Seriously thoughtful 100W incandescent lightbulbs banned in the EU from 1st Sep

[DawnFalcon]

Yea, funny that, it seems that going with a proper recycling sorting plant and biomass incinerator isn't economical. Why? Because you know those seperate recycling bins? Fines for some kid from a few streets over swapping stuff between them (and let's not even go into colour blindness and a council fining a friend for putting labels on the boxes so he could tell them apart!) make councils a lot of money.

Anyway, the problem with banning IC bulbs is that in many situations (lots of turning on/off for short periods), they are still by far the most efficient, and many of the alternatives have major problems.

For wind power, yea, it's "don't build them in migration paths". Wind power isn't a major "alternative" source anyway, sea power farms perhaps, but in the end we'll still need base load power, and that means nuclear or coal. And coal is dirty, even "green" coal.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

No, not coal plants. Biomass.

[/rant=Warning Will Robinson, Rant begins here]

Biomass? And there is a difference? Scientific balderdash!

Converting hydrocarbons into CO2 is the exact same process whether the hydrocarbons were fixed from CO2 by last year's corn crop or in the geological past. It still means there is less carbon fixed in "biomass" and more free carbon in the atmosphere.

The only "green" methods of energy production are those that convert low grade heat (wind and seawater thermal generators), tidal forces (tidal and wave generators), geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear (gasp ) or direct photo energy into usable forms like electricity, portable power for pushing vehicles and hot water. And the jury is still out as to whether they cause more harm than good on many of those!

And by the way, hydrogen is a power transmission technology, not a power producing one, it has great potential for producing portable power; but you have to get that power from somewhere.

If people would understand that is all a zero sum equation, much confusion and outright misinformation in support of someone's agenda could be alleviated.
[/rant]

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by wodin

[/rant=Warning Will Robinson, Rant begins here]

Biomass? And there is a difference? Scientific balderdash!

Converting hydrocarbons into CO2 is the exact same process whether the hydrocarbons were fixed from CO2 by last year's corn crop or in the geological past. It still means there is less carbon fixed in "biomass" and more free carbon in the atmosphere.


[/rant]

Co2 is Co2 whatever age it is.

The argument is whether releasing this years' or last years' is significantly important when marked against what was captured by vegetation millions of years ago.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Co2 is Co2 whatever age it is.

The argument is whether releasing this years' or last years' is significantly important when marked against what was captured by vegetation millions of years ago.

The earth was much warmer by the time coal and petrol and all those fossil fuels were created. So, if we release all that CO2 again, we'll get as warm as it was then.

By only releasing the CO2 that was captured last year, it will even out. We will never go to a zero emission life-style. Even burning wood will release CO2.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

The earth was much warmer by the time coal and petrol and all those fossil fuels were created. So, if we release all that CO2 again, we'll get as warm as it was then.

By only releasing the CO2 that was captured last year, it will even out. We will never go to a zero emission life-style. Even burning wood will release CO2.

agreed, but this Co2 being released by burning wood is, if you like, from now rather than the far distant past. it is this vast store of ancient Co2 that is where most of our current problems have originated. hence the threat from the thaw of the permafrost.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

agreed, but this Co2 being released by burning wood is, if you like, from now rather than the far distant past. it is this vast store of ancient Co2 that is where most of our current problems have originated. hence the threat from the thaw of the permafrost.

yes, which is why biomass energy can't be compared with coal energy...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

The earth was much warmer by the time coal and petrol and all those fossil fuels were created. So, if we release all that CO2 again, we'll get as warm as it was then.

And just why was the Earth so much warmer back in the Carboniferous era and the like when all the the fossil fuel was in the process of creation?

Assuming that releasing all the previously stored CO2 will put it back there again is questionable. Remember, we are on the tail end of coming out of a period of glaciation.

(I am all in favor of "green" in principle. What is not clear to me is how much climate change is caused by human activity, and how much is due to truly long term cycles we have no control over. It may well continue to get warmer for reasons we aren't responsible for and can't do anything about. "We didn't cause it, but we're stuck with it, and how do we best deal with it?" may be the real question.)

By only releasing the CO2 that was captured last year, it will even out. We will never go to a zero emission life-style. Even burning wood will release CO2.

And the question is made more complex by the fact that several different kinds or energy consumption are involved.

Things like wind farms and tidal generators are fine for producing electricity, but electricity is only one energy form in use. In the US, electrical power was about 1/4 of the total energy budget the last I knew. Industrial, commercial and residential heating and cooling and transportation accounted for the majority. Burning coal, oil, and natural gas accounted for the majority of that.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

yes, which is why biomass energy can't be compared with coal energy...

The big improvement I can see for biomass conversion over coal is that you don't mine to get biomass. Coal mining is a nasty, health destroying occupation for those who do it. Strip mining is worse in its effects on the area in which it is done.
______
Dennis

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

(I am all in favor of "green" in principle. What is not clear to me is how much climate change is caused by human activity, and how much is due to truly long term cycles we have no control over. It may well continue to get warmer for reasons we aren't responsible for and can't do anything about. "We didn't cause it, but we're stuck with it, and how do we best deal with it?" may be the real question.)

That's generally how I think as well. When they say: it was the hottest summer in 100 years, I only think, what is a 100 years?

I doubt we're the only ones affecting the climate of our planet, though we might be making a contribution. I read a piece about how lessened vulcanism and increased solar activity also have a major say in the heating up of the planet.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

And the question is made more complex by the fact that several different kinds or energy consumption are involved.

Things like wind farms and tidal generators are fine for producing electricity, but electricity is only one energy form in use. In the US, electrical power was about 1/4 of the total energy budget the last I knew. Industrial, commercial and residential heating and cooling and transportation accounted for the majority. Burning coal, oil, and natural gas accounted for the majority of that.
______
Dennis

Biomass being made into gas (by fermentation) is a good replacement for natural gas as well as fueling gas plants. And I think most oil based engines will be replaced with electric engines within my life-time.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

That's generally how I think as well. When they say: it was the hottest summer in 100 years, I only think, what is a 100 years?

The blink of an eye in climate terms.

I doubt we're the only ones affecting the climate of our planet, though we might be making a contribution. I read a piece about how lessened vulcanism and increased solar activity also have a major say in the heating up of the planet.

There's no question we're making a contribution, but I part company with the folks who seem to think we're the only factor in the equation.

Biomass being made into gas (by fermentation) is a good replacement for natural gas as well as fueling gas plants. And I think most oil based engines will be replaced with electric engines within my life-time.

You may be younger than I am, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

Electrical engines are fine, but the current level of technology places definite limits on usage. I expect to see a lot more electric vehicles intended for short range passenger transport. I don't expect to see electric "18 wheelers", nor electric aircraft.

Electric vehicles are limited by speed and range between charges. And you have the larger question of infrastructure to support them. Just where do you plug your electric car in overnight? And does the generating capacity exist to charge it? If so, what powers the generators?
______
Dennis

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

The earth was much warmer by the time coal and petrol and all those fossil fuels were created. So, if we release all that CO2 again, we'll get as warm as it was then.

By only releasing the CO2 that was captured last year, it will even out. We will never go to a zero emission life-style. Even burning wood will release CO2.

You don't seem to understand, if you burn the same amount of hydrocarbon you release the same amount of CO2, it doesn't matter where or when the hydrocarbons came from. If you burn a liter of vegetable oil you get a certain number of gramms of CO2, if you burn a liter of diesel fuel you get approximately the same amount of CO2. You've gained exactly nothing from it being vegetable oil.

And by the way, do you know what the wast product of ethanol fermentation is? Yup, you guessed it, CO2!

It's a zero sum equation!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by wodin

You don't seem to understand, if you burn the same amount of hydrocarbon you release the same amount of CO2, it doesn't matter where or when the hydrocarbons came from. If you burn a liter of vegetable oil you get a certain number of gramms of CO2, if you burn a liter of diesel fuel you get approximately the same amount of CO2. You've gained exactly nothing from it being vegetable oil.

And by the way, do you know what the wast product of ethanol fermentation is? Yup, you guessed it, CO2!

It's a zero sum equation!

The zero sum equation is correct in some ways; in that what was extracted from the atmosphere in the very recent past is being released back. Hence biomass stations that use, for instance wood - are really only releasing what was there when those trees were growing. In climatological/geological time- scales this was yesterday.

The difference with oil, gas and coal is that the Co2 locked up in these reservoirs are from millions of years ago.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

The difference with oil, gas and coal is that the Co2 locked up in these reservoirs are from millions of years ago.

And your point would be?

Once more.

Burn a liter of hydrocarbon get CO2! The only way to reduce the amount of CO2 is to burn less hydrocarbon.

Do you think that's going to happen if the biomass is recent rather than ancient? I think not!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by wodin

And your point would be?

Once more.

Burn a liter of hydrocarbon get CO2! The only way to reduce the amount of CO2 is to burn less hydrocarbon.

Do you think that's going to happen if the biomass is recent rather than ancient? I think not!

I think this topic has got itself into a little bit of a confusion somewhere....I am not disputing what you say, because it is correct - burn anything and the Co2 will be released....


All I am trying to point out is that Co2 from millions of years ago is adding to the witches brew. Otherwise it's only recycling (trees) what was captured in the relatively recent past.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

The zero sum equation is correct in some ways; in that what was extracted from the atmosphere in the very recent past is being released back. Hence biomass stations that use, for instance wood - are really only releasing what was there when those trees were growing. In climatological/geological time- scales this was yesterday.

The difference with oil, gas and coal is that the Co2 locked up in these reservoirs are from millions of years ago.

And there is no practical difference in the effects of releasing that CO2.

The critical factors are the amount released and the rate of release, not the age of the material releasing it.

There are good reasons in the case of things like coal to find other fuel sources like biomass, given the processes used to get the coal, but that's a different matter.

X amount of CO2 is X amount of CO2, regardless of the age of the material providing the carbon.
______
Dennis