large proven reserves of uranium. New reactor designs, as proven by others, are very safe and effective. There is a waste issue, as there is with any technology as shown by recent articles on the toxic waste being generated by the production of solar panels, but it can also be dealt with and is less of a heath/environment risk than fossil fuels. As you put forth above on another matter, this is only a political problem - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, but it nuclear the most effective way to lower carbon emissions. It is the source that could, in principle, support an electical/hydrogen economy (remember hydrogen is only a distribution medium, like electricity, not an energy source) and the technology is already here and now.
Huh? why would you use fossil fuel to do this? Of course for the first batch in principal but not after that. Intelligent design of the system would make it self sustaining.
But, it;'s not. There is no plan to have it work that way. Ethanol is intended for use in vehicles, not power plants of any type.
9quote0
And I have a Ph.D. in physics. Balancing the equation is how you take into account conservation of matter when trying to document a chemical reaction, conservation is the underlying physical principal. But so what - my point is only that everyone needs to read these pronouncements critically and question inconsistencies.[/quote]
Well, you beat me there,. I only have four years. I understand your point, but haven't seen the expression.
9quote]
I'm talking about oxygen. C6H12O6 + 6 O2 -> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O Oxygen is required to oxidize carbohydrates like glucose. Anaerobic bacteria get the O2 from sources other than air but are less efficient (slower) in oxidation. A number of bacteria are both aerobic and anaerobic switching between energy extraction method depending on the environment in which they find themselves. They are generally significantly more efficient when O2 is available.[/quote]
I'm not arguing that. But, you seem to be considering only air to plany matter interactions. There is plenty of oxygen several meters down, where there is soil, rather than compacted clay.
These bacteria are more or less efficient in their own use of food, but that doesn't change the equation for the actual breakkdown of plant (or animal) matter. In the end, all of the C)2 will be returned, in one way or the other.
9quote]
Don't forget the sulphur based eco-systems that don't need O2 but have adapted to geo-thermal energy sources. I do know about these processes but again time and rate are the KEY issues, not completeness. [/quote]
Yes, there are those as well. What we are arguing here is really not much different, just a bit of time difference, from what I see. If plant matter breaks down in 6 months, or two years, it doesn't affect what we are BOTH saying.
Quote:
If I'm creating CO2 at 10 tons/minute and only binding it at 5 tons/minute the CO2 goes up 5 tons/minute. If the other way around, CO2 goes down 5 tons/minute. The size of the reservoirs at the two ends of these processes is irrelevant to discussions about CO2 gas. Its a dynamic system not a static system. You even state this below (see bold).
I'm not sure I understand that statement about the reservoirs. Of course they matter. The end state is dependent on the size of the "container". That container is the ocean, for the great bulk. That's why the concern is about the problem of getting the CO2 into the ocean. If we can do that in a way that precludes its returning any time soon, we will have helped to reduce the problem. There are projects to test this theory, though one of them, has been halted, at least for the time being.
Quote:
I'm not talking about mitigating the CO2 but the possible consequences - higher temperatures, sea levels, etc. Temperatures have been rising, whatever the cause, it is likely to have some of these consequences, whatever the cause and no matter what is done a this point in time, the latter according to those sounding the alarm. Despite the seeming inevitability of these consequences there is no, or little, ongoing discussion of mitigation.
The scientific community has agreed that the best way to slow the increase in temperature is to lower the CO2 emissions. It's the most understood part of the solution. We know how to do that. The question is of will.
Quote:
Not sure what your definition of poor is. Coal is not a poor source of energy, its actually quite good and since the US has one of ( if not the largest I can't remember) proven reserves of coal it requires attention as to how to utilize it, as does any energy source.
When I say "poor" I mean that the impurities in coal tends to be much greater than that of most oil, and of course, gas. That leads to much pollution, including that of CO2. It also results in more soot being released, which causes other atmospheric problems.
Unfortunately, it;s difficult to remove these problem causing impurities from coal (read expensive). Coal producers, and the plant operators using it have been very resistive to improving this.
Quote:
In the end, as I tried to intimate in the original post, the major energy source for the bulk of power requirements that is being ignored is nuclear. France is already 100%+ nuclear in their electricity generation. The are a net exporter of electricity from nuclear. Japan is close. The U.S. has very large proven reserves of uranium. New reactor designs, as proven by others, are very safe and effective. There is a waste issue, as there is with any technology as shown by recent articles on the toxic waste being generated by the production of solar panels, but it can also be dealt with and is less of a heath/environment risk than fossil fuels. As you put forth above on another matter, this is only a political problem - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, but it nuclear the most effective way to lower carbon emissions. It is the source that could, in principle, support an electical/hydrogen economy (remember hydrogen is only a distribution medium, like electricity, not an energy source) and the technology is already here and now.
I have always been pro nuclear. I consider it to be the cleanest major power provider. What most people don't know is that it releases far less radioactive waste into the atmosphere than either coal, or oil. Despite some poor maintenance, it has had a very good record in the US, except for 3 Mile Island, though, even there, the release of nuclear isotopes were very small. Very.
Chernobyl, well, the Soviets were ever stupid about those things.
The newer generations of power plants are much safer, and even produce less waste. If the government could get off its ass, and do what is required about storage we could get on with it.
Whether fusion will ever come to our rescue is still an open book. We should be spending far more on research.
I've been lukewarm about the idea of a hydrogen economy, because, as you say, it's merely a way to move energy around. It's just a big hydrogen battery. Without non-polluting energy sources, it;'s a crock.
Actually, I think we agree about all this, except for some semantical points, and a bit of definitional confusion.
Comments
Even if both numbers are simply accepted it is still no contest. Something like the Kindle still wins hands down because it is reusable, unlike the book - recycling still uses energy. Don't forget a device like the kindle not only replaces many books (200 gets you to parity) but you have used fewer newspapers, magazines, etc. etc. A kindle device (or a computer) is a much more efficient distribution system for information.
These arguments are akin to those that argue that burning ethanol is 'carbon neutral'. Nothing could be more incorrect. The 'carbon neutral' argument is that since the plant (lets assume corn for convenience but the plant is immaterial) that produced the ethanol captured the carbon from the atmosphere then putting it back is neutral. This is an artificial linking of the two processes. There are two paths.
1)
-grow corn - capture carbon
- burn corn - release carbon
2)
-grow corn - capture carbon
- leave corn on/in the ground - soil/fertilizers - carbon still captured
- burn oil - release carbon
Same net results (approximately) for the two paths.
Ethanol is important as a renewable source, not as a carbon-free source.
There are only three sources of energy on the earth period.
1) Solar
- Oil captured it millions of years ago
- Ethanol, food, etc. - captured it weeks ago
- 'Solar' power captured it moments ago as did wind, etc.
2) Nuclear
- Fission - captured in some supernova eons ago
- fusion - captured in the Big-Bang
3) Gravity
- Tidal
- Geo-thermal
Cheers
It's a lot more complicated that that.
If the corn isn't burned in a car, but is burned instead in our stomachs, exactly the same amount of carbon is released. If the corn is grown, and then left in the field, and buried for fertilizer, then the same exact amount of carbon is released.
"Burning" corn in an engine makes no difference in the amount of carbon released.
The reason why burning oil, or coal, releases carbon into the atmosphere that isn't here, while burning corn (or sugar cane, or sawgrass) doesn't, is simple.
Coal, oil, etc, was sequestered millions of years ago, removing that carbon from the environment. Burning it now, releases that sequestered carbon. Therefore, there is more carbon now from that fuel.
Burning plant matter that is being grown now, is reusing the carbon that is present in the environment now. It adds nothing.
When insects eat fallen trees, and bacteria do the same, carbon is released. That's nature.
Those who don't get this from Jobs' comments should understand that misdirection is one of his foremost strategies. Nobody needed a PDA until the iPod Touch was ready, there was no subnotebook market until the Air was released. Oh yes, and all flash players were junk until the Nano was ready.
I hope you're right - the main thing which plagues all ePaper/eBook readers at the moment is they all look *awful*. I've been hoping Apple may step up to the plate and do something about that.
I just want to be sitting in bed with a cool little (but not too little) ePaper device with the great look and feel of an Apple product.
It's a lot more complicated that that.
If the corn isn't burned in a car, but is burned instead in our stomachs, exactly the same amount of carbon is released. If the corn is grown, and then left in the field, and buried for fertilizer, then the same exact amount of carbon is released.
"Burning" corn in an engine makes no difference in the amount of carbon released.
The reason why burning oil, or coal, releases carbon into the atmosphere that isn't here, while burning corn (or sugar cane, or sawgrass) doesn't, is simple.
Coal, oil, etc, was sequestered millions of years ago, removing that carbon from the environment. Burning it now, releases that sequestered carbon. Therefore, there is more carbon now from that fuel.
Burning plant matter that is being grown now, is reusing the carbon that is present in the environment now. It adds nothing.
When insects eat fallen trees, and bacteria do the same, carbon is released. That's nature.
Actually, its not quite that complicated. If you eat the corn, some of it does get converted to CO2, methane, etc. but our digestion is not that efficient, most goes to 'fertilizer' (can't digest that cell wall material very well). This is very evident if you've ever mucked out a horse stall. Almost all of the carbon containing plant material is still there, and remains there in the resulting piles for years, if you don't compost it, burn it, ethanol it, etc. Bacteria can do some more on that, but again not so efficient in terms of conversion back to gases, specifically CO2. If its turned under (in the ground) and limited exposure to oxygen then again, not so efficient conversion back to gas. If there weren't carbon capture by plants then we would be stuck with what's in the air now and might as well give up.
All I'm saying is that the claim of 'carbon neutral' is not accurate, by quite a bit. If you don't burn the corn in a car it doesn't get back into the atmosphere for years - its captured, and the same amount can be captured the next year.
Another way to look at it - conservation of matter
X amount of carbon is released by burning fuels ( no matter what the source)
Y amount of carbon is captured by plant growth ( not effected by what material is burned)
The imbalance between fossil and current fuels in carbon is the difference in efficiency of 'natural' release of carbon from plants (bacteria, animals, etc.) and man-made release of carbon from plants (burning, fuels, etc.). As the economics of ethanol and its variant will (and are) driving the efficiency (the most fuel per pound of plant material, per acre of growth) I think its clear which is likely to be most efficient. Yet another way is that the reason we have fossil fuels is that the previously captured carbon was not put back in the atmosphere by the 'natural' processes.
Actually, its not quite that complicated. If you eat the corn, some of it does get converted to CO2, methane, etc. but our digestion is not that efficient, most goes to 'fertilizer' (can't digest that cell wall material very well). This is very evident if you've ever mucked out a horse stall. Almost all of the carbon containing plant material is still there, and remains there in the resulting piles for years, if you don't compost it, burn it, ethanol it, etc. Bacteria can do some more on that, but again not so efficient in terms of conversion back to gases, specifically CO2. If its turned under (in the ground) and limited exposure to oxygen then again, not so efficient conversion back to gas. If there weren't carbon capture by plants then we would be stuck with what's in the air now and might as well give up.
All I'm saying is that the claim of 'carbon neutral' is not accurate, by quite a bit. If you don't burn the corn in a car it doesn't get back into the atmosphere for years - its captured, and the same amount can be captured the next year.
Another way to look at it - conservation of matter
X amount of carbon is released by burning fuels ( no matter what the source)
Y amount of carbon is captured by plant growth ( not effected by what material is burned)
The imbalance between fossil and current fuels in carbon is the difference in efficiency of 'natural' release of carbon from plants (bacteria, animals, etc.) and man-made release of carbon from plants (burning, fuels, etc.). As the economics of ethanol and its variant will (and are) driving the efficiency (the most fuel per pound of plant material, per acre of growth) I think its clear which is likely to be most efficient. Yet another way is that the reason we have fossil fuels is that the previously captured carbon was not put back in the atmosphere by the 'natural' processes.
Even that "fertilizer has the same amount of CO2 returned. I'm not saying it's neutral. It isn't. There's a fuel cost to making ethanol.
There's no such thing as "conservation of matter". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
All of the carbon that can be released by plant matter, will be. It may be delayed a few years by burying, but that's all. Bacteria are VERY efficient at oxidizing plant matter, and animal matter as well.
What you have to understand is that the few years delay only matters up front. That is, when it's first done, it takes a few years to cycle. But if it's done every growing season (burying), there is a steady emission, year after year thereafter.
As for your final paragraph, there is no difference in efficiency. It's the difference in speed. That is, releasing the carbon over a long period so that it has a chance of being sequestered by the oceans (the way most is), or is released quickly, so that it builds up in the atmosphere. Our problem comes from the quick release, and also the fact that much of it was not present currently in the ecology, so that it isn't being recycled at about a break even rate, but much faster than that (mostly from petrochemical fuels).
Unfortunately, ethanol from corn is a bad choice, as corn is not every efficient at delivering energy per pound of plant matter. If sugarcane, or sawgrass, were to be used instead, then the equation would be different.
It's interesting about "fossil" fuels. We aren't even certain where they came from. The assumption had been that they came from "fossils". But that may not be the case. It was suggested a number of years ago that it could have been produced underground originally, but that idea was discarded. Now, from what we have learned about underground bacteria that live well below the normally thought of "life zone", it's likely that fossil fuel may be from that instead. Its now estimated that bacteria living in the rocks well below us may constitute most of the living mass on the planet.
In a way, this makes it even worse, as little of the carbon from fossil fuels was ever present in the ecology at all!
At any rate, something must be done, and soon. What scientists are now afraid of, is that the planet is warming up much faster than thought, and that it may reach a tipping point this century, from where there may be no turning back.
Think a 300 foot rise in sea levels sometime in the early next century.
Even that "fertilizer has the same amount of CO2 returned. I'm not saying it's neutral. It isn't. There's a fuel cost to making ethanol.
This makes no sense as the fuel cost to make ethanol would also be neutral according to your theory so that would have no bearing on the neutrality of the process, only the cost. If the fuel is neutral it matters not how much you use, other than cost.
There's no such thing as "conservation of matter". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
Except for nuclear processes, which convert matter to energy, in basic chemistry this is a fundamental principal - what goes into a reaction comes back out somewhere. Matter is conserved, it neither appears nor dissapears - basic chemistry 101.
All of the carbon that can be released by plant matter, will be. It may be delayed a few years by burying, but that's all. Bacteria are VERY efficient at oxidizing plant matter, and animal matter as well.
This is only possibly true given that there is sufficient oxygen present - hence burying. Also, all of that does not go back into CO2 as part of the carbon is used to build the structure (proteins) of the consuming organism.
What you have to understand is that the few years delay only matters up front. That is, when it's first done, it takes a few years to cycle. But if it's done every growing season (burying), there is a steady emission, year after year thereafter.
The assumption here is incorrect - that the emission would necessarily be steady. The conversion from plant/animal matter to CO2 is, of necessity, limited by the surface area of the material exposed to air - this limits the rate of oxygen availability and therefore the reaction rate, independent of the amount of plant/animal matter available to the reaction. O2 availability would become the rate limiting part of the equation. If this weren't the case then, for just one example, peat bogs wouldn't form (an accumulation of unconverted plant matter). BTW peat bogs are commonly thought to represent the beginning of coal deposits, one of our 'fossil fuels'. bogs
This is why material pulled to the bottom of the ocean also is effectively taken out of the near-term equation - minimal oxygen.
As for your final paragraph, there is no difference in efficiency. It's the difference in speed. That is, releasing the carbon over a long period so that it has a chance of being sequestered by the oceans (the way most is), or is released quickly, so that it builds up in the atmosphere. Our problem comes from the quick release, and also the fact that much of it was not present currently in the ecology, so that it isn't being recycled at about a break even rate, but much faster than that (mostly from petrochemical fuels).
Unfortunately, ethanol from corn is a bad choice, as corn is not every efficient at delivering energy per pound of plant matter. If sugarcane, or sawgrass, were to be used instead, then the equation would be different.
Re choice of material - again, by your reasoning this has no bearing on neutrality, only cost.
Re time - time is the essential ingredient. Efficiency involves both time and completeness, not just completeness. Envisage two reactions which both of which consume the entire input but one takes 100 years the other 1 year. The second one is more efficient.
The only claimed problem with the current situation (not withstanding your theory below for which I am not aware of any references re source of fuels - a reference would be appreciated) is that we are releasing CO2 faster than it's being absorbed. The length of time of return to the atmosphere is a (probably the most) critical part of the equation. If, as you claim, plant growth can't sequester the carbon in the near term (100's of year) then there is NO solution for the current situation and prevention becomes moot and we better look instead to mitigation. BTW I'm trying to advocating this position here, just pointing out the inconsistencies. Full disclosure - I do believe that given these inconsistencies in the generally presented positions, mitigation is far more important as we seem to have no choice in the warming.
It's interesting about "fossil" fuels. We aren't even certain where they came from. The assumption had been that they came from "fossils". But that may not be the case. It was suggested a number of years ago that it could have been produced underground originally, but that idea was discarded. Now, from what we have learned about underground bacteria that live well below the normally thought of "life zone", it's likely that fossil fuel may be from that instead. Its now estimated that bacteria living in the rocks well below us may constitute most of the living mass on the planet.
In a way, this makes it even worse, as little of the carbon from fossil fuels was ever present in the ecology at all!
While I can't debate this about oil either way it is certainly not true about Coal which is the major concern going forward. (e.g. see above reference)
At any rate, something must be done, and soon. What scientists are now afraid of, is that the planet is warming up much faster than thought, and that it may reach a tipping point this century, from where there may be no turning back.
Think a 300 foot rise in sea levels sometime in the early next century.
This makes no sense as the fuel cost to make ethanol would also be neutral according to your theory so that would have no bearing on the neutrality of the process, only the cost. If the fuel is neutral it matters not how much you use, other than cost.
I didn't say that. I said the opposite. What would be used as the fuel to make ethanol? "Fossil" fuel, which brings us right back to the beginning.
Except for nuclear processes, which convert matter to energy, in basic chemistry this is a fundamental principal - what goes into a reaction comes back out somewhere. Matter is conserved, it neither appears nor dissapears - basic chemistry 101.
I have a masters in bio, and I've never heard it described that way. We call it balancing the equation.
This is only possibly true given that there is sufficient oxygen present - hence burying. Also, all of that does not go back into CO2 as part of the carbon is used to build the structure (proteins) of the consuming organism.
Anaerobic bacteria live where there is NO oxygen. And the consuming organisms die, and release the carbon right back.
The assumption here is incorrect - that the emission would necessarily be steady. The conversion from plant/animal matter to CO2 is, of necessity, limited by the surface area of the material exposed to air - this limits the rate of oxygen availability and therefore the reaction rate, independent of the amount of plant/animal matter available to the reaction. O2 availability would become the rate limiting part of the equation. If this weren't the case then, for just one example, peat bogs wouldn't form (an accumulation of unconverted plant matter). BTW peat bogs are commonly thought to represent the beginning of coal deposits, one of our 'fossil fuels'. bogs
You have to stop talking about air. Only some processes require air as you are thinking about it. Bacteria do very well dozens, and even hundreds, of feet down. Peat bogs are a very small fraction of 1% of the processes of decay on this planet. And it's the ph of the bog that does the preservation.
This is why material pulled to the bottom of the ocean also is effectively taken out of the near-term equation - minimal oxygen.
'
It's taken out for several reasons. The main one is that it gets converted into shells of diatoms, which then drift down to form chalk, and such. Dead animals also drift down, and are consumed by the life lower down. Another is that the currents several miles down don't churn quickly. There is sufficient oxygen all the way down. That's why life exists on the ocean floor. Low temperatures slow processes down as well.
Re choice of material - again, by your reasoning this has no bearing on neutrality, only cost.
Re time - time is the essential ingredient. Efficiency involves both time and completeness, not just completeness. Envisage two reactions which both of which consume the entire input but one takes 100 years the other 1 year. The second one is more efficient.
Time has nothing to do with efficiency. Conversion percentage equals efficiency, along with the amount of energy expended to complete the process.
The only claimed problem with the current situation (not withstanding your theory below for which I am not aware of any references re source of fuels - a reference would be appreciated) is that we are releasing CO2 faster than it's being absorbed. The length of time of return to the atmosphere is a (probably the most) critical part of the equation. If, as you claim, plant growth can't sequester the carbon in the near term (100's of year) then there is NO solution for the current situation and prevention becomes moot and we better look instead to mitigation. BTW I'm trying to advocating this position here, just pointing out the inconsistencies. Full disclosure - I do believe that given these inconsistencies in the generally presented positions, mitigation is far more important as we seem to have no choice in the warming.
There are several articles about this. I'm not sure which ones are public. Some require subscription, or membership. I'll try to find the one I seem to remember from Scientific American.
Of course, the problem is that we are releasing carbon faster than it can be sequestered. Mitigating that is going to be very difficult. Various schemes are being tried. The best hope is to stop releasing so much. That's a political problem.
The near term is considered to be 50 years, not hundreds. The old estimate was that sea levels might rise by 3 to 6 feet by the end of this century. That was with older figures and models, from 2001, or thereabouts.
The new numbers being bandied about is that about a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is possible. Some scientists working on this are concerned that with the much faster melting of Greenland's ice, the shockingly fast retreat of the northern polar ice, and the loss of much more sea ice from the Antarctic, we could see even more acceleration than was thought possible. All of these problems have speeded up several times in the past five years. There's also a good program on this that;'s been shown several times recently. It may still be airing.
With the loss of the covering, more heat is absorbed from the sun than before, causing a speedup in melting, which allows more absorption, etc. At some point, there is a tipping point, where there is no turning back, and the whole thing collapses. The estimates are that if the Greenland cover melts, and most of the Antarctic cover melts, a rise could be 300 feet, more or less.
While I can't debate this about oil either way it is certainly not true about Coal which is the major concern going forward. (e.g. see above reference)
There's nothing for you to debate, you're not an expert on this, nor am I. I'm just reporting what the current thinking is from what I've read in my journals.
Coal is a big part of the problem because it is a poor source of energy. It can be made better, but that requires energy, so nothing is really gained.
I didn't say that. I said the opposite. What would be used as the fuel to make ethanol? "Fossil" fuel, which brings us right back to the beginning.
Huh? why would you use fossil fuel to do this? Of course for the first batch in principal but not after that. Intelligent design of the system would make it self sustaining.
I have a masters in bio, and I've never heard it described that way. We call it balancing the equation.
And I have a Ph.D. in physics. Balancing the equation is how you take into account conservation of matter when trying to document a chemical reaction, conservation is the underlying physical principal. But so what - my point is only that everyone needs to read these pronouncements critically and question inconsistencies.
Anaerobic bacteria live where there is NO oxygen. And the consuming organisms die, and release the carbon right back.
You have to stop talking about air. Only some processes require air as you are thinking about it. Bacteria do very well dozens, and even hundreds, of feet down. Peat bogs are a very small fraction of 1% of the processes of decay on this planet. And it's the ph of the bog that does the preservation.
I'm talking about oxygen. C6H12O6 + 6 O2 -> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O Oxygen is required to oxidize carbohydrates like glucose. Anaerobic bacteria get the O2 from sources other than air but are less efficient (slower) in oxidation. A number of bacteria are both aerobic and anaerobic switching between energy extraction method depending on the environment in which they find themselves. They are generally significantly more efficient when O2 is available.
It's taken out for several reasons. The main one is that it gets converted into shells of diatoms, which then drift down to form chalk, and such. Dead animals also drift down, and are consumed by the life lower down. Another is that the currents several miles down don't churn quickly. There is sufficient oxygen all the way down. That's why life exists on the ocean floor. Low temperatures slow processes down as well.
Time has nothing to do with efficiency. Conversion percentage equals efficiency, along with the amount of energy expended to complete the process.
Don't forget the sulphur based eco-systems that don't need O2 but have adapted to geo-thermal energy sources. I do know about these processes but again time and rate are the KEY issues, not completeness.
If I'm creating CO2 at 10 tons/minute and only binding it at 5 tons/minute the CO2 goes up 5 tons/minute. If the other way around, CO2 goes down 5 tons/minute. The size of the reservoirs at the two ends of these processes is irrelevant to discussions about CO2 gas. Its a dynamic system not a static system. You even state this below (see bold).
There are several articles about this. I'm not sure which ones are public. Some require subscription, or membership. I'll try to find the one I seem to remember from Scientific American.
Of course, the problem is that we are releasing carbon faster than it can be sequestered. Mitigating that is going to be very difficult. Various schemes are being tried. The best hope is to stop releasing so much. That's a political problem.
I'm not talking about mitigating the CO2 but the possible consequences - higher temperatures, sea levels, etc. Temperatures have been rising, whatever the cause, it is likely to have some of these consequences, whatever the cause and no matter what is done a this point in time, the latter according to those sounding the alarm. Despite the seeming inevitability of these consequences there is no, or little, ongoing discussion of mitigation.
The near term is considered to be 50 years, not hundreds. The old estimate was that sea levels might rise by 3 to 6 feet by the end of this century. That was with older figures and models, from 2001, or thereabouts.
The new numbers being bandied about is that about a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is possible. Some scientists working on this are concerned that with the much faster melting of Greenland's ice, the shockingly fast retreat of the northern polar ice, and the loss of much more sea ice from the Antarctic, we could see even more acceleration than was thought possible. All of these problems have speeded up several times in the past five years. There's also a good program on this that;'s been shown several times recently. It may still be airing.
With the loss of the covering, more heat is absorbed from the sun than before, causing a speedup in melting, which allows more absorption, etc. At some point, there is a tipping point, where there is no turning back, and the whole thing collapses. The estimates are that if the Greenland cover melts, and most of the Antarctic cover melts, a rise could be 300 feet, more or less.
There's nothing for you to debate, you're not an expert on this, nor am I. I'm just reporting what the current thinking is from what I've read in my journals.
Coal is a big part of the problem because it is a poor source of energy. It can be made better, but that requires energy, so nothing is really gained.
Not sure what your definition of poor is. Coal is not a poor source of energy, its actually quite good and since the US has one of ( if not the largest I can't remember) proven reserves of coal it requires attention as to how to utilize it, as does any energy source.
In the end, as I tried to intimate in the original post, the major energy source for the bulk of power requirements that is being ignored is nuclear. France is already 100%+ nuclear in their electricity generation. The are a net exporter of electricity from nuclear. Japan is close. The U.S. has very large proven reserves of uranium. New reactor designs, as proven by others, are very safe and effective. There is a waste issue, as there is with any technology as shown by recent articles on the toxic waste being generated by the production of solar panels, but it can also be dealt with and is less of a heath/environment risk than fossil fuels. As you put forth above on another matter, this is only a political problem - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, but it nuclear the most effective way to lower carbon emissions. It is the source that could, in principle, support an electical/hydrogen economy (remember hydrogen is only a distribution medium, like electricity, not an energy source) and the technology is already here and now.
Huh? why would you use fossil fuel to do this? Of course for the first batch in principal but not after that. Intelligent design of the system would make it self sustaining.
But, it;'s not. There is no plan to have it work that way. Ethanol is intended for use in vehicles, not power plants of any type.
9quote0
And I have a Ph.D. in physics. Balancing the equation is how you take into account conservation of matter when trying to document a chemical reaction, conservation is the underlying physical principal. But so what - my point is only that everyone needs to read these pronouncements critically and question inconsistencies.[/quote]
Well, you beat me there,. I only have four years. I understand your point, but haven't seen the expression.
9quote]
I'm talking about oxygen. C6H12O6 + 6 O2 -> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O Oxygen is required to oxidize carbohydrates like glucose. Anaerobic bacteria get the O2 from sources other than air but are less efficient (slower) in oxidation. A number of bacteria are both aerobic and anaerobic switching between energy extraction method depending on the environment in which they find themselves. They are generally significantly more efficient when O2 is available.[/quote]
I'm not arguing that. But, you seem to be considering only air to plany matter interactions. There is plenty of oxygen several meters down, where there is soil, rather than compacted clay.
These bacteria are more or less efficient in their own use of food, but that doesn't change the equation for the actual breakkdown of plant (or animal) matter. In the end, all of the C)2 will be returned, in one way or the other.
9quote]
Don't forget the sulphur based eco-systems that don't need O2 but have adapted to geo-thermal energy sources. I do know about these processes but again time and rate are the KEY issues, not completeness. [/quote]
Yes, there are those as well. What we are arguing here is really not much different, just a bit of time difference, from what I see. If plant matter breaks down in 6 months, or two years, it doesn't affect what we are BOTH saying.
If I'm creating CO2 at 10 tons/minute and only binding it at 5 tons/minute the CO2 goes up 5 tons/minute. If the other way around, CO2 goes down 5 tons/minute. The size of the reservoirs at the two ends of these processes is irrelevant to discussions about CO2 gas. Its a dynamic system not a static system. You even state this below (see bold).
I'm not sure I understand that statement about the reservoirs. Of course they matter. The end state is dependent on the size of the "container". That container is the ocean, for the great bulk. That's why the concern is about the problem of getting the CO2 into the ocean. If we can do that in a way that precludes its returning any time soon, we will have helped to reduce the problem. There are projects to test this theory, though one of them, has been halted, at least for the time being.
I'm not talking about mitigating the CO2 but the possible consequences - higher temperatures, sea levels, etc. Temperatures have been rising, whatever the cause, it is likely to have some of these consequences, whatever the cause and no matter what is done a this point in time, the latter according to those sounding the alarm. Despite the seeming inevitability of these consequences there is no, or little, ongoing discussion of mitigation.
The scientific community has agreed that the best way to slow the increase in temperature is to lower the CO2 emissions. It's the most understood part of the solution. We know how to do that. The question is of will.
Not sure what your definition of poor is. Coal is not a poor source of energy, its actually quite good and since the US has one of ( if not the largest I can't remember) proven reserves of coal it requires attention as to how to utilize it, as does any energy source.
When I say "poor" I mean that the impurities in coal tends to be much greater than that of most oil, and of course, gas. That leads to much pollution, including that of CO2. It also results in more soot being released, which causes other atmospheric problems.
Unfortunately, it;s difficult to remove these problem causing impurities from coal (read expensive). Coal producers, and the plant operators using it have been very resistive to improving this.
In the end, as I tried to intimate in the original post, the major energy source for the bulk of power requirements that is being ignored is nuclear. France is already 100%+ nuclear in their electricity generation. The are a net exporter of electricity from nuclear. Japan is close. The U.S. has very large proven reserves of uranium. New reactor designs, as proven by others, are very safe and effective. There is a waste issue, as there is with any technology as shown by recent articles on the toxic waste being generated by the production of solar panels, but it can also be dealt with and is less of a heath/environment risk than fossil fuels. As you put forth above on another matter, this is only a political problem - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, but it nuclear the most effective way to lower carbon emissions. It is the source that could, in principle, support an electical/hydrogen economy (remember hydrogen is only a distribution medium, like electricity, not an energy source) and the technology is already here and now.
I have always been pro nuclear. I consider it to be the cleanest major power provider. What most people don't know is that it releases far less radioactive waste into the atmosphere than either coal, or oil. Despite some poor maintenance, it has had a very good record in the US, except for 3 Mile Island, though, even there, the release of nuclear isotopes were very small. Very.
Chernobyl, well, the Soviets were ever stupid about those things.
The newer generations of power plants are much safer, and even produce less waste. If the government could get off its ass, and do what is required about storage we could get on with it.
Whether fusion will ever come to our rescue is still an open book. We should be spending far more on research.
I've been lukewarm about the idea of a hydrogen economy, because, as you say, it's merely a way to move energy around. It's just a big hydrogen battery. Without non-polluting energy sources, it;'s a crock.
Actually, I think we agree about all this, except for some semantical points, and a bit of definitional confusion.