Comments enki has made

Unfortunate

I agree that this story is an unfortunate blur of the reality involved. This is the fault of the scientist who is making the claims more then the author. Check out my rebuttal to the story on the Nature magazine news site for a more complete analysis.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080731/full/news.2008.996 ...On With research breakthrough, solar power could work when the sun don't shine posted 1 year, 3 months ago 49 Responses

Clarifying Clean Coal

I would like to offer some more info on this topic to further clarify the Clean Coal subject. I am not a fan of coal but I like to be accurate when describing something and coal can be confusing. Of the many types of clean coal technologies out there the only one that really interests me is the one being promoted by FutureGen.

In that setup coal and water are combined and the products are CO2 and H2. The turbines that turn the generators are fueled by the hydrogen so produced. This means that the FutureGen plants will be the world's first large scale hydrogen energy plants and for that reason I can't help but support them. All that remains is to find a better way to produce the hydrogen fuel.

What I don't like about them is the whole CO2 "sequestration" concept. Since a hydrogen from water via coal plant should produce less than half the CO2 of a traditional coal fired plant the whole sequestration thing is unnecessary. Here is a link to a story I wrote explaining the process:

http://current.com/items/89061252_what_is_clean_coal_and_ ...

Here is a link to a graphic from FutureGen so you can see what I mean above:

http://www.futuregenalliance.org/images/integrated.jpgOn Umbra on clean coal posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

why I like this

Switching vehicles to run on gaseous fuels would at least open the door to hydrogen or Synfuel run engines just like building FutureGen plants opens the door for large scale hydrogen fired electric plants. Once the technology is in place the remaining job is to find better ways to produce hydrogen fuel.

Mike Johnston

It gould be better

If someone would design an on-board reformer for jets then you could cut their fossil fuel consumption and CO2 pollution by up to 60% in one shot. And yes the US Air Force was playing with H2 fueled jet engines a while back so they CAN run on hydrogen.On Airlines must pay for emissions, E.U. says posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

And the story is?

Why is it news that a Presidential candidate is meeting with business and industry leaders? Isn't this the normal course? Or should Obama shun all corporate involvement and live in a fantasy world where the will of the average person actually means something and our government isn't as driven by the rich as is our economy? Please..

Mike Johnston

Graph from Nature

Here is a link to a graph of CO2, Methane and temperature levels on the Earth for the last 800,000 years. Pretty interesting.On U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions rising posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

capitalism in the new world

Capitalism is a model that works. It can work equally well in an ecologically responsible world as in an irresponsible world driven by mass consumption. Capitalism needs to have the proper set of regulations and guidelines. This is as true now as it has ever been.

Most of our problems today have evolved from unregulated capitalism. Just like witch burnings, racially motivated "cleansings" and many other examples of bad behavior can evolve from within the framework of religion based on love so can any number of evils evolve from any inherently good system of belief or action.

Capitalism is simply how society works. Consumers will buy products that best meet their needs or wants and make use of services which do the same. The challenge facing people who would like to turn society in a more environmentally friendly/sustainable direction are making this change into something that is perceived as better or more desirable on an individual basis to the consumer.

Build a better mousetrap and they will buy. It is really that simple. Much of the public apathy toward all things green is the lack of personal, immediate benefit. Make it so that going green saves them a lot of money, gets them drunk faster, tastes better or cures erectile dysfunction and consumers will invest billions of dollars into it. Without that personal benefit it just won't work.

Mike Johnston

excuse me?

Hi amazingdrx,

What was a scam? Nothing I talk about is unproven or even fringe science and certainly not an internet scam. Perhaps you are confusing what I am talking about with something else.

There is a device which originated with pseudoscience/free energy types. This is an on-board electrolyzer which uses the electrical energy of the vehicle to produce H2 from water. This device doesn't work as described. It can't. I spent a lot of time on energy related newsgroups and such so I know about most of the scams (even the well intentioned ones).

What I am describing is something totally different and I can provide you with plenty of hard science to back me up. I would really like to get more public awareness of this concept going because I think it is a valuable addition to our energy portfolio which is being neglected at present.

Mike Johnston

answer

All the water produced by burning H2 for fuel could be dealt with. On the one hand the atmosphere can only hold so much water before becoming saturated. The excess water would fall as rain. Second, the steam produced by burning H2 could be condensed as it is created and released into the environment as water.

Mike Johnston

Can't help but love it

After I read Hillary's comments last week

("Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again," Clinton said, apparently citing an Associated Press article, which also found "how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.")

I couldn't help but chuckle. Ok I laughed pretty hard. I know it is a very stereotypical bit of humor but still, it's funny.

Then again, since all of the major media seems to just expect Obama to get the lion's share of the black vote all of the time for no other reason than he is of mixed race then why not expect Hillary to get the hillbilly vote? I mean, she essentially said it herself in the quote above.

But the question is, can the white trash vote be the determining factor in who becomes our next president? An interesting thought. I mean Jesse Ventura (former pro wrestler) became governor of Minnesota didn't he? So it could happen. Someone needs to ask Hillary what makes her the white trash candidate.

Maybe she ought to do a guest spot on Jerry Springer. It could be her and Bill and Monica and Hillary and Monica could get into a catfight. Oh wait, that is what Jerry is always about so maybe Hillary really is the perfect white trash candidate...

Mike Johnston

making it personal

So if I make contributions to charities tax deductible and then set up my own charity and donate heavily to myself I can live tax free? Cool. Sounds like cap n trade to me...

Mike Johnston

Definitely

I have been toying with the idea of a revived rail system for some time and it is good to see other people starting to look at the idea. The overall efficiency of the train companies in moving and distributing freight would have to be overhauled but it could definitely work.

Moving freight by rail would not be much different than the way UPS or FedEx moves freight. If you could have distribution hubs within 100 miles of most places then truck the freight from those hubs to it's final destination the door would be wide open for electric trucks because that should be an achievable range for them.

I took Amtrack from central Massachusetts to NYC several years ago and was impressed with the service and amenities available. Rail cars are much more roomy than planes and the scenery (and the food) is better.

Mike Johnston

In Human Terms

     I have come to realize that the only way to really accomplish anything positive is to make the action necessary to achieve the desired goal profitable to someone. If we want to try to stop climate change we will need to line someone's pockets.

     For example, in Pennsylvania the rate caps on electricity come off in 2010. People are worried and projections are being made that retail electricity prices might rise between 25% and 75% when this happens.

     Pennsylvania has net metering laws in place though and suddenly renewable energy sources such as wind or solar are looking great as a way to reduce your personal energy bill. I see the probability for a large increase in interest in and sales of solar water heaters and solar/wind energy production devices among average consumers as a result.

     If you as an individual can produce as much electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows as you buy from the power company when it doesn't then you can break even and save money. Simple but totally effective.

     The result of course will be a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as more and more people produce part of their own energy. But that is just a bonus to most people. The bottom line is personal financial gain or savings.

Mike Johnston

What's the problem?

Interesting concept. Totally laced with subjects for philosophical debate. Porn is mostly a form of surrogate sex for people who can't get real sex. Sure it's fun to look at naked people. I think that it is only people who are really hung up within themselves who have any problem with other people using sex as a form of self expression.

On the other hand sex for money is wrong most of the time in that sex workers are usually abused people in some sense whether they open themselves to that abuse or not so I think the Spitzer reference is out of context to this story.

In this case I think that two people using their sexual selves in a public sense to raise money is not about the sex trade and so it is not wrong at all. If a couple is having sex and someone wants to watch them through their bedroom window who is wrong, the couple or the "peeper"?

And if the couple knows Mr. Peeper is there but decides that they don't mind is anyone really wrong? And if they put a little donation box outside their window and use the money collected to do good work for the planet then it seems pretty win win all they way around.On Catching up with our favorite European eco-porn activists posted 1 year, 8 months ago 11 Responses

Recycling Phosphorus

Here is a link to a paper on recycling the phosphorus in animal waste: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/phosphate ...

I do not like factory farming of animals because I feel animals are sentient beings and deserve to live normal lives even if we do eventually kill them for food. On the other hand the world is what it is and I think that manure can be used more effectively as a resource.

Manure can be processed in a biodigester to produce methane. This methane can be used as fuel to produce electricity. The remaining solids can be used as fertilizer or further processed as described in the paper above.

I grew up in farming and we used manure exclusively for fertilizer and produced great vegetables year after year.

Mike Johnston

More Coal

If they are so determined to go with coal then why not create the rather simple technology to produce coal/water Synfuel and run our vehicles and trains and planes on that? Cost is .27 cents per gallon as opposed to 3.19 a gallon and there is no highway use tax on Synfuel that I know of.

It is true that the CO2 produced would be pretty much the same as with petroleum based fuels but at least we could end our dependence on oil forever. Then we can get rid of coal as a second step.... mwahahaha :DOn Coal lobbyists step up their game posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

On Hydrogen

  We already have a hydrogen economy. Our hydrogen fuel has always been stored on carbon atoms up to this time. It is the evolution of that fuel to eliminate the carbon carrier which is the difficult part. At least to do it without totally rebuilding the production, storage and distribution network we already have. But it is possible.

  It is true that hydrogen is just an energy carrier but so is any fuel. Oil carries the energy of the sun from millions of years ago. Solar transforms the energy of the sun. Windmills do the same with wind.

   All Future Gen really is is a very old method of using coal to liberate hydrogen from water. In that process there is a overall energy gain. It takes 1000 degree steam to cause the water shift reaction C + 2H2O --> CO2 + 2H2 but when you burn H2 with oxygen the result is superheated steam at around 5000 degrees. Because of this you can use that steam to turn the turbine in your electric plant and then use the waste steam which has lost a lot of its heat to again cause the water shift reaction with more coal.

  Future Gen is better than what we have now as far as coal technology but I don't like it because we can and should do better.

  For that matter you could run your car, tractor, train or boat on coal using a variation of this reaction. If you run steam over coal one time you produce a H2/CO Syngas mixture. Any internal combustion engine can run on this gas mix.

   Coal at retail is still about a hundred bucks a ton. One ton of coal has the same amount of carbon as roughly 364 gallons of gasoline. That would make the equivalent per gallon price of coal/water syngas to be .27 cents per gallon while a gallon of gasoline is 3.19 a gallon or more.

    This same H2/CO Syngas can be produced from a variety of feedstocks (and water) such as; gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, methane, ethanol, methanol and sucrose (yep sugar). This process can be accomplished with the on board steam reformer I have previously described. In this case too the exhaust from the vehicle would probably be hot enough or nearly hot enough to use for the reformer reaction.

Mike Johnston

You ain' seen nuthin yet

Now here's a minivan:

Image: http://www.oblingo.com/media/10-26-07/town_country_blackj ...

"For those who can't get enough of the card tables when they leave Vegas, Chrysler has created the Town and Country Black Jack...The Amber-Black pearl paint provides a stylish contrast to the custom 20-inch wheels and the billet grille, jazzing up this most staid of minivan exteriors. Interior LED lighting illuminates the mini casino in the passenger compartment that consists of a bench seat wrapping around the black jack table that sits opposite the dealer's captain's chair in the middle. Entertainment comes via a 1250-watt audio system created by Azentec and Kicker. For tailgate parties, you and your weary gambling buddies can watch Terry and Howie yuck it up during the pregame show on a 37-inch flatscreen mounted in back behind the tailgate."

Source

Mike Johnston

another solution?

Maybe they could start using sled pigs to pull them through the mud. Then at the end of the race roast the last place team...On Iditarod sled dog race forced to change starting point posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

Tiny Tatas

On board steam reformers could boost the mileage of these vehicles by up to 60% and cut their CO2 emissions by an equal percentage.

I have been researching this. So far everything checks out.On Indian car company to sell world's cheapest car posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

RE: Patrick

I was not implying that the climate is changing only in China or that only China has social unrest. I put up those links because they seemed to counterpoint what you were saying.

In my mind people are people wherever they are. China is noteworthy at the moment because they are growing their economy so fast. This opens the door to both opportunity to take a different path than the developed countries did or to follow the same one. Creation of an elite management class within which all of the wealth is concentrated is following the same path. Doing whatever it takes to get the job done while ignoring the impact on the environment is the same path.

The United States could be competitive with China if we repeal the minimum wage and get rid of various government money wasters (like OSHA for example). Along with that we could repeal fair housing laws, etc. That would allow market forces to determine wages and living standards. Then imports from China couldn't compete with American made goods.

It isn't just China either, this same scenario repeats itself over and over again in all of the developing countries. It is happening in the United States today but on a different level. Skilled jobs are being outsourced to cheaper countries. Good paying, middle class manufacturing jobs are almost gone.

On a brighter note, legal work is now being outsourced to India too so even professional jobs are starting to feel the threat of low rate foreign competitors.

It is undoubtedly good business to cut costs wherever you can but there have to be some limits somewhere. Look at the trucking industry for example. At one point in time truck driving was a very good paying job. Of course truck drivers gave up a lot in the way of personal life to make that money.

Then in the 80's Reagan de-regulated the industry and essentially broke the unions at the same time. The result was slightly cheaper freight rates and that helped the economy but truck driver wages fell. In the late 70's experienced truck drivers could make up to 125,000 a year. Today that same job only pays 40 - 50k.

Bush's current efforts to open the borders to Mexican trucking companies will drive the wages down further.

Mike Johnston

China Ice Festival Melts from Climate Change

Average annual temperatures in the city perched on the edge of Siberia hit 6.6 degrees Celsius (44 Fahrenheit) last year, the highest average since records began, and the ice sculptures are feeling the heat.

http://www.javno.com/en/bestseller/clanak.php?id=112524

Mike Johnston

Add Walrus To That List

Let's not forget that, as the polar ice cap disappears, thousands of walrus are dying too.On Decision on whether to list polar bears as a threatened species is delayed posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

The whole picture

I think that you failed to include at least one crucial part to any contest in this election in which climate change is a focal point. The contest will not consist of debates on how best to combat climate change or to take more responsible, aware control of the management of our entire biosphere.

Instead the Republican spin machine will do their best to make every debate into one over whether or not climate change even exists and to what extent we are responsible for it or can do anything about it. There are already many conservative sponsored think tanks which specialize in distributing generally skewed information on climate change in the name of "science".

The republican solution to climate change, as presented to the voting public, will be one that involves changing nothing and in fact shows how climate change can be solved by spending more, manufacturing more and consuming more. After all no one likes change and no one wants to give anything up. Everyone likes to be able to spend more money and have less to worry about. These familiar themes are the ones that the republicans will play just as they always do.

Remember the last election when fear was the card that was played to manipulate the voters? Remember Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that never existed that were used to disguise a war of conquest to gain control of the world's 2nd largest oil supply?

They might play that card again by attacking Iran before the election in order to have a war underway by the time the election comes around because voters don't usually unseat whoever is in control during a war.

Another prediction I could make would be to say that I think the next economic "bubble" to come along will be the green energy sector. The economy has been propped up for some time now by creating these bubbles one after another. First was the credit card bubble, then the dot com bubble, then the real estate bubble. All of these have kept a crumbling economy looking somehow rosy.

Combine that with selective hyperinflation of specific commodities (like oil, up 300% in 3 years) to keep general inflation down and our books look worse than Enron's.

I see a bunch of green energy startups coming on line which will just be created to make the rich richer and will never produce anything of value. I did an analysis of one such company for a Danish investment group. The company had taken in several hundred million dollars in investment money and claimed to have an on-board electrolyzer which would cut fuel consumption on diesel trucks by 10%. They said they had spent 100 million on R&D.

I did an analysis of the system and found that their electrolyzer only drew 16 amps through one electrolysis cell which would not produce enough hydrogen and oxygen to do anything on a vehicle that uses 10 gallons of fuel an hour. Their water reservoir consisted of an inverted 2 liter pop bottle.

An analysis of the unit by an independent lab verified my suspicions, the device was worthless. This company has several competitors in several countries at the moment all making essentially the same device and selling them for up to 15k per unit. One of these companies is listed as one of the top 25 tech stocks on a respected list.

I worry that there are probably many more of these types of companies out there.

Mike Johnston

RE: Rev, Revv, Revvv

Shaman?

At any rate, yes there were very long periods in the Earth's history when there were much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Assuming that, during those periods the Earth's atmospheric density was the same as it is today then some other gas would have had to have been displaced by that CO2. The most likely candidate would be oxygen since oxygen levels are falling in our atmosphere today due to CO2 displacement.

One other interesting thing to factor into your argument would be that, in all those periods of the planet's history when CO2 levels were very high, there were no human beings on the planet. In fact we humans are a relatively recent addition to the biosphere and evolved in our present form with essentially the atmosphere that we have today.

Mike Johnston

RE: Modernize Your Home

Why are you using electric heat?

Because that is what came in the house. Although there was a coal stove in the living room which did help out. That wasn't the point though.

How expensive would be to install a conventional oil burner or natural gas plus some extra insulation over the long run?

A big investment like that is not within everyone's means. But with oil at 2.65 a gallon or more at the moment I don't think there would be much difference.

Maybe the state simply needs to underwrite more low-cost energy efficiency loans to low-income homeowners, through floating state bonds and reselling them to homeowners at a subsidized rate for periods of 10-30 years.

According to the 2004-2005 Census, median household income for Pennsylvania was 49,511.00 so a thousand a week would make you middle income. And 49,000 a year is less than the 1k a week I used in my example. This hardly qualifies you for low-income status or assistance sice the federal poverty level at that time was 19,157.00 for a family of two adults with two minor children. THAT is the real world.

Mike Johnston

RE:Tassermons Partner

...how much does one of those weigh and what are some typical dimensions?  Would the weight be as much as the weight of the fuel that wouldn't haveta be consumed?

I ask because I'm actually a private pilot and the concept seems interestin' to me.  Got any links, please?

I don't believe that anyone is currently manufacturing an on-board steam reformer. This is kind of something I have been trying to draw some attention to for a while now so I appreciate your question. I will try to give you the relatively short answer in as far as what they are and what they do, etc...

Steam reforming/partial oxidation is how most hydrogen is commercially produced today. I gave a thumbnail of the chemical reaction involved in my post above so I won't rehash that here.

I became intrigued with the idea several years ago when I saw stories on plans by the oil companies to bring the hydrogen economy about by installing reformers at gas stations to supply hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles. This would solve the problem of building an infrastructure to produce, transport, distribute and store hydrogen fuel because the hydrogen would be bound to a hydrocarbon and water until the point of sale.

Then I began to wonder about the possibility of building a small enough unit to function as an on board system. I realized that there are gasoline and diesel dual fuel systems on the market today which will allow internal combustion engines to run on propane or natural gas as well as gasoline or diesel. So why not utilize such a system to convert existing vehicles to this H2/CO fuel?

At that point I saw a news release from the Pacific Northwest Lab which stated that they had developed, built and tested such an on-board reformer. Of course their intent was to use it in the future to produce h2 fuel for fuel cell vehicles. Below is a link to the description of that system:

http://www.pnl.gov/main/highlights/microchannel.html

http://hydrogencommerce.com/images/PNNL_hydrogen-vaporize ...

the second link above is also a photo of their working model. An easy comparison to make is to think of the catalytic converter on your car, they are vary similar in form and function.

No one, to my knowledge is offering the idea of developing these for IC engine powered vehicles. Of course who would want to double their hydrocarbon fuel mileage and cut their CO2 emissions in half at the same time? Certainly not the oil companies...

Once I realized it would be possible to develop these units and offer them as retrofits on every car, truck, ship and train I saw the potential positive impact. Then I wondered if a jet aircraft could be modified to use this same gaseous fuel. After all jet aircraft inject CO2 and water vapor high in the troposphere where both can do the most damage in a climate change sense. So i did some searching there and found a paper which stated that "remember that the DoD actually produced a hydrogen-powered jet engine as early as 1957, indicating that once hydrogen storage issues are resolved, the hydrogen aircraft may become a reality". So yes hydrogen jet aircraft are a realistic possibility and the hydrogen could be produced by an on board reformer and again, this could probably be produced as a retrofit unit.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_3_30/ai_n1 ...

One problem might be that water weighs 30% more than  gasoline and perhaps 20% more than kerosene based jet fuels but the benefits might outweigh the drawbacks there. Unfortunately it seems as though this technology is being held in reserve until fuel cell vehicles are the norm.  On Plan to regulate airline emissions moves forward in E.U. posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

RE: Big Problemo

Yes, exactly what I have been saying. Also factor in atmospheric oxygen depletion. This is a real event that is ongoing and is well documented by scientists at Scripps Institute. The data was obtained via NOAA     air monitoring stations worldwide.

I corresponded with Dr. Ralph Keeling who was one of the researchers involved and he set me a .pdf copy of a paper he co-authored which summarized his findings, Here is a link to that paper:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17569179 ...

Dr. Keeling summarized his findings to me like this: "My group has been tracking the decline in
atmospheric oxygen concentration since 1989.   The plot from our web
site shows the decline at our network of stations....It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a
displacement by carbon dioxide.  But it is not exactly true.   First,
some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the
oceans.  This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which
have no effect on O2...Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2
molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air.... A reasonable estimate for how much O2 has been lost since the
beginning of the industrial revolution can be based on the estimated
loss due to fossil-fuel emissions...So the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1 2005 would
have been (35.3)/(37050)x100 = 0.095% of the preindustrial amount.

For the past 15 years, we have direct measurements of the
decrease.  But the observations before 1990 aren't good enough to
draw inferences.   Hence the estimate based on industrial emissions
is about the best we can come up with."

These are excerpts from emails that Dr. Keeling exchanged with me which pretty accurately summarize the gist of our conversation. Why isn't oxygen depletion a bigger part of the climate change dialog?

Mike Johnston

Making Coal Green

While this story is essentially true because there is no real effort being made to make coal "green" on a commercial level there are ways in which this could be done. I will outline one such method here. Please understand that I am not saying anything in terms of economic viability of the method described. I am just trying to show that there are options which are not being mentioned.

The technique I will describe is well enough known in the field of chemistry so that I can just give a thumbnail sketch of it here I think. If we start off using the proposed "FutureGen" coal technology then it makes it simpler. In FutureGen you react water and coal at 1000 degrees and the result is hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas. If we use the hydrogen gas that was produced here (from water please note) to run our power plant and separate the CO (carbon monoxide) from the gas stream (which is not very difficult) we have a way to convert CO back into carbon and oxygen.

To do this we pass the hot CO (still hot from the FutureGen reaction) over a bed of ferric oxide (rust)you get as products; carbon (soot), oxygen and de-rusted iron. Reaction looks like this:

2Co + FeO2 --heat---> 2C + Fe + 2O2

So the end result is that you recycle both the carbon and iron for re-use and you can put oxygen back into the atmosphere instead of sequestering it as part of a CO2 molecule.On Tory leader David Cameron lauds "green coal" posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

Why Clean Coal is Not A Solution

Clean Coal in the form of FutureGen is good in some ways. It will eliminate the CO2 that is normally released by burning coal. But. It won't stop the coal that is burned from producing CO2, it will just "sweep it under the rug" by burying it underground. Even FutureGen proponents cant predict what the outcome of that will be because it has never been done before, at least not on that scale.

Furthermore, it will be taking oxygen out of the atmosphere and "sequestering" that oxygen right along with the carbon as it is carbon from the coal and oxygen from the atmosphere which make up the CO2 molecule. Can the environment replenish that oxygen? That remains in doubt, especially when you consider that oxygen levels in the atmosphere are already falling.

Story on oxygen depletion: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/14/205855.php

Mike JohnstonOn Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Bye Santa

Due to Climate Change the arctic ice is melting. In 100 years it will be gone entirely. Santa's workshop will sink beneath the cold waves forever. Explain that one to your kids.On Coal industry kicks off a PR campaign aimed at influencing lawmakers posted 1 year, 11 months ago 2 Responses

coal and water

Thank you for the comments, you are absolutely correct in saying that the Earth's environment is a complex system. Not just one or two factors can explain everything. Also thanks for bringing up jet aircraft. It has been widely speculated that jet aircraft are doing a lot to hasten climate change effects by injecting CO2 high in the Troposphere where there normally wouldn't be much.

This is also true of the water produced by jet engines burning hydrocarbon fuel. The air is much thinner at 30 - 45k feet where jets fly. This is the worst place to inject both CO2 and water vapor as they are the two primary greenhouse gases. Also consider that we are taking the oxygen out of the Troposphere and replacing (displacing) it with CO2. It is speculated that the CO2 may stay i the atmosphere at that altitude for many years and there is only room for so high a concentration of gases at that altitude so if CO2 displaces the oxygen then that oxygen probably won't be replaced. Here is a link to a paper which covers this topic (among others) i great detail:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document& ...(1998)011%3C2686%3AWVSTAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

Atmospheric oxygen depletion is something that you hear very little about but it is a real phenomenon. Since the beginning of the industrial age the oxygen concentration i the atmosphere has decreased by .095%. Ok that is only a tenth of a percent but consider that oxygen makes up 20% of the atmosphere ad OSHA says that any oxygen concentration below 19.5% can "lead to unconsciousness and death". SO we seem to only have .5% to play around with. And we already have lost .095%... Here is a story on oxygen depletion:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/14/205855.phpOn FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

Hydrogen cars

In response to your question, it depends on the source of the hydrogen. If you are producing the hydrogen to fuel either ICE or FC vehicles by reforming hydrocarbons then you could produce around 50% less CO2 than by just burning the hydrocarbons. This is because, in a reformer, half of the hydrogen produced comes from the hydrocarbon and half from the water used. This would also cut in half the creation of "new" water and reduce atmospheric oxygen depletion as well.

On the other hand, if the hydrogen is produced from water using green energy sources then the water produced as exhaust would have no environmental impact because it started out as water.

2H2O ---electrolysis--> 2H2 + O2

This is the reaction that produces the hydrogen fuel and also just enough oxygen to completely oxidize that fuel.

2H2 + O2 -----combustion---> 2H2O

In this reaction the two products of the first reaction are reunited and we end up with the water we started with. No net gain or loss to the environment.On FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

Geoengineering is what we do...

Before we throw the baby out with the bath water on the concept of Geoengineering let's stop and consider a few things. First off everything we do as intelligent beings does something to alter the environment around us. When a big corporation dumps toxic waste they are engineering the local environment. When we create a wild area we are engineering the local environment.

So, on a global level we have already been engaged in Geoengineering for quite some time although somewhat without our own awareness of it. We did this by altering the composition of the atmosphere of our planet. Yes we did it accidentally but we did do it and it COULD have been done intentionally if we wanted to.

NASA and sci-fi buffs have for some time been looking forward to Terraforming other planets to make them suitable for human habitation. I think that our modification of the atmosphere on this planet serves to validate the Terraforming process in a real world situation.

So then whether we call it Terraforming or Geoengineering we have to realize that we are already doing it. The idea of putting a label on it simply signifies that we are taking responsibility for our actions and pre-planning their outcome so that a positive result will occur.On It's a'comin' posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses