Nicely written and cited. We're fucked, basically. Some think that as a practical matter Earth has already passed the "tipping point". Overpopulation is the fundamental problem. Count on Mother Nature to reliably counter with a self-correcting action of some sort.
i don't think we are doomed
if we can get enough energy to the developing world it will raise their standard of living and population will level off and maybe even eventually decrease
you can google hans rosling he has done a lot of research on this
This discovery is really interesting and quite cool, but it alone isn't going to "save" us.
1. It wouldn't do anything to remove atmospheric heat and lower our too-high global temperature. Even if we suddenly stopped emitting CO2 entirely tomorrow, the global temperature is way too high. This SciAm piece pegs the tipping point of our hitting environmental ruin, assuming current emission levels, at 2036.
An analogy: a person buys a box of a new type of lower-calorie cookies but eats so many more cookies out of a false sense of diet security that he actually takes in more calories than he normally would have. India, for instance, may sharply increase its demand for energy as more Indians enter middle-class status and buy energy-intensive air conditioners and cars. New technologies like this may give people, even governments, a false sense of environmental security.
3. This accompanying PopSci interview of one of the scientists involved (Oak Ridge is funded and owned by the federal government, kurster, btw) talks about using this new process to convert extra renewable energy into ethanol for storage of energy in order to smooth out fluctuations in energy supply. It doesn't really talk about saving the planet or replacing fossil fuels for cars. Right now the process's energy efficiency is too low. This part of the interview points to possibly the main stumbling block:
Now let's talk about the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency is essentially the energy you store divided by the energy you put into the reaction. We haven't really investigated this, but we're ballparking it around 20 percent, which is low. This is why, in the paper, we actually said that the overpotential (which defines the energy efficiency) is probably too high for the catalyst as it currently stands to be used commercially.
Now, that's against, say, corn ethanol. For other applications it actually may be very competitive. However, that would be the sort of thing that we'd be looking at in the future. We've got a better handle on the mechanism and how it works, so now there are strategies that can be developed to hopefully raise that energy efficiency.
...
But if you were really interested in closing the carbon cycle, and when you think about cap and trade or a carbon tax, then it could become competitive.
4. This process doesn't do anything to address the rising levels of other greenhouse gases like methane (far more potent GhG than CO2, albeit shorter-lived in the atmosphere).
5. I have to ask: to put a real dent in the excess of CO2 now in our atmosphere, how much would we have to scale up this process? Neither the article nor the interview address this question.
i'm quite optimistic about our future and obviously i was being a bit sarcastic when i said "are we saved yet?"
i've posted quite a bit of info on green energy, especially nuclear/molten salt/lftr tech
it includes reducing carbon emissions to nil and actually removing co2 from the atmosphere to make green fuels like dimethyl ether, etc. (green diesel)
just take a peak over in the other threads and look for thorium and kirk sorensen or just go to gordon mcdowell's youtube site
you'll see interviews from oak ridge scientists speaking about the reactors, including how alvin weinberg had that project up and running and how the funding was pulled
Nicely written and cited. We're fucked, basically. Some think that as a practical matter Earth has already passed the "tipping point". Overpopulation is the fundamental problem. Count on Mother Nature to reliably counter with a self-correcting action of some sort.
This discovery is really interesting and quite cool, but it alone isn't going to "save" us.
1. It wouldn't do anything to remove atmospheric heat and lower our too-high global temperature. Even if we suddenly stopped emitting CO2 entirely tomorrow, the global temperature is way too high.This SciAm piecepegs the tipping point of our hitting environmental ruin, assuming current emission levels, at 2036.
An analogy: a person buys a box of a new type of lower-calorie cookies but eats so many more cookies out of a false sense of diet security that he actually takes in more calories than he normally would have. India, for instance, may sharply increase its demand for energy as more Indians enter middle-class status and buy energy-intensive air conditioners and cars. New technologies like this may give people, even governments, a false sense of environmental security.
3. This accompanying PopSci interview of one of the scientists involved (Oak Ridge is funded and owned by the federal government, kurster, btw) talks about using this new process to convert extra renewable energy into ethanol for storage of energy in order to smooth out fluctuations in energy supply. It doesn't really talk about saving the planet or replacing fossil fuels for cars. Right now the process's energy efficiency is too low. This part of the interview points to possibly the main stumbling block:
Now let's talk about the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency is essentially the energy you store divided by the energy you put into the reaction. We haven't really investigated this, but we're ballparking it around 20 percent, which is low. This is why, in the paper, we actually said that the overpotential (which defines the energy efficiency) is probably too high for the catalyst as it currently stands to be used commercially.
Now, that's against, say, corn ethanol. For other applications it actually may be very competitive. However, that would be the sort of thing that we'd be looking at in the future. We've got a better handle on the mechanism and how it works, so now there are strategies that can be developed to hopefully raise that energy efficiency.
...
But if you were really interested in closing the carbon cycle, and when you think about cap and trade or a carbon tax, then it could become competitive.
4. This process doesn't do anything to address the rising levels of other greenhouse gases like methane (far more potent GhG than CO2, albeit shorter-lived in the atmosphere).
5. I have to ask: to put a real dent in the excess of CO2 now in our atmosphere, how much would we have to scale up this process? Neither the article nor the interview address this question.
Nicely written and cited. We're fucked, basically. Some think that as a practical matter Earth has already passed the "tipping point". Overpopulation is the fundamental problem. Count on Mother Nature to reliably counter with a self-correcting action of some sort.
This discovery is really interesting and quite cool, but it alone isn't going to "save" us.
1. It wouldn't do anything to remove atmospheric heat and lower our too-high global temperature. Even if we suddenly stopped emitting CO2 entirely tomorrow, the global temperature is way too high. This SciAm piece pegs the tipping point of our hitting environmental ruin, assuming current emission levels, at 2036.
An analogy: a person buys a box of a new type of lower-calorie cookies but eats so many more cookies out of a false sense of diet security that he actually takes in more calories than he normally would have. India, for instance, may sharply increase its demand for energy as more Indians enter middle-class status and buy energy-intensive air conditioners and cars. New technologies like this may give people, even governments, a false sense of environmental security.
3. This accompanying PopSci interview of one of the scientists involved (Oak Ridge is funded and owned by the federal government, kurster, btw) talks about using this new process to convert extra renewable energy into ethanol for storage of energy in order to smooth out fluctuations in energy supply. It doesn't really talk about saving the planet or replacing fossil fuels for cars. Right now the process's energy efficiency is too low. This part of the interview points to possibly the main stumbling block:
Now let's talk about the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency is essentially the energy you store divided by the energy you put into the reaction. We haven't really investigated this, but we're ballparking it around 20 percent, which is low. This is why, in the paper, we actually said that the overpotential (which defines the energy efficiency) is probably too high for the catalyst as it currently stands to be used commercially.
Now, that's against, say, corn ethanol. For other applications it actually may be very competitive. However, that would be the sort of thing that we'd be looking at in the future. We've got a better handle on the mechanism and how it works, so now there are strategies that can be developed to hopefully raise that energy efficiency.
...
But if you were really interested in closing the carbon cycle, and when you think about cap and trade or a carbon tax, then it could become competitive.
4. This process doesn't do anything to address the rising levels of other greenhouse gases like methane (far more potent GhG than CO2, albeit shorter-lived in the atmosphere).
5. I have to ask: to put a real dent in the excess of CO2 now in our atmosphere, how much would we have to scale up this process? Neither the article nor the interview address this question.
The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journalChemistrySelect. here for a new in-depth interview about the findings with one of the lead researchers.>
The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.
The tech involves a new combination of copper and carbon arranged into nanospikes on a silicon surface. The nanotechnology allows the reactions to be very precise, with very few contaminants.
"By using common materials, but arranging them with nanotechnology, we figured out how to limit the side reactions and end up with the one thing that we want," said Adam Rondinone.
This is very cool indeed. And without government intervention and get rich cronyism.
This is an example of why panic is counterproductive to solving problems. Sometimes you gotta believe that things will work themselves out in their own time. So many things are discovered by accident. Penicillin. It changed life on this planet for everyone and saved so many from certain death, ugly death.
But ... if this works it could and most likely would face challenges from a host of sources and a new dependency. How about Big Oil for openers ? What happens if it succeeds too well and we take too much CO2 from the atmosphere and cause an ice age ? Just as everyone is screaming and I mean screaming about too much CO2 and say that we must reduce it at any cost even if it means cutting off our nose to spite or face to solve a problem saying that while the gestures are admittedly insufficient at achieving the goal of actually impacting man's affect on our atmosphere, can we also not, using the same logic, that man could cause an ice age by reducing CO2 too much ? There is already much renewed chatter about a dawn of a new ice age, which we already know is definitely a cyclical climate event. We could accelerate it.
We will inevitably end up with ice age deniers comprised of all the people who are now screaming about Global Warming as a crisis. Its all too predictable.
At any rate, I really hope this works out. Good things come to those who wait. Patience is a virtue that takes time and faith to be rewarded.
The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journalChemistrySelect. here for a new in-depth interview about the findings with one of the lead researchers.>
The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.
The tech involves a new combination of copper and carbon arranged into nanospikes on a silicon surface. The nanotechnology allows the reactions to be very precise, with very few contaminants.
"By using common materials, but arranging them with nanotechnology, we figured out how to limit the side reactions and end up with the one thing that we want," said Adam Rondinone.
An interview with Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepard. He is optimistic about people being able to effect change while discussing dire facts like 40% of the phytoplankton in the oceans have disappeared since 1950. Phytoplankton are the main producers of oxygen on earth.
I support the Sea Shepherds, please think about doing the same.
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
Posted:
Apr 22, 2016 - 8:34am
aflanigan wrote:
The links below, particularly the second link, provide a fascinating glimpse into how competent, effective journalism is practiced, or should be practiced.
It also is a stellar example of ham-handed Public Relations folks at Exxon being pwned.
It's cute how deniers conveniently ignore these facts. And last December, this:
A new investigation by the Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet InsideClimate News suggests that nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company was aware of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change as early as the late 1970s. Earlier exposés by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times have revealed that Exxon scientists knew about climate change as early as 1977, and for decades Exxon concealed its own findings that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, alters the climate and melts the Arctic ice. Now, internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News reveal that the entire oil and gas industry had similar knowledge. From 1979 to 1983, the oil and gas industry trade group American Petroleum Institute ran a task force to monitor and share climate research. The group’s members included senior scientists and engineers from not only Exxon, but also Amoco, Phillips, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron. The documents show that as early as 1979, the task force knew carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily. The task force even briefly considered researching how to introduce a new energy source into the global market, given the research about fossil fuels’ impact on global warming. But in 1983, the task force was disbanded, and by the late 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute had launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by many countries to cut fossil fuel emissions but was never ratified by the United States.
The links below, particularly the second link, provide a fascinating glimpse into how competent, effective journalism is practiced, or should be practiced.
It also is a stellar example of ham-handed Public Relations folks at Exxon being pwned.
Lectures can be an appropriate way to make your case to the larger scientific community, if you have a transcript or corresponding paper with footnotes.
I take it that you also do not watch any of the TED presentations. This is no different from one of those as it is a recording of a live presentation in front of an audience. Lectures are primitive and overrated I guess as a delivery method for facts and opinions in the 21st Century. They should be banned at all institutions of higher learning.
Like I said, the vid parallels my conclusions which I have offered up here over the years in bits and pieces.
I saw it, liked it and said why. The vid would serve a purpose for me if anyone asked my take on the subject. I would tell them to watch it if they wanted to know. Save me a lot of time and trouble splaining it.
Funny how ain't none of us going to be around to find out who is right and who isn't. Although those who believe its all manmade are right because they are the only ones with real science on their side.
Ta ...
Lectures can be an appropriate way to make your case to the larger scientific community, if you have a transcript or corresponding paper with footnotes.
Actually Kurt, I don't think there are very many people that truly believe that climate change is 100% man made, moreso the industrial revolution and exponential increases in carbon emissions that come with it are excacerbating the natural cycle to the point where we are in serious trouble. Regardless of what percentage is man made or natural and cyclical, the fact remains that it has been here for many years and is accelerating to the point of no return at an alarming rate and it is downright irresponsible for us not to take this very seriously, buckle down and do something about it on a global scale. Having said that, this subject is not very pressing to me personally because I know that global cooperation is not forthcoming or possible at this stage of our spiritual evolution nor can we put the modern lifestyle and agricultural mass production systems that have allowed for unsustainable population levels back in the Genie's bottle therefore we are quite doomed............
I agree.
I do realize that in the general population, the view is not as widely held. Here it is, or so it seems. I am only addressing the views expressed here.
What bothers me the most is how we are distorting our entire economy to address this in money losing propositions. We cannot overcome the foreign outputs of China and India and other nations whose priorities do match ours. So in essence we are only chasing our tails and bankrupting ourselves financially and even morally in this futile endeavor. The moral example is that it is now ok to kill eagles and other birds when wind farms are doing the killing.
That's not to say that we do nothing. Just not what we are doing now. We should direct our energy towards finding ways to cope and adapt rather than try and reverse it.
Change is the only constant in life. All this time, energy and money being spent to try and prevent change (or put the genie back in the bottle) is downright foolish and futile. Politicians and there masters only make money when something goes wrong. They do not make any money when they fix things.
I take it that you also do not watch any of the TED presentations. This is no different from one of those as it is a recording of a live presentation in front of an audience. Lectures are primitive and overrated I guess as a delivery method for facts and opinions in the 21st Century. They should be banned at all institutions of higher learning.
Like I said, the vid parallels my conclusions which I have offered up here over the years in bits and pieces.
I saw it, liked it and said why. The vid would serve a purpose for me if anyone asked my take on the subject. I would tell them to watch it if they wanted to know. Save me a lot of time and trouble splaining it.
Funny how ain't none of us going to be around to find out who is right and who isn't. Although those who believe its all manmade are right because they are the only ones with real science on their side.
Ta ...
Actually Kurt, I don't think there are very many people that truly believe that climate change is 100% man made, moreso the industrial revolution and exponential increases in carbon emissions that come with it are excacerbating the natural cycle to the point where we are in serious trouble. Regardless of what percentage is man made or natural and cyclical, the fact remains that it has been here for many years and is accelerating to the point of no return at an alarming rate and it is downright irresponsible for us not to take this very seriously, buckle down and do something about it on a global scale. Having said that, this subject is not very pressing to me personally because I know that global cooperation is not forthcoming or possible at this stage of our spiritual evolution nor can we put the modern lifestyle and agricultural mass production systems that have allowed for unsustainable population levels back in the Genie's bottle therefore we are quite doomed............
People who wish to be taken seriously as scientists typically offer their data and findings in peer reviewed journals, not on youtube.
I don't waste time on these amateur videos for the same reason I don't watch propaganda like An Inconvenient Truth: These sorts of presentations tend to be biased, and painfully short on facts and knowledgeable analysis.
If you wish, you can summarize his findings/assertions, or better yet, submit links to peer reviewed articles that your/Davidson's beliefs are based on.
I know a number of posters here like embedding videos on topics like economics, 9/11, climate change, etc. To me, seeking wisdom in such videos is like looking for diamonds in a box of cereal.
I take it that you also do not watch any of the TED presentations. This is no different from one of those as it is a recording of a live presentation in front of an audience. Lectures are primitive and overrated I guess as a delivery method for facts and opinions in the 21st Century. They should be banned at all institutions of higher learning.
Like I said, the vid parallels my conclusions which I have offered up here over the years in bits and pieces.
I saw it, liked it and said why. The vid would serve a purpose for me if anyone asked my take on the subject. I would tell them to watch it if they wanted to know. Save me a lot of time and trouble splaining it.
Funny how ain't none of us going to be around to find out who is right and who isn't. Although those who believe its all manmade are right because they are the only ones with real science on their side.
