Lets fix global warming.

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
PyroMyrmidon
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:31 am UTC

Postby PyroMyrmidon » Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:04 am UTC

My solution is to stop complaining, stop listening to Al Gore, and decide that the slow improvements in technologies will solve our problems without needing to give the government more control over our lives.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:08 am UTC

...Except that doesn't solve anything. You're not actively doing anything to stop it, you're just waiting for someone else to, which fails in a quite epic manner on a global scale.

User avatar
e946
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:32 am UTC

Postby e946 » Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:44 am UTC

PyroMyrmidon wrote:My solution is to stop complaining, stop listening to Al Gore, and decide that the slow improvements in technologies will solve our problems without needing to give the government more control over our lives.


How would the government be controlling more of our lives anyways?

User avatar
japanese_jew
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:24 am UTC

Postby japanese_jew » Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:43 am UTC

Duh, if we're forced to dump a ton less of CO2 into the air, all of our civil liberties will be gone! It's fine if the NSA is wiretapping us though, just worry about being able to make more profits!

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:44 pm UTC

PyroMyrmidon wrote:My solution is to stop complaining, stop listening to Al Gore, and decide that the slow improvements in technologies will solve our problems without needing to give the government more control over our lives.


Except you know people are already dying, and it's only going to get much much worse.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Postby oxoiron » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:58 pm UTC

Solt wrote:
zenten wrote:How do you get the power to the mainland, without losing a good chunk of it?


Like Yakk said, you turn it into CH4 (natural gas) and ship it in a pipe along the ocean floor. The process ought to be easy enough to replicate, since bacteria do it all the time.


I really, really, really hope that comment about it being easy to replicate bacterial chemistry is a joke...

(Edit: Apologies to RG who already pointed out that easily replicating biological systems is bullshit.)
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

Ghona
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:28 am UTC

Postby Ghona » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:52 am UTC

zenten wrote:
PyroMyrmidon wrote:My solution is to stop complaining, stop listening to Al Gore, and decide that the slow improvements in technologies will solve our problems without needing to give the government more control over our lives.


Except you know people are already dying, and it's only going to get much much worse.


Millions and Millions Dead
If you're taking me too seriously, you probably are making a mistake.

User avatar
Rasputin
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:07 pm UTC
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Rasputin » Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:18 am UTC

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/fina ... db11f4&p=4

Global COOLING bitches! zomg sunspots!

I don't believe most of the stuff they're saying about global warming, and neither do most of the respectable atmospheric science teachers on my campus (and we've got some of the best).
The Immortal One.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:03 pm UTC

Rasputin wrote:http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Global COOLING bitches! zomg sunspots!

I don't believe most of the stuff they're saying about global warming, and neither do most of the respectable atmospheric science teachers on my campus (and we've got some of the best).


Solar forcing of the climate, while obviously relevant, is generally agreed to contribute quite a bit less than current levels of human forcing.

RealClimate.org's articles on solar forcing.
What NewScientist has to say about the same issue.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Solt » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:37 pm UTC

Ok, sorry for the necro-thread but we've finally learned about Rankine cycles in Thermodynamics and I remembered this post, and I've realized that Sartorius' response is misleading. I'm sure you don't care but I've learned something new so please indulge me:

Sartorius wrote:
e946 wrote:
Solt wrote:The core has no fresh source of heat, so everything we extract will leave a permanent mark and shorten the useful lifespan of our only paradise, Earth.


You have a point about heat pollution though.




Umm...not necessarily. For one, geothermal energy relies on supercritical fluids (usually water, and I'm assuming I don't need to explain supercritical fluids) under the earth's crust. This is pumped out, where it flashes and turns into steam as the pressure is released. The steam turns turbines to create electricity. The steam is then condensed and piped back underground to prevent subsidence and also renew the form of energy. As long as the water is pumped back into its original reservoir, you prevent heat pollution. However, there are areas where pumping the water back underground isn't possible (a geothermal power plant in India comes to mind), and then, yes, heat pollution is a problem.



Additionally, things like geothermal heat pumps only rely on the fact that the ground stays a more constant temperature than the air.


Most of what Sartorius said is not accurate.

First off, no heat pollution violently violates the second law of thermodynamics in this case. What you are essentially saying is that a geothermal power plant would operate on a single thermal reservoir at a single temperature. The Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law is: no system can produce a net amount of work while operating in a cycle and exchanging heat with a single thermal energy reservoir. I could also give you the Clausius inequality that follows and explain the math behind this, but I think the statement gets the point across.


To understand why this is, look at the ideal Rankine cycle. First, start at the turbine. But first you must know something: turbines are not driven by temperature differences, they are driven by pressure differences. Superheated steam enters the turbine at high temperature and pressure, say, 500 kPa (5 times atmospheric) and some inconsequential temperature close to the underground temperature of the geothermal source. After driving the turbine and generating electricty, low energy steam exits the turbine at, say, 10 kPa and some significantly lower temperature close to the saturation point of steam at that pressure (around 50 degrees Celcius). Now, the steam is exhausted so we need to put energy back in. So we pump it underground as Sartorius suggests. Now, heat addition in the Rankine cycle is a constant-pressure process. That means, what ever pressure we send the steam underground at, it will come out at that same pressure (albeit at the much higher temperature of the underground reservoir). Remember the operating conditions of the turbine? Steam has to come in at 500 kPa for it to work, but if we do what Sartorius says, we will be feeding the turbine steam at 10 kPa, and it won't work at all. So, we need to increase the pressure of the steam before sending it underground. But if we take steam at 10 kPa and compress it to 500 kPa, guess what? We'll use up all the energy we just got out of the turbine, because we'll essentially be feeding it backwards! Because of irreversibilities, this method would actually be a net consumer of energy. SO, we have to turn the steam into rather cool water (condense it), and compress the liquid water to 500 kPa to send underground (requires much less energy), then flash-vaporize the water when it comes back up hot.

Condensing the water must be done in the atmosphere. You can't do it underground because that would also require a lot of energy (think: refrigerator). So, you essentially let the low pressure steam "cool" in the cold outside air, and it will turn into water, which you then feed into a pump which will continue the cycle.

What does this imply? Massive heat rejection to the atmosphere in the condenser. And heat pollution. Especially so since geothermal heat sources are not nearly as hot as, say, burning coal or gasoline. That means the carnot efficiency (1-Temp(low)/Temp(high)), the maximum possible efficiency, is already lower for geothermal than for fossil fuels, and so more heat rejection must take place to get the same amount of energy. Stated another way, the exergy or energy density of geothermal sources is much lower than the exergy of fossil fuels, meaning more total energy much be extracted from the geothermal source to get the same amount of power, meaning more waste heat.

Even if we account for the open-cycle nature of some geothermal sources (meaning, in some places there is already hot water at high pressure deep underground), we still have to pump liquid water back underground, not steam. What happens when you try to force low pressure steam into high pressure water? Nothing. And you keep pumping and keep pumping until it starts moving, which won't happen until the steam pressure has reached or exceeded the reservoir pressure, by which time you will have wasted all the electricity you generated by decreasing the steam pressure by the same amount. Technically you could just vent the steam to atmosphere instead of reinjecting it. While it would save you energy, it would fly against the very definition of clean and renewable energy.

You have even less choice for the so-called Enhanced Geothermal Systems, which use hot, dry rock (no pre-existing hot, high pressure underground water reservoir) and would consist the majority of Geothermal systems in the world if implemented on a mass scale. Again, the water comes up at the pressure you send it down so you have to cool it, rejecting the steam heat into the atmosphere, and pump high-pressure liquid water down.

Please note: when I say "waste heat" or "heat pollution", I am not referring to greenhouse gases, which geothermal produces almost none of. I am referring to letting actual heat into the atmosphere which, if done on a large enough scale, would increase the temperature of the atmosphere, thus "polluting" it with heat.


So basically, geothermal pollutes in the form of waste heat. Solar is clearly the best choice available to humanity for long term, minimally-polluting renewable energy.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,
produced a more reliable product. But sailors do
not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a
most annoying habit of splitting in two."
-J.W. Morris

User avatar
Sartorius
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Oh? Hi! Oh.

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Sartorius » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:34 am UTC

Oh, I see your point now about heat pollution, I think.

Basically what you're saying (I have to dumb it down for myself, I'm sorry) is that since the steam has to be condensed into water to be pumped back underground, the process that does this in the condenser releases a lot of heat, which is released into the atmosphere in the form of water vapor like with nuclear power plants, and thus you have heat pollution. That is a very good consideration that I hadn't thought about.

Personally I think dependence on one source of energy is the downfall to energy plans in general and I never considered the implementation of geothermal energy on a mass scale.

I think you've just swung me over to the solar energy side.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." -Terry Pratchett

TemperedMartensite
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 am UTC

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby TemperedMartensite » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:29 am UTC

Solar is all nice and fine but we have to make the solar panels. Those are expensive and impractical in many parts of the world, especially where I live. If someone in northern Canada tried to power a home on solar energy alone, they would soon be S.O.O.L.

Seeing as the steam in your rankine cycle is already at a nice temperature and pressure, you could simply implement a regenerative/reheat rankine cycle based off of solar or whatever.

Personally I'll stick to my fossil fuels. After all, once fire-flooding becomes a practical method of extracting bitumen, we will have a really nice way (read: profitable and friendly) to extract the really nasty heavy stuff rather than using SAGD.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3727
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:46 am UTC

Who says the globe is warming? Where does the average global temperature come from? How is it calculated? What data sets are used? Where do those Data sets come from? and almost as important, who pays for it.

A common rebuttal to claims of global warming is that it helps keeping scientists employed. The Rebuttal to that is that scientists don't see a dime of their grant money, nobody has told me that if scientists aren't paid through grants then where does the money that puts food on their table come from and can it be in any way linked perhaps to the marketability of their research? I thought so.

Not to doubt global warming (not too much at least, okay, probably too much) but everyone is giving out the same answers and none of them are telling us what questions were asked to get those answers. Carbon dioxide is a Green House Gas? Why? What makes it a greenhouse gas? How do we know that? (Okay, I know it's because it absorbs light frequencies that are analogous to sunlight, but I don't imagine you could find that information on realclimate.org)

At this point, everybody agrees the global temperature is on the increase (nevermind nobody told me where these temperature sets are coming from), when was the last time everybody agreed that the Earth was in imminent danger? In the seventies we knew for certain that the next ice age was only a few decades away, never mind we were apparently in the middle of a massive rise in global temperature. At the turn of the century, human breeding patterns were leading to a genetic collapse of the species.
The Earth has been in immediate danger from honey bee die offs, africanized killer bees, comets, asteroids, meteors, super-volcanoes, super colliders, super novas, hyper novas, solar eclipses, blackholes lurking just outside the orbit of pluto, quarks, strangelets, radioactive decay, peak oil, nuclear war, nuclear winter, nuclear aliens from the gamma quadrant, those damn kids and there music, more asteroids, bigger asteroids, more bigger asteroids, republicans, democrats, liberal rebulicans, radical republicans, tories, whigs, labour partyists, the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, communists, capitalists, free markets, closed markets, collapsing markets, world wars 1 through three, sin, the anti-christ, the christ, galactus devourer of worlds, the coming of the great white hanky, racism, jews, asians, americans, canadians, greeks bearing gifts, russians, the french, the english, the celts, the romans, the germans, germanic tribes, mongols, the earth is too hot, the earth is too cold, the earth is changing temperatures too quickly and is going to crack from the thermal shock, somebody has invented an earthquake machine and tuned it the fundamental frequency of the planet, those damn hippies, those damn yuppies, big oil, big auto, big business, big government, small government, tax returns, too many taxes, fluoridation, deforestation, reforestation, human intervention in the environment, humans not interacting with the environment, space programs, microwave antennas, television, radio, the list of things that could destroy the earth is so long that were it compiled in physical medium it would undergo gravitic collapse into a black hole, The list of things that could destroy the earth is not long enough and something not on it is going to get us, The Aztec calendar ends in 2012 and its taking the rest of the world with it, the computers are going down on new years, 2000 and taking everything else with them, The world actualy ended in the sixties but everyone was too high to notice, the world actually ended in the nineties but everyone was too busy to notice, the world actually ended January first 2000 but everyone was too drunk to notice, the world ends every moment and is reborn, everytime you masturbate god kills a world, The vogons are coming to demolish earth and make way for a hyperspatial bypass etc, etc. the list goes on and on my friends (it is the list that never ends).

When some one can explain to me why global warming has more merit than eugenics did, then maybe I'll start taking it seriously.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

TemperedMartensite
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 am UTC

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby TemperedMartensite » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:43 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:At this point, everybody agrees the global temperature is on the increase (nevermind nobody told me where these temperature sets are coming from), when was the last time everybody agreed that the Earth was in imminent danger?

When some one can explain to me why global warming has more merit than eugenics did, then maybe I'll start taking it seriously.


re: Quote 1: Precisely. In fact, it is predicted to be the longest and coldest winter in decades where I live in Canada. I mean, I'll take some global warming right now. -20 is getting old and I imagine I'll be sick of -30 in January as well. ;)

re: Quote 2: Also overpopulation. That was another good doomsday scenario.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Hawknc » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:14 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Who says the globe is warming? Where does the average global temperature come from? How is it calculated? What data sets are used? Where do those Data sets come from? and almost as important, who pays for it.

All that information and more is available in the myriad of scientific papers that have been written on the issue. To start, you can look at NASA's records and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Be warned, though: if you really want to get into the details of how global temperatures are calculated from the measurements taken, the mathematics can get a little hairy.

EdgarJPublius wrote:Not to doubt global warming (not too much at least, okay, probably too much) but everyone is giving out the same answers and none of them are telling us what questions were asked to get those answers. Carbon dioxide is a Green House Gas? Why? What makes it a greenhouse gas? How do we know that? (Okay, I know it's because it absorbs light frequencies that are analogous to sunlight, but I don't imagine you could find that information on realclimate.org)

No, but you could determine that experimentally for yourself, given the right equipment. Other scientists have done the same. That's the beauty of science - if you have a hypothesis that contradicts the standing theory, put it to the test and see if it disproves it. You don't even need a science degree to do that.

EdgarJPublius wrote:At this point, everybody agrees the global temperature is on the increase (nevermind nobody told me where these temperature sets are coming from), when was the last time everybody agreed that the Earth was in imminent danger? In the seventies we knew for certain that the next ice age was only a few decades away, never mind we were apparently in the middle of a massive rise in global temperature. At the turn of the century, human breeding patterns were leading to a genetic collapse of the species.

People panic about things, a fact which isn't helped by the media. Many of the potential hazards of AGW have been exaggerated, but the fundamental theory behind it stands up to the scientific method, and the models based on that theory show some potentially troublesome hazards occurring if current trends continue. Ignore the FUD, listen to the science.

EdgarJPublius wrote:When some one can explain to me why global warming has more merit than eugenics did, then maybe I'll start taking it seriously.

I'll admit, I don't know much about eugenics. But as I said, all it takes is for someone to fulfill the falsifiability criteria of a theory to dismantle it, and there are many many scientists hard at work on doing exactly that. As it stands, the fundamental theory - that emissions, primarily of CO2, from human activities have accelerated global temperature rises - hasn't yet been disproven.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re:

Postby Minerva » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:09 pm UTC

Solt wrote:The core has no fresh source of heat, so everything we extract will leave a permanent mark and shorten the useful lifespan of our only paradise, Earth.


Yes it does - it's radioactive decay. That's where the geothermal heat comes from. If there was no energy source, it would have cooled off long ago.

e946 wrote:That's like saying using the slingshot method to send our probes into the outer solar system is bad because "it leaves a permanent mark" in the form of shortening the orbital period of Jupiter.

Trust me, Earth has enough heat to go around.

You have a point about heat pollution though.


The hydrogen in the sun is finite.

The radiothermal heat in the earth is finite.

The free energy of the universe is finite.

There's no such thing as "renewable energy". That's the second law of thermodynamics.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Indon » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:At this point, everybody agrees the global temperature is on the increase (nevermind nobody told me where these temperature sets are coming from), when was the last time everybody agreed that the Earth was in imminent danger?


The Earth isn't in imminent danger.

In fact, living as I am well above sea level, I am in no danger at all. As the ice shelves and glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland continue to break off and melt into the ocean, the flooding of urban coastal areas will be of no concern to me.

Living, as I am, miles from the ocean, I would not need to house any displaced refugees; certainly they wouldn't come as far as my state of the US!

Since the relief for the flooding would be handled by private organizations, I certainly wouldn't be fitting the bill for reconstruction and relocation efforts in my nation as millions lose their homes as the ocean itself goes up a few feet, or as expensive, multi-hundred-mile dikes must be constructed to maintain our nations' borders.

I don't even go to the beach, so what do I care if it's inundated?

And I live in a desert; I get nothing but benefit from the increase in global precipitation brought about by the drop in salinization and increase in temperature of our oceans!

Sure, all this stuff might be "disruptive to trade" and may contain other economic buzzwords like "global depression", but I'm sure all of that's just hot air the media would use to scare me. I'm pretty sure there's no major industry or commerce going on in any place near or below sea level in my nation, and who cares about other nations?

Oh, another benefit: More climate condusive for rainforests! Rainforests are important, right?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Triss Hawkeye
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:10 pm UTC

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Triss Hawkeye » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:51 pm UTC

Hi, I'm new, be nice to me. :)

Me and my friend were discussing global warming today (not incredibly seriously, as you will see) and wondered: firstly, what would be the effect on the world's albedo if all tarmac was painted white, and whether the cost of paint production would ever be outweighed by any benefits this may produce. (I actaully thought later that this probably wouldn't be good for drivers. xD)

Also considered what would happen if we haved large deserted areas (oceans, deserts etc) covered with white 'roofs' that could switch between black and white (similar to an idea mentioned earlier, I think) - how big an area would need to be covered, and what effect, if any, would it have? If put on the Equator, like in the Sahara or something, it would have a much greater effect than the ice at the Poles anyway, since the intensity of light at the Equator is much much greater.

User avatar
goedjn4
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby goedjn4 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:34 pm UTC

I like:
Giant orbital solar power satellites.
Beaming power on a carefully chosen frequency
to selected high-altitude receiving stations.

Shading the planet.
Creating Ozone.

Just.... don't miss.

--Goedjn

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Re:

Postby JayDee » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:36 am UTC

Minerva wrote:The hydrogen in the sun is finite.

The radiothermal heat in the earth is finite.

The free energy of the universe is finite.

There's no such thing as "renewable energy". That's the second law of thermodynamics.

I've enjoyed arguing with various people over the years about "renewable energy", but I never thought of that. I like. In fact, I've been looking for something to throw in my sig...
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Solt » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:12 am UTC

Awesome.

Notice: The title of this thread is not "Let's debate whether global warming exists," it's "Let's fix global warming."

Even if the globe isn't actually warming, someone needs to address particulate pollution, failing ability of world oil resources to keep up with energy demands (running out of oil), and other, proven problems with the current energy situation.

This thread is for solution ideas, not to debate the problem.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,

produced a more reliable product. But sailors do

not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a

most annoying habit of splitting in two."

-J.W. Morris

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Indon » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:56 pm UTC

Well, my idea was to use existing expended nuclear waste in low-efficiency, low-maintenance plants for additional power, which I feel may be a better solution than just burying it.

I'll know if it's possible when my post in the Nuclear Q&A thread gets answered.
>.>
<.<
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Minerva » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:13 pm UTC

Indon wrote:Well, my idea was to use existing expended nuclear waste in low-efficiency, low-maintenance plants for additional power, which I feel may be a better solution than just burying it.

I'll know if it's possible when my post in the Nuclear Q&A thread gets answered.
>.>
<.<


Well, you can take used fuel straight out of a LWR, and stick it in a CANDU PHWR, and keep burning it... no reprocessing needed!
(You have to cut the fuel rods and rebuild the fuel assemblies to fit, which has to be done in hot cell conditions, though.

96% of the fuel that comes out of a LWR, the so-called "spent" fuel, is uranium, completely unchanged from when it went in the reactor. A further 1% is plutonium, and a tiny bit more is other actinides - Np, Cm and Am, mainly. All this is usable as nuclear fuel for generation of additional power.

But you still get some radioactive waste - the 2-3% or so of fission products that you can't use.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Indon » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:20 pm UTC

Minerva wrote:But you still get some radioactive waste - the 2-3% or so of fission products that you can't use.


That's actually what I was thinking of; specifically, using the heat generated by the waste in order to produce power. Granted, it wouldn't produce _much_ power, it may be prohibitively expensive given that, and there may be additional safety concerns aside from the containment that I'm unaware of.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby JayDee » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:33 pm UTC

Minerva wrote:Well, you can take used fuel straight out of a LWR, and stick it in a CANDU PHWR, and keep burning it... no reprocessing needed!
(You have to cut the fuel rods and rebuild the fuel assemblies to fit, which has to be done in hot cell conditions, though.

96% of the fuel that comes out of a LWR, the so-called "spent" fuel, is uranium, completely unchanged from when it went in the reactor. A further 1% is plutonium, and a tiny bit more is other actinides - Np, Cm and Am, mainly. All this is usable as nuclear fuel for generation of additional power.

But you still get some radioactive waste - the 2-3% or so of fission products that you can't use.

So if there is any such thing as renewable energy, Nuclear is it?

Renewable and recyclable are pretty much the same thing, right?
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:42 am UTC

JayDee wrote:So if there is any such thing as renewable energy, Nuclear is it?

Renewable and recyclable are pretty much the same thing, right?

Nuclear is not renewable because once you've used up the fuel as much as you can, there's no way you can get it back without exploding a large star.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby zenten » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:44 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
JayDee wrote:So if there is any such thing as renewable energy, Nuclear is it?

Renewable and recyclable are pretty much the same thing, right?

Nuclear is not renewable because once you've used up the fuel as much as you can, there's no way you can get it back without exploding a large star.


But as was pointed out earlier, there's no such thing as renewable.

Now, when it comes to solar for instance, the sun is emitting light no matter what we do. Building a Dyson sphere won't make it stop burning any faster, let alone covering the Earth in solar panels.

But anyway, the real concern is when will the power source run out. If it runs out in 50 years, and is new technology, it probably isn't worth it. If it's current technology that will run out in 50 years, we should probably be looking into other sources.

Fission on the other hand can last a lot more than that, so while keeping other ideas in mind is a good idea, to be nice to our descendants, it's not going to affect anyone alive today, or even anyone alive today's great grand children. So for most purposes it's "renewable", or at least will last so long it might as well be.

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Solt » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:50 am UTC

zenten wrote:Fission on the other hand can last a lot more than that, so while keeping other ideas in mind is a good idea, to be nice to our descendants, it's not going to affect anyone alive today, or even anyone alive today's great grand children. So for most purposes it's "renewable", or at least will last so long it might as well be.


Where will you get the hydrogen?

You can bet anything you like that whatever fusion technology we first implement, it will NOT be fuel efficient (relatively, not absolutely). And there are few pure hydrogen sources on earth.

I'm all for fusion but I'm really wondering, where do we get the hydrogen?



Edit: err, I knew that. I meant fusion, not fission >.<
Last edited by Solt on Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,

produced a more reliable product. But sailors do

not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a

most annoying habit of splitting in two."

-J.W. Morris

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Hawknc » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am UTC

Fission, not fusion. Fission requires uranium, fusion requires hydrogen.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Azrael001 » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:51 am UTC

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't one major volcanic eruption spit out more gases (greenhouse or otherwise) than all of humanity does in a year? (I know that the amount is ridiculously high). 20 years ago people were all terrified of global cooling (which, judging from an article from above could still be a problem).

I think that people are jumping the gun a little on the whole global warming thing. Though people who are scared will spend money on anything if you tell them it will help...
23111

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Minerva » Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:40 pm UTC

Solt wrote:
zenten wrote:Fission on the other hand can last a lot more than that, so while keeping other ideas in mind is a good idea, to be nice to our descendants, it's not going to affect anyone alive today, or even anyone alive today's great grand children. So for most purposes it's "renewable", or at least will last so long it might as well be.


Where will you get the hydrogen?

You can bet anything you like that whatever fission technology we first implement, it will NOT be fuel efficient (relatively, not absolutely). And there are few pure hydrogen sources on earth.

I'm all for fission but I'm really wondering, where do we get the hydrogen?


Deuterium is extracted from natural water, eg. seawater.

Tritium is produced in situ via neutron irradiation of lithium.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

Fons
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Heemskerk, Noord-Holland, Netherlands, Europa, Earth

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Fons » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:11 pm UTC

First of all the discussion whether global warming is happening or not is not relevent. Fact is were using our 'savings' until they are depleted. After that we imagine we are smart enough to think up something to use something different than our 'savings'. With our 'saving' I mean our Oil, Gas and other natural reserves. The club of Rome (while they were wrong) already stated this in the '70 of the last century but we haven't changed anything.
As a child I learned that you cannot live only at your savings. One day those will be empty, and when they are empty you have a serious problem. So we need to think up, now, while our savings still are able to help us to come up with a plan.

So we have to stop using Oil, Gas and minimize our waste concerning Iron, Gold, Silver, Copper, or whatever. Oil and Gas because they will be empty in 100 years and Coal because it is just the wrong way off doing things. Coal will not run out so quick, but we will run out of it anyway. If you want to stop using Coal quickly you will have to believe in Global Warning, because they savings of Coal are very large. But, as I explained, living from your savings account is not very intelligent.

So how do we do that?
First we have to acnowledge that using less and less of these recourses per head of the population is not a very good way of doing things. With a rise of world population from 6 to 9 billion people there is almost no good way of using less for the US, Canada and other Western Countries who will carry the burden of using less resources, emiting less CO2 or whatever. If we don't do this with the entire world we can only hope to emitting they same CO2 levels we do today. (that means that we use a lot less and china and india use a lot more, so the levels of CO2 emited will be the same). This cannot be explained to us. We still have global warning. And China and India will have the power to outmanouvre us at every flank, so our GDP will go down. Inexplainable for the everyone of us. We want more. Period. That is how our markets work, that is how we live. We only want that if we want more that we don't feel guilty about destroying anyting.

Why is destroying the world i.e. global warming and driving a car, writing to this forum, watching tv is linked togheter? Did we ask someone for that? No. The design of a car is wrong. A hybrid car is less wrong, but still wrong.
We don't want to be less wrong, we want to be good. We don't want to improve a F to a E, or a 3 to a 5, it is still not enough. We don't want to feel guilty. And why should we?

We want to be good. Isn't that nice for a change? Being good?
How about throwing your can of beer in nature? Nowadays it is polution, but that is just a wrong design of a beercan. It should be biodegradable i.e. food for the Tree, grass or bush we aimed for while throwing our beer can.

So. We are living from our Savings. They used to be infinite but that has changed. Our savings have changed the world, the extra CO2 is being annoing and if you see the waste we produce we will have to see the following:

Our time on this planet with our current systems is finite. Space Exploration has shown us that we are not ment to travel in space, so we will have to embrace this tiny little planet and start doing things in such a way that we, humans can live on the Earth for a infinite time.

While Global Warming is in this aspect only a part of the bigger picture it can be 'fixed' doing things different. But it will be very complex. It will be far from easy. We want to protect our economy. We cannot let everything crash because of just stop with using Oil. We cannot wage war on those who disagree, and continue to use Oil, Gas and other natural resources irresponsibly (as we are doing now, just take a look on the landfills how much of useful resources whe throw away)

Using windmills might be a good idea. But, as those crazy dutch recognize, windmills will not generate enough power anyway. Same way with solar power. Water power exactly the same. Nuclear Energy is the only way to generate enough power while being Green, i.e. not producing any CO2.
Nuclear Energy is very very stupid if you see the toxic waste, and while newer generations of plants use those waste and are very save (not 100% though) they might be the answer to Global Warming. But only to the answer of Global Warming. We should realize that very clearly.

I'm using theories from the book called Cradle to Crade which uses the concept of Waste equals Food. A three does not produce waste, its leaves are perfectly biodegradable and its rich blossom as well. I can go for hours on Cradle to Cradle, but if you care about Nature and want to see a very positive and very very economicly friendly (c2c makes you make more money=profit) it is something you should read. I'm sorry that I make you feel guilty.

But you can make it up to the world. And don't use less. We know that we doing things wrong. Being 'less' wrong can be very dangerous. Be wrong and know it. Then act; read that book and don't get discouraged by profets like Al-Gore. Prove him wrong. We cán fix global warming. We 'just' have to do everything different. And that will be difficult, but not impossible. And is what we have to believe. It is possible!

Let's discuss

Link to Cradle to Cradle: http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
Be Cradle to Cradle:http://www.mbdc.com/certified.html
Buy C2C: http://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/0865475873
wiki c2c: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle:_Remaking_the_Way_We_Make_Things
youtube c2c: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Hawknc » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:35 pm UTC

I can't believe I read through almost all of that before I realised you were advertising a damn book. Read the freaking rules before you post next time.

Fons
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Heemskerk, Noord-Holland, Netherlands, Europa, Earth

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Fons » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:43 pm UTC

I'm sorry. But is the right way to enter the discussion in a positive way.
The authors of the book have a very quick and good way of explaining that positive theory which is a lot better than the negative way people used this discussion here.
So I don't really want to advertise, but I might point you at the fact that my homecountry, the Netherlands, after seeing the documentary which discussed that theory, just began to organise congresses and meetings to encourage the knowledge of this 'new way'.

And, that theory is not something that should be hided or is so profoundly new that it is protected, everybody should know (and know its problems) so each can make there own choice.

So, it has little to do with advertise. I'm sorry.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:58 pm UTC

Maybe the solution is to (look at my photo)
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Azrael001 » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:54 pm UTC

Sounds good to me. Where can I sign up?
23111

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Indon » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:32 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't one major volcanic eruption spit out more gases (greenhouse or otherwise) than all of humanity does in a year? (I know that the amount is ridiculously high). 20 years ago people were all terrified of global cooling (which, judging from an article from above could still be a problem).

I think that people are jumping the gun a little on the whole global warming thing. Though people who are scared will spend money on anything if you tell them it will help...


Yeah, nature does indeed produce a lot of greenhouse gases, which proves that nature can handle at least some of it.

The thing is, Humans are putting more greenhouse gases into the air, and we don't have any way to keep the volcanoes from exploding, so now all of a sudden there's a net gain, which breaks the atmosphere's gas balance.

As for jumping the gun, well, we know, for an absolute fact:

-Very, very old glaciers and ice caps are, right now, breaking apart and melting into the ocean.

-Humanity is producing significant amounts of gases which we absolutely know make the earth warmer.

-Humanity is also destroying a lot of life, which we know reduce our planet's ability to control gases that make the earth warmer (the ones we're producing, in fact!).

Is it "jumping the gun" to say that the earth is getting warmer, and that humanity has a part in it? I dunno. You tell me.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby Minerva » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:52 pm UTC

Nuclear is not renewable because once you've used up the fuel as much as you can, there's no way you can get it back without exploding a large star.


Once you've increased the entropy of the universe - through whatever means - there's no way you can get it back. Period.

Nuclear fission - and especially nuclear fusion - are energy systems that are just as sustainable, over the foreseeable future that we will be on this planet for, as any other energy system is sustainable for our use.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

zealo
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am UTC
Location: perth, australia
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby zealo » Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:12 pm UTC

here in australia, the things that 90% of people agree on is
stop global warming
petrol costs should be lower
power costs should be lower
nuclear technology is bad

i feel i am the only one who sees any contradictions there :(
ave_matthew wrote:in a perfect system a gallon of body fat is worth one third of the US GDP

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Lets fix global warming.

Postby JayDee » Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:09 pm UTC

You most certainly are not. But "Nuclear Power is evil bad" is one of the environmentalist dogmas I was taught in school. I figure that's true for most people my age or younger.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests