Comments picassotrigger has made

  • Re: They may be right; I hope not

    GonzoDon:
    I agree that carbon taxes and/or carbon markets may be insufficient to reduce CO2 emissions from coal plants. If we accept the conclusions of the Greenpeace report, we are forced to seek additional strategies.

    With respect to your concern about the politics, I wonder whether it would be possible to formulate a financial incentive on the supply side that would make coal companies (both mining and power generation) lobby for renewables rather than CCS?

    On the one hand, there is a need for investment and a trained workforce to drive the growth of renewable energy. On the other hand, the coal industry stands to lose both investment dollars and skilled people. Rather than a general tax incentive for the renewable energy sector that would benefit all investors, would it not be more powerful to give the coal industry an exclusive incentive to shift their focus to renewables? A coal company would then have a portfolio to manage: a carbon-based subsidiary that is in decline, and a renewable energy subsidiary that is rapidly growing. The organization as a whole would grow and profit, but would transform itself over time. People could be retrained and reallocated within the organization rather than laid off. It is more complicated than carbon taxes and carbon trading, but it would address the political issue and complement those strategies.

    Another possibility that would alleviate the demand for coal power is the construction of a global electricity network (see www.geni.org). [If you have a PC, there is a visual simulation available for download that illustrates the concept well.]

    Essentially, a global grid would allow virtually every nation on earth to purchase and sell excess clean electricity to/from suppliers and customers in another timezone and/or hemisphere. (Excess capacity might typically exist at night or in winter; excess demand might typically exist during the day or in summer.)

    With respect to India and China--which are reported to be building on average one new coal plant every week over the next 20 years--a global grid would permit that demand growth to be supplied by excess solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear capacity in Europe, North America, etc., rather than the construction of new coal fired plants. As these nations build their own clean energy production capacity, we would purchase their excess capacity as required.

    I don't have exact figures, but if we assume that demand for electricity decreases by 50-75% at night, this strategy might eliminate the need for more coal power. And the technology required to link international grids--HVDC transmission--already exists.On Greenpeace report calls carbon capture and sequestration 'false hope' posted 1 year, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • Advice I once received from a farmer...

    Many years ago, I met a teacher while on a flight to New Orleans. He complained to me that the rural school he work at provided his class with computers, but refused to purchase mice for those machines. As there were only a few computers, he purchased them with his own money so his kids could get more use out of the machines.

    The teacher also farmed to supplement his income, and he drew an analogy between the computer mice and the price of nails on the farm. He said that because the cost of grain represented 80% of his total costs, he watched the price of grain very closely. But if he needed a box of nails to repair fencing, he just bought the nails regardless of what they cost.

    The IPCC report on Aviation cited above suggests that CO2 emissions from aircraft represented 2% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 1992. I don't know whether that number has increased in the last 16 years, and I have heard that high-altitude emissions are worse than ground-level emissions of the same magnitude. That said, however, I am largely of the same mind as the farmer: if coal burning represents more than 40% of global emissions, liquid petroleum another 40%, and tropical deforestation somewhere in excess of 10%, I don't see air travel as a particularly significant concern. By the farmers reasoning, air travel is looking a great deal like the box of nails.

    Assuming absolutely no improvements in flight efficiency, air travel could increase by 50% and it would still represent less than 3% of total emissions.

    If the high-altitude emission issue is far more significant than I am accounting for in my reasoning, or if there is some other reason why air travel is represents far more than 2-3% of the problem, I am open to change my position.On How much global warming results from air travel? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • Air travel, global awareness, and empathy

    I'd also like to add that air travel is perhaps the only way for some people to gain a firsthand, unfiltered appreciation of other cultures and world issues.

    With many airlines using EU hubs like Frankfurt to service destinations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, the open skies policy between the EU and US may result in more North Americans learning a second language and making friends abroad and, ultimately, may ultimately result in a more peaceful planet.On As nonstop flights between the U.S. and E.U. increase, what will be the effect on climate? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 2 Responses

  • Can eco-tourism exist without air travel?

    Hi Ashley,

    You make a good case for the open skies policy leading to an increase in air travel, but whether or not that leads to increased CO2 emissions may depend on whether the increase in air travel is offset by more efficient, cleaner-burning aircraft. Any innovation may be driven more by the rising price of oil and its effect on profits, rather than a concern for the environment, but regardless of why it happens, it may be a cause for optimism.

    Also, while I realize that eco-tourism probably represents a very small percentage of all air travel between the EU and US, I hold out hope that air travel will help people who want to preserve their natural environment from resource extraction in earning a living.On As nonstop flights between the U.S. and E.U. increase, what will be the effect on climate? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 2 Responses

  • Urban microhydro?

    "So I did the measurements and found 140 gallons per minute, which is about enough for the purpose, but less than a 20 foot drop in elevation, which is the killer. Microhydro usually requires either high head or high volumes to pencil out, but I have barely the minimum of each."

    Just wondering, Erik, if you've heard anything about the implementation of micro-hydro generation in the roof drainage systems of high-rise buildings?

    My first thoughts were that considerable energy would be available to generate electricity as rain water dropped perhaps 100 stories through the drain piping, but I've since discovered that a terminal velocity of 10-15 feet per second is attained within approximately 15 feet of fall.

    Volume within the drain pipe would be the big variable, based on some combination of roof area, intensity of precipitation, and number of existing drain pipes serving the roof.

    It certainly would be convenient if a micro-hydro turbine generator could be tapped in to existing plumbing systems. Frequency of precipitation would be an issue, of course, but the payback period could be competitive with solar photovoltaic systems at higher latitudes.On 'Run of river' projects set for a boom? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 18 Responses

  • Could the suspension system be tied in too?

    Since they have already developed a hydraulic system for energy storage, it would be nice if they could create a suspension system that is tied in to the main hydraulic system.

    All of the energy that is wasted bending and heating coiled steel springs in the strut assembly could potentially be captured by the hydraulic system and used for propulsion.On Nice Package posted 1 year, 10 months ago 1 Response

  • Our use of language limits our opportunities

    Words allow us to solve many problems, but how we use words may also blind us to some significant opportunities.

    The regenerative braking system of a Toyota Prius hybrid captures energy from the forward motion of the vehicle. Would this be considered a supply side or demand side solution?

    On the one hand, it is unrelated to the primary production of renewable energy from solar/wind/geothermal; on the other hand, it is not technically an energy efficiency solution in that it unrelated to the efficiency of the internal combustion engine that powers the car, the design elements of the car that affect energy requirements for acceleration (eg. mass), or the design elements of the car that affect energy losses due to friction (eg. shape).

    Reframing the issue in terms of "active energy production", "passive energy production", and "design" is better, but it still fails to suggest the possibility of creating the Prius hybrid's regenerative braking system as a solution.

    In actuality, the Prius's regenerative braking system is a mechanism for capturing energy that is an unintended byproduct of an existing human machine or system. That is, the intended purpose of a car is to transport people or goods from point A to point B. The fact that a car embodies kinetic energy while it is in use is completely unintentional.

    This "by-product energy" exists in many human machines and systems, but may be overlooked because of the way in which we frame our conversations. For example, the purpose of a water tower is to store water for domestic consumption, but it also stores gravitational potential energy that might be harnessed to generate energy.

    Is this renewable energy? No. Is it clean energy? Absolutely.On Efficiency without renewable energy is not sufficient posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

  • It may be impossible, but Hansen is probably right

    I'm not a climate expert, but I think Hansen is probably right in suggesting 350 ppm as the upper target for atmospheric CO2.

    If the arctic polar ice cap has been receding and thinning for decades, and if the Greenland ice sheet is melting today--at atmospheric CO2 levels below 380 ppm--what exactly will a stabilization at 450 ppm accomplish?

    Perhaps it will save the antarctic ice sheet, and perhaps not.

    I would argue that nothing focuses the mind like an impossible goal. Whether or not you actually attain that goal is immaterial.On What is the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 24 Responses

  • Isn't it ironic...

    Despite the fact the global population growth threatens to outstrip the earth's capacity to provide for all, local/regional declines in population still motivate governments to subsidize fertility.

    http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=63600&sc=89On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

  • The paradox of economic growth

    In his book, The End of Poverty, Geoffrey Sachs observes that population growth is strongly correlated with poverty--that is, the most impoverished nations have the highest birth rates.

    He argues that a comprehensive program to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth would reduce birth rates in the developing world through the empowerment of women socially, politically and economically--and I accept his argument.

    Unfortunately, this presents me with a dilemma: How can economic growth be both the cause of unsustainable consumption in the industrialized world as well as the solution to unsustainable population growth in the developing world?

    Moreover, in a global economy, how can one possibly have economic growth in the developing world, without also having economic growth in the industrialized world?

    The converse is just as perplexing: If we adopt policies to reduce consumption and economic growth at home to make our economy sustainable, and if Dr. Sachs is indeed correct, will we be condemning billions of people to poverty, disease, and misery?

    One obvious, but Utopian answer is to transform the global economy to continental local economies, which would be effectively constrained by local, continental ecosystems and natural capital. However, I'm not convinced that this is possible or even desirable.

    The answers elude me.On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

  • Carbon Capture and Recycling

    I don't have much knowledge regarding the technologies of CCS but, from a purely philosophical perspective, it would appear to me that CCS would simply shift the carbon dump site from the atmosphere to the ground or ocean. Would it not make more sense to eliminate the whole concept of a dump site for carbon? Should we not be working toward--in addition to a reduction of anthropogenic emissions of carbon--a recycling of atmospheric carbon that takes the output from Carbon Capture and uses it as an input for some other product?

    One such example of this recently in the news is a process to produce baking soda from captured carbon.
    http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2 ...On CCS: Always almost ready, but never quite posted 1 year, 12 months ago 11 Responses

  • Economic winners and losers

    Your argument is well reasoned. I would add that, even among those who believe that transitioning to a green, fossil-fuel-free economy will not impoverish the world, there is an understanding that that there will be winners and losers in the process, and that most of the political resistance will come from those who have invested heavily in the fossil fuel economy.

    I would speculate that investments in plant and equipment are not a major issue because they are eventually depreciated and written off over time, but speculative investments made in the acquisition of real estate with coal deposits or oil/gas fields are probably more of an impediment to change. After all, if the coal/oil/gas in the ground can't be extracted and sold, a property might have to be sold at a small fraction of its original purchase price.

    I have no facts to support my thesis, but it would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who understands the balance sheet of a fossil fuel company.
    On Talking point: Global warming and economic growth posted 1 year, 12 months ago 2 Responses