Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 18, 2007 at 9:56 AM
After the last two threads on global warming where we debated the politics, science and the overall perception of the issue, I think it would be a great idea to move beyond those aspects and talk about how we move ahead - as individuals and as a society - from here.
I would like to dedicate this thread to “practical pro activity” – in other words, discuss the course of action we take as individuals and as a society to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in the quest to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, create more environmentally-friendly energy technology and sources, and greatly reducing our dependence on a dirty, finite, non-renewable energy source.
Since viable, large-scale alternative energy sources will take some time to displace our dependence on fossil fuels, our immediate attention should be (IMO) on (1) reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use via conservation and (2) exploring the technology of carbon sequestration. Both of these in combination should help slow the growth of CO2 emissions.
The exciting (and most interesting to me) aspect of this discussion is alternative energy sources, something I have long been interested in (I’m really a “techy” at heart). I was a solar advocate back in my college days, and remain so today. I have been involved in the installation of solar hot water systems (heating domestic water) and think that photovoltaic technology is becoming a more economically viable option for low-power uses, such as lighting and the operation of low-wattage appliances.
I am also happy to see that wind power, another form of solar energy, is becoming more widely used. We have a proposal here on Long Island to build a “wind power farm” off shore, where the wind is strong and constantly blowing. Of course, there is opposition to the plan by the affluent who live on the shore because of the aesthetics of having windmills plainly in sight and “spoiling the ocean view.”
On a larger scale, it is now believed that we will have our first fusion reactor online in about 20 to 30 years. Nuclear fusion, which should not be confused with our current nuclear fission technology, has the potential to generate a huge part of man’s electrical power needs with only a tiny fraction of the radioactivity of current fission technology, and none of the radioactive waste and long term storage issues that come with fission. A Google search of “nuclear fusion power” will lead to plenty of good reading on this promising technology. Some write it off as impossible, but I believe it can and will happen as considerable progress has already been made. When the technology does become fully developed and viable, it will render all fossil fuel and fission power generation plants obsolete. That’s a pretty good thing to put some effort and funding into, wouldn’t you say?
Fuel cell technology could be the driving force under the hoods of cars in the near future. Already under development for some time and commercially available on a small scale, fuel-cell technology would eliminate the CO2 emissions of a fossil fuel powered vehicle.
There’s plenty of opportunity to develop these technologies to make them economically viable. While I don’t want government passing laws dictating what I can buy and what I can’t, I would certainly welcome the a little incentive in the form of tax breaks to spend considerably more on a less-practical hydrogen fuel cell car, or a more expensive and less powerful solar voltaic system for my home.
Some would say that our unquestioned reliance on fossil fuel technology has created a big part of the environmental problems we face today. As I stated in the previous threads, this is a road we chose to take and there’s no turning back at this point – we are far too dependent on fossil fuels to just go “cold turkey.” But taking the lessons we have learned, I believe that technology will lead us to better, more environmentally-responsible ways of supporting our industrial society. To me at least, it seems we have no other choice.
I look forward to your input and discussion!
Posted by Basil Greber on March 18, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Hey
Interesting topic. Some general ideas:
1) There are a few energy sources that are offered to us by nature, basically for free, without waste, and in unlimited amount (maybe not unlimited rate, but which will never be used up): Solar power, geothermy, the tides, and wind. I think major investments should me made to promote these energy sources. They all have problems - solar power required a lot of space and may be unavailable in cloudy conditions, geothermy is at the moment not very well developed (we had an earthquake here in Switzerland caused by a drilling project - no need to mention that people weren't too enthusiastic about it ), wind energy harvesting also requires a lot of space and looks ugly (for us as photographers of course of some importance).
2) There is enormous potential in terms of reducing consumption of energy. The fact that we may be able to afford (in monetary terms) wasteful use of energy (having the heating and air conditioning on at the same time is probably the most drastic example ) doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Driving in a huge vehicle to the grocery store may be convenient, but probably a smaller one would do as well (or a walk could even keep you fit ). Bottom line: We may need to sacrifice convenience and maybe also some money (modern & efficient equipment, insulation of houses) to get energy consumption down. Or in other words: What we WANT (huge vehicle) is not always the same thing as what we NEED (small vehicle) to get the job (go shopping) done. And what we really *need* should maybe replace what we *would like* to a certain extent.
Hope you get the idea, these are things where very precise command of a language is essential, and English is obviously not my native tongue...
Basil
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Basil, I think you covered it well - and your English is just fine!
While more fuel-efficient vehicles are always a good, a Honda Civic driven to work each day with just the driver on board (very common here) will consume more gas than a large SUV that sits in a driveway during the week while the owner carpools or uses public transportation. IMO, it's not only the fuel efficency of the vehicle, by the driving habits of the owner as well.
Thanks for posting!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 19, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Could it be that discussing ways of reducing CO2 emissions is not nearly as fun as debating the causes?
Thanks for the link Jim. On a personal level, I've been trying to avoid consuming any new plastic bags. I carry a backpack most times and I keep a couple of old plastic bags (that I already had) in my coat pocket for those times when I'm not using the backpack. It works pretty well.
Posted by Fred Stearns on March 19, 2007 at 10:26 PM
I think that you are right Jim. Coming up with ways to reduce the creation of CO2 is much harder than simply discussing it. There are ways to substitute other fuels for those that produce CO2, basically any carbon based fuel. The problem that is not addressed and is politically incorrect to do so is the creation of CO2 in order to make these substitutes. Or even ignoring the fact that some of the alternate fuels contain carbon themselves.
Lets look at Hydrogen. How do we make Hydrogen? Do don't find it floating around the atmosphere. If what I heard was right, not only is it light enough to rise in the atmosphere, it is light enough to leave the atmosphere. The most common way to create Hydrogen is to use electrolysis. Where does the electricity come from? Mostly existing power plants. Back to burning carbon.
Then there is the alternate fuel called ethanol. Simply put, Everclear without the strict purity. Ethanol is an organic compound containing carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. This is created the same way Everclear is, by distillation. Where does the heat come from to distill the alcohol? Have we saved anything?
As far as I can see, the best way to minimize CO2 production until we find a substitute for fossil fuels is simply conservation. I do not believe that we all need to run around driving roller skates nor go to bed when the sun sets to achieve this. Better light bulbs exist, even though I dislike both the color and the flickering of the fluorescent bulbs. Drive trains for vehicles can surely be make more efficient. I also believe that there is a more efficient engine than the internal combustion, both gasoline and diesel, maybe a return to the days of the Stanley Steamer. Unfortunately, the big auto makers, all countries, control that element. If we were all rich, we could use the hybrid except when we needed to get to the back country or drive in the snow. Your list, Jim, is good as far as it goes. There are problems with actually implementing it, but it provides a guideline for achieving a reduction of CO2 emissions.
Ana has a good idea with reusing plastic bags. It is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. Paradoxically, I have heard in several articles I have read over the years that it takes more energy to make a paper bag than a plastic sack. At least the paper bag decomposes, and releases CO2 as it does so.
You have opened up a bag can of worms and one that needs to be opened to the light of day. I think that you have lead the way to thinking of real ways to attack the perceived problem rather than mouthing the set politically correct things to say.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on March 20, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Drive trains for vehicles can surely be make more efficient. I also believe that there is a more efficient engine than the internal combustion, both gasoline and diesel, maybe a return to the days of the Stanley Steamer.
Not exactly a steamer but not too far from it, we have the Air Car. It runs on compressed air. They call it a "zero pollution" car but as Fred rightly points out, that just means the pollution takes place somewhere else.
Jim, this link http://www.davidsuzuki.org provides food for thought. Especially of interest for this subject is "The Nature Challenge" which you can find on the bottom of the page. I'll comment more on this later.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Good stuff Will - thanks for the link!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 21, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Posted by Paul Grecian on March 21, 2007 at 10:17 PM
There are also many behavioral changes that aren't just good for the environment but have other benefits. One of my favorites is driving at the speed limit. Going over 65mph is very inefficient, and dangerous as well as illegal. I'd like to see more funding for public transportation, more companies initiating and expanding work-from-home, communities designed so that there is easy access to essential services and products. Our entire society is geared around driving everywhere. We need to have development that considers a total change in life style that is more energy efficient. The other thing I like is that extended families should consider living together, sharing the costs of bulk products (less packaging and travel to buy more), maybe less need for everone having their own car, etc.
Paul
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 22, 2007 at 7:16 AM
...more companies initiating and expanding work-from-home...
I agree with all, but the one above is HUGE. Living on LI, the rush hour traffic is 90% "single occupancy" vehicles.
I had to fight tooth and nail with my employer to work from home, and never fully succeeded. I bet if they had some tax-relief incentive to do so, it would have happened much faster and more completely. With today's communication technologies, requiring everyone to physically appear in a central office is stone age policy.
Now that I'm self employed, the number of miles I drive a week for work-related activities has fallen from 400+ when I was communting every day to less than 50. That is a HUGE difference!
I have a big car which I seldom drive. I don't need to. I walk to work. And I walk to the grocery store. When there is too much to carry the 1.5 km ( 1 mile) to home, I take the bus.
Driving so little has caused a problem. That of keeping a charge in the battery. Let the car sit long enough and the battery looses its power and eventually dies. That was solved by attaching a special "on-off switch" to the negative post of the battery. When I don't expect to drive anytime soon I turn the knob so the neg post is disconnected and the battery is preserved.
Nonetheless, global warming is not the motive for being frugal with my driving habits. I do it because I enjoy walking and I don't want to become dependent on the car. Too many people hop into the car when they can easily walk to where they want to go.
of course there is always some driving I will continue to do such as driving to get to photo destinations like our nearby National Parks. Once there the driving is changed to hiking and walking.
Being a nature photographer I have come to see our planet as a beautiful home for mankind. It is distressing that it is a constant struggle to try and preserve it and the creatures that share the world with us. At the same time I can't see the doom and gloom that is susposed to be our future and that we are desperately trying to stave off the inevitable when coastal cities lie submerged in the ocean, perhaps only the tallest buildings jutting out from the water. Holland finally succumbed to the sea. Drought rampant because the glaciers and the icefields have melted. And Man on his knees and crying out in anguish "What have we done?" I am not being sarcastic. That is the "or else" scenerio that I have been given if we don't change our living habits. I have too many unanswered questions to become so fearful of the future. For example, how does nature absorb all the C02 that Man pours out in such alarming amounts? Is C02 a gas necessary for life? Time to do some research.
Wonder why no one has brought up the nuclear option... Being a nuclear engineer, I guess I'll have to carry that torch. Nuclear power is by far, the most environmentally friendly source of large quanties of energy. We should really be holding our regulator's feet to the fire to develop a national solution to the radioactive waste disposal debacle. The last time it was considered (early 80's) congress punted and pushed the problem down to individual states which were allowed to form regional compacts for the three operating disposal sites at that time. Since then, they haven't had the stones to bring it back up. Existing reactor sites are still having to store spent fuel in pools designed to store a few offloads. They've had to modify the fuel racks for much more dense storage, even going to the step of disassembling fuel assemblies to further compact their volume. New plants could be built with on site storage sized for the entire operating life of the plant.
Making hydrogen takes energy. Guess what? It takes more energy to make it than you can ever get out of it. Where's that energy coming from? Use nuclear energy to power the hydrogen generation plants and you have something that begins to make sense. We're making such rapid advances in battery technology that it won't be too long before electric vehicles are viable.
There will always be a need for the bohemeth fossil fuel burners, but as was said above, you don't need a 5000 lb gas burning grocery-getter.
We with the skills and knowledge to build a commercial nuclear power station are a shrinking breed. I'm 50. Very few nuclear engineers were produced after I graduated in 1982. Let's not wait until we're all gone to get excited about this.
Now... Don't anybody look what's parked in my driveway!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Nuclear power + electric cars would be a winner - especially if we're talking nuclear fusion.
Yes, I know, we're at least 30 years away from making nuclear fusion power commercially viable.
As it was expressed in previous posts for now, it boils down to conservation in spending and some common sense (which I'm told that is not so common). My wife works in our capital town, and when going to work with our diesel, it took her 3/4 of an hour with roughly 25 MPG. Now she is using a train and it take her 15 minutes, while our diesel is in my hands and is reaching over 40 MPG, because I'm driving it on open road instead of full traffic at rush hour. So we are spending less on fuel, and she come home (and to work) with nerves in much, much better shape. And those few meters from railway station aren’t all that bad either to push the blood through the body.
Discussion
15 repliesI would like to dedicate this thread to “practical pro activity” – in other words, discuss the course of action we take as individuals and as a society to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in the quest to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, create more environmentally-friendly energy technology and sources, and greatly reducing our dependence on a dirty, finite, non-renewable energy source.
Since viable, large-scale alternative energy sources will take some time to displace our dependence on fossil fuels, our immediate attention should be (IMO) on (1) reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use via conservation and (2) exploring the technology of carbon sequestration. Both of these in combination should help slow the growth of CO2 emissions.
The exciting (and most interesting to me) aspect of this discussion is alternative energy sources, something I have long been interested in (I’m really a “techy” at heart). I was a solar advocate back in my college days, and remain so today. I have been involved in the installation of solar hot water systems (heating domestic water) and think that photovoltaic technology is becoming a more economically viable option for low-power uses, such as lighting and the operation of low-wattage appliances.
I am also happy to see that wind power, another form of solar energy, is becoming more widely used. We have a proposal here on Long Island to build a “wind power farm” off shore, where the wind is strong and constantly blowing. Of course, there is opposition to the plan by the affluent who live on the shore because of the aesthetics of having windmills plainly in sight and “spoiling the ocean view.”
On a larger scale, it is now believed that we will have our first fusion reactor online in about 20 to 30 years. Nuclear fusion, which should not be confused with our current nuclear fission technology, has the potential to generate a huge part of man’s electrical power needs with only a tiny fraction of the radioactivity of current fission technology, and none of the radioactive waste and long term storage issues that come with fission. A Google search of “nuclear fusion power” will lead to plenty of good reading on this promising technology. Some write it off as impossible, but I believe it can and will happen as considerable progress has already been made. When the technology does become fully developed and viable, it will render all fossil fuel and fission power generation plants obsolete. That’s a pretty good thing to put some effort and funding into, wouldn’t you say?
Fuel cell technology could be the driving force under the hoods of cars in the near future. Already under development for some time and commercially available on a small scale, fuel-cell technology would eliminate the CO2 emissions of a fossil fuel powered vehicle.
There’s plenty of opportunity to develop these technologies to make them economically viable. While I don’t want government passing laws dictating what I can buy and what I can’t, I would certainly welcome the a little incentive in the form of tax breaks to spend considerably more on a less-practical hydrogen fuel cell car, or a more expensive and less powerful solar voltaic system for my home.
Some would say that our unquestioned reliance on fossil fuel technology has created a big part of the environmental problems we face today. As I stated in the previous threads, this is a road we chose to take and there’s no turning back at this point – we are far too dependent on fossil fuels to just go “cold turkey.” But taking the lessons we have learned, I believe that technology will lead us to better, more environmentally-responsible ways of supporting our industrial society. To me at least, it seems we have no other choice.
I look forward to your input and discussion!
Interesting topic. Some general ideas:
1) There are a few energy sources that are offered to us by nature, basically for free, without waste, and in unlimited amount (maybe not unlimited rate, but which will never be used up): Solar power, geothermy, the tides, and wind. I think major investments should me made to promote these energy sources. They all have problems - solar power required a lot of space and may be unavailable in cloudy conditions, geothermy is at the moment not very well developed (we had an earthquake here in Switzerland caused by a drilling project - no need to mention that people weren't too enthusiastic about it
2) There is enormous potential in terms of reducing consumption of energy. The fact that we may be able to afford (in monetary terms) wasteful use of energy (having the heating and air conditioning on at the same time is probably the most drastic example
Hope you get the idea, these are things where very precise command of a language is essential, and English is obviously not my native tongue...
Basil
While more fuel-efficient vehicles are always a good, a Honda Civic driven to work each day with just the driver on board (very common here) will consume more gas than a large SUV that sits in a driveway during the week while the owner carpools or uses public transportation. IMO, it's not only the fuel efficency of the vehicle, by the driving habits of the owner as well.
Thanks for posting!
Some good energy-saving ideas here.
Lets look at Hydrogen. How do we make Hydrogen? Do don't find it floating around the atmosphere. If what I heard was right, not only is it light enough to rise in the atmosphere, it is light enough to leave the atmosphere. The most common way to create Hydrogen is to use electrolysis. Where does the electricity come from? Mostly existing power plants. Back to burning carbon.
Then there is the alternate fuel called ethanol. Simply put, Everclear without the strict purity. Ethanol is an organic compound containing carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. This is created the same way Everclear is, by distillation. Where does the heat come from to distill the alcohol? Have we saved anything?
As far as I can see, the best way to minimize CO2 production until we find a substitute for fossil fuels is simply conservation. I do not believe that we all need to run around driving roller skates nor go to bed when the sun sets to achieve this. Better light bulbs exist, even though I dislike both the color and the flickering of the fluorescent bulbs. Drive trains for vehicles can surely be make more efficient. I also believe that there is a more efficient engine than the internal combustion, both gasoline and diesel, maybe a return to the days of the Stanley Steamer. Unfortunately, the big auto makers, all countries, control that element. If we were all rich, we could use the hybrid except when we needed to get to the back country or drive in the snow. Your list, Jim, is good as far as it goes. There are problems with actually implementing it, but it provides a guideline for achieving a reduction of CO2 emissions.
Ana has a good idea with reusing plastic bags. It is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. Paradoxically, I have heard in several articles I have read over the years that it takes more energy to make a paper bag than a plastic sack. At least the paper bag decomposes, and releases CO2 as it does so.
You have opened up a bag can of worms and one that needs to be opened to the light of day. I think that you have lead the way to thinking of real ways to attack the perceived problem rather than mouthing the set politically correct things to say.
Not exactly a steamer but not too far from it, we have the Air Car. It runs on compressed air. They call it a "zero pollution" car but as Fred rightly points out, that just means the pollution takes place somewhere else.
Cheers,
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Paul
I agree with all, but the one above is HUGE. Living on LI, the rush hour traffic is 90% "single occupancy" vehicles.
I had to fight tooth and nail with my employer to work from home, and never fully succeeded. I bet if they had some tax-relief incentive to do so, it would have happened much faster and more completely. With today's communication technologies, requiring everyone to physically appear in a central office is stone age policy.
Now that I'm self employed, the number of miles I drive a week for work-related activities has fallen from 400+ when I was communting every day to less than 50. That is a HUGE difference!
Driving so little has caused a problem. That of keeping a charge in the battery. Let the car sit long enough and the battery looses its power and eventually dies. That was solved by attaching a special "on-off switch" to the negative post of the battery. When I don't expect to drive anytime soon I turn the knob so the neg post is disconnected and the battery is preserved.
Nonetheless, global warming is not the motive for being frugal with my driving habits. I do it because I enjoy walking and I don't want to become dependent on the car. Too many people hop into the car when they can easily walk to where they want to go.
of course there is always some driving I will continue to do such as driving to get to photo destinations like our nearby National Parks. Once there the driving is changed to hiking and walking.
Being a nature photographer I have come to see our planet as a beautiful home for mankind. It is distressing that it is a constant struggle to try and preserve it and the creatures that share the world with us. At the same time I can't see the doom and gloom that is susposed to be our future and that we are desperately trying to stave off the inevitable when coastal cities lie submerged in the ocean, perhaps only the tallest buildings jutting out from the water. Holland finally succumbed to the sea. Drought rampant because the glaciers and the icefields have melted. And Man on his knees and crying out in anguish "What have we done?" I am not being sarcastic. That is the "or else" scenerio that I have been given if we don't change our living habits. I have too many unanswered questions to become so fearful of the future. For example, how does nature absorb all the C02 that Man pours out in such alarming amounts? Is C02 a gas necessary for life? Time to do some research.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Making hydrogen takes energy. Guess what? It takes more energy to make it than you can ever get out of it. Where's that energy coming from? Use nuclear energy to power the hydrogen generation plants and you have something that begins to make sense. We're making such rapid advances in battery technology that it won't be too long before electric vehicles are viable.
There will always be a need for the bohemeth fossil fuel burners, but as was said above, you don't need a 5000 lb gas burning grocery-getter.
We with the skills and knowledge to build a commercial nuclear power station are a shrinking breed. I'm 50. Very few nuclear engineers were produced after I graduated in 1982. Let's not wait until we're all gone to get excited about this.
Now... Don't anybody look what's parked in my driveway!
Yes, I know, we're at least 30 years away from making nuclear fusion power commercially viable.
Marko