47 replies to this topic

[Runi1024]

I agree with tigerlily, there is no reason to rush it. We should be taking our time and letting things happen as they do.  But still be working on keeping things under control as much as we can.


As to colonizing space, that doesn't really seem to be as practical as it sounds.  Hollywood makes it look all grand in movies like "Zenon" and "Star Trek" but we have to keep in mind that there could be a negative side to it as well.  Raise your hand if you've seen Disney's "Wall-E."

Sorry for all the movie references all the time, studying communications and all we do all day is talk about movies and TV shows makes me forget that the world doesn't talk like that...

But all I have to say is we only get one chance to either mess this up or make it the best earth we have. Since its the only one I think that we should be trying our best to leave things the way they are supposed to be and reduce our impact.

[Runi1024]

Jeez! I can't take two days off of this form with out the whole world crashing down around me. Shortpoet I agree 100%.

“I believe you should live each day as if it is your last, which is why I don't have any clean laundry, because, come on, who wants to wash clothes on the last day of their life?”


I feel this is the mentality of the rest of the world. The world is going to end. Maybe not tomorrow or next week but one day so what is the point of recycling.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Runi1024, on 08 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Jeez! I can't take two days off of this form with out the whole world crashing down around me. Shortpoet I agree 100%.

“I believe you should live each day as if it is your last, which is why I don't have any clean laundry, because, come on, who wants to wash clothes on the last day of their life?”

I'm glad you agree with me
BUT
I didn't say the above quote.

[Runi1024]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 08 February 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

I'm glad you agree with me
BUT
I didn't say the above quote.

I wasn't quoting you. Its a quote that I really liked and fit the discussion. I spent an hour on google looking for who said it but have not been able to find the author yet :(

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Runi1024, on 16 February 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

I wasn't quoting you. Its a quote that I really liked and fit the discussion. I spent an hour on google looking for who said it but have not been able to find the author yet :(

Ok. I found the line on the net, but not the author.

Back to topic.................

[tigerlily78]

arboramans, on 16 February 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

And unless we blast resources off into space we can never ever waste any of it - it's all part of the system (well except for Helium which is gradually drifting off into space)

If we burn a gas to create energy in a way that is inefficient, or utilize that produced energy in inefficient ways or for rather purposeless endeavors, then certainly I think you can argue that we are perfectly capable and willing to "waste" the resources of this planet... and if the technology allows, on the moon too.
I realize that Newt Gingrich probably doesn't even have his sights set on something as novel as helium or other gases, but simply metals and other solid elements. Have you seen the American recycling rates for aluminum? (57.4%) How about recycling rates for rechargable batteries like those found in cell phones and laptops? (roughly 30%) Just because these resources are moderately valuable does not mean individual humans will refrain from just chucking them in the landfill as a matter of convenience... which is pretty much the definition of waste.

Simply because something does not cease to exist, does not mean it continues to exist in an easily accessible and continually reusable form. And non-renewable resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas can absolutely be wasted and cease to be available in any meaningful sense if we squander them.

[tigerlily78]

arboramans, on 18 February 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Why do you refer to coal oil and natural gas as non-renewable sources?

Because for all practical purposes they are non-renewable. They certainly cannot be renewed on a timeline relevant to human existence... we don't have the luxury of waiting a few million years for more coal or natural gas to be created.

Even the world coal association says coal takes millions of years to develop, and that at current use we have 118 years worth of coal left.   http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/

[E3 wise]

Sorry having computer issues will shut down and try again.

[E3 wise]

Hello arboramans

Energy is broadly classifies into two main groups: renewable and Non-renewable

Non-Renewable energy is energy which is taken from the sources that are available on the earth in limited quantity and will vanish. Non-renewable sources are not environmental friendly and can have serious affect on our health. They are called non-renewable because they cannot be re-generated within a short span of time. Non-renewable sources exist in the form of fossil fuels, natural gas, oil and coal.

Renewable energy is energy which is generated from natural sources i.e. sun, wind, rain, tides and can be generated again and again as and when required. They are available in plenty and by far most the cleanest sources of energy available on this planet. For example: Energy that we receive from the sun can be used to generate electricity. Similarly, energy from wind, geothermal, biomass from plants, tides can be used this form of energy to another form.

This is the accepted definition by the energy industry, scientist, and most governments around the world.  I am not sure why you used the reference on abiogenic natural gas, but I am guessing that because they refer to it as Natural Gas you were thinking that because it is called natural it might be renewable, this is a misnomer.

It is sometimes hard to make the distinction between renewable and non renewable when it comes to certain natural gas products.  If the gas is produced by say a bio-reformer (things like bio-waste) or bio digester it is producing natural gas (methane) from a renewable source because the bio waste is grown in a short time.  Even though it produces green house gases when burned.

Coal however takes as pointed out, millions of years to form under great pressures in the earth.  It is the dirtiest form of producing energy, even more than oil; it causes acid rain and may include other poisons such as arsenics, mercury, heavy metals and particulate pollutions that are dangerous to respiratory systems in plants, animals, and humans. In places like China and other countries including the United States it can be obtained by strip mining which destroys the top layers of earth, trees and plants, to get to the coal. Thus contributing to climate change on two levels the coal and destroying trees and plants.

   China which uses more coal than any other country has terrible smog in many areas, and as a consequence to their strip mining also terrible dust storms in many areas from the deforestation.  The government of China has tried to whitewash the effects to the people by putting out incorrect information but the affects are still the same, ecological disaster and pollution.  That said the United States is the second largest user of coal worldwide, which is why the new air quality standards in the US from the EPA is causing many utilities to switch to other energy sources.

I hope this helps and thank you for the question, because this subject can sometimes be confusing.  Health, Happiness and Success and thanks for your participation in alt energy shift. There are no such things as bad questions and we all want to learn and share information regarding these very important subjects.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

We can't use it all.
If we used all the coal and oil reserves, we'd be cooked by then.
http://earthobservat...rming/page5.php

And even regardless of that, the air pollution would be so bad, we couldn't breathe, and neither could
the trees that help to balance the system. The oceans would become too acid, and they would die too.
"The waters of the Pacific Ocean are turning acidic TEN TIMES more rapidly than expected.
Further, they reveal that mussels, which are a pivotal creature in such ecosystems, are dying off rapidly as the ocean
becomes acidic."
http://www.protectth...-ocean-on-acid/

[still learning]

arboramans, on 19 February 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Natural Gas is constantly being produced. Abiotic Oil most likely exists but is too deep to extract. How is Peat made?

Natural gas constantly being produced?
Well, from what I've read small amounts of methane, the main component of natural gas, actually are produced completely abiotically, but its in small amounts and spread all around, not collected into reservoirs suitable for drilling into.  Methane is also produced by lots of biological processes, including even our own digestive system, but again not collected into useful reservoirs.  An exception to the last is the methane collected from landfills and sewage plants and some agriciltural operations, enough to be of use, but not nearly enough to do the job of replacing all the natural gas we use.  As a practical matter, natural gas isn't renewable.

Abiotic oil?
I doubt it.  Perhaps tiny amounts, transiently, from abiotic methane.  Get exactly the right conditions of high pressure and high temperature and moisture content deep down, small amounts of longer chain hydrocarbons could be produced from methane.  Theoretically.  Don't think it's ever actually been shown to have happened.

Peat?
No doubt being produced today in wetlands from partially decayed vegetation.  Sort of pre-coal stuff.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat  People do actually burn peat to heat homes with I guess, even use in in a powerplant or two.  Dig it up and dry it out, can make a smoky fire.  Not near'y as nice as a wood fire, if I understand rightly.  http://www.fao.org/d...2e/x5872e0b.htm
Good for making whisky though, gives some Scotch it's flavor.
Is peat being produced by natural processes at a rate so that we could run out electric powerplants and heat our homes and fuel our vehicles with it?  Is it a sustainable resource?  I don't know.  My guess is no, but it's just a guess.  No doubt somebody has figured it out, probably even published the answer in a paper.

[still learning]

arboramans, on 19 February 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

And if we only have a set amount of coal,oil and gas wouldn't it be better to use it up and force a shift away from carbon fuels?

It's not just the amount that is present, but the amount that it is economic to recover.  Economic both in monitary terms and in terms of the energy recovered, the EROI  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI.
According to this website http://oill.wikidot.com/eroi  EROI on US petroleum was 100 to 1 in the 1930's, and new production is about 10 to 1.  Keep drilling deeper, costs more to get the same amount of oil, costs more in dollars and costs more in the energy, fossil fuel energy, to extract.  Takes energy to drill, to pump, to transport and to refine the oil.

There will still be oil left in the ground when it becomes uneconomic to produce.. Coal too.  Natural gas too.  Run out?  More like the economic engine running down.

Anyway, we do notwant get too far along the decreasing EROI curve before building the fossil fuel replacement apparatus, whatever it will turn out to be.  Or whatever mixture of technologies and machines and techniques we end up with.  It takes not just money but energy too to build windmills and PV arrays and nuclear powerplants, don't want to wait until fossil fuel energy gets too expensive.  See "The Energy Trap" here:  http://physics.ucsd....he-energy-trap/

If we do keep pushing deep enough down the EROI curve to make tarsands more economic (apparently lots in other places besides Alberta but not yet economic) and kerogen/shale oil attractive then we run the risk of really damaging the climate, not just making life miserable for our decendants.  At least one climate scientist has said that maybe we could get ourselves into a "Venus syndrome" if we really go overboard using fossil fuels.  James Hansen mentioned the possibility in a lecture in 2008, the Powerpoint slides viewable here:  http://www.columbia....es_20081217.pdf   This Venus Syndrome bit was at the end of the lecture, and Hansen said that he hadn't yet done all the math that could convince other people, but said that the possibility should be taken seriously.  Don't think he's put this notion into any of his peer-reviewed stuff, so maybe it couldn't actually happen.  Maybe.

[tigerlily78]

arboramans, on 26 February 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

James hansens models should be taken with a pinch of salt. Consider for example his projections on change of temperature that were presented to congress in 1988. We are currently below the target that would have been achived if C02 emissions had dropped.

And we'd have to drastically increase the rate of consumption to cause any of the effects mentioned above.

Alberta Tar Sands myths debunked by the Canadian IPCC expert only yesterday.

http://www.edmontonj...0734/story.html

A caveat.... the article implies that his paper focuses on the impact of burning the oil. Critics are conscious of the impact of the extraction and processing (as well as the transportation of the oil), which is highly energy intensive and often the cited cause of the carbon intensiveness of the fuel.

So, perhaps his paper is valid in it's narrow perspective on the actual combustion of the oil... conveniently cherrypicking one small aspect of the tar sands impact.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

arboramans, on 05 March 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

I think we should be mining natural gas from the clathrates instead though - cleaner fuel, cleaner process ,

I doubt the people with tainted water wells from fracking would agree with you on that.