A 22 year megadrought fueled by climate change sure sounds like a good reason for a water shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
https://blog.ucsusa.org/pablo-ortiz/...rn-us-drought/
Printable View
A 22 year megadrought fueled by climate change sure sounds like a good reason for a water shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
https://blog.ucsusa.org/pablo-ortiz/...rn-us-drought/
Pretty sure most of the water each human uses is pretty immediately returned to the ecosystem as water. The shit people burn is converted to other elements fucking shit up and disrupting the balance of our atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
I think someone has had one too many nocturnal "emmissions".Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
Can't it be both?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
So now the climate thread is the place for biased jong trolls...
Umm... no. Boiling occurs when the liquid vapor pressure reaches the ambient barometric pressure, but water evaporates at all temperatures above freezing. Otherwise, it would never dry after it rains.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
But the chart of water evaporation vs temperature isn't a straight line, it's an upward curve.
Hoo boy. I'm just gonna scroll past and pretend I didn't see anything...Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
I think the proper response to this moranity is:https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b42a92d183.jpg
It can be true that both climate change and too much human consumption are contributing to the problem.
Re:consumption-
“In 1960, U.S. Supreme Court Special Master Simon Rifkind made a fundamental mistake in calculating how much water was then available in the Colorado River Basin, and how much might be available in the future. The court, in its ruling in the case of Arizona v. California, accepted Rifkind’s math. The consequence is a shortage on the Colorado River relative to the expectations of the nine states (seven in the U.S., two in Mexico) that share it.But it also was a fundamental mistake for the water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin to not recognize the flaw in Rifkind’s math and act accordingly. That second mistake, more than Rifkind’s, is the cause of our current troubles.”
https://www.inkstain.net/2013/11/sim...olorado-river/
And yeah, evaporation isn’t the same as boiling. Maybe read about sublimation - you’re mind will be blown!
A common sense solution 🤪Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
Although I guess you skipped earth science in school.
If you read this sentence as "anyone who blames the river/lake drying up ONLY on carbon emissions or global warming and not on too many humans using the water as well is a moron" then it makes sense. Don't think that's what they meant though. And around here it's "moran", JONG.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoorsLight99
The first Colorado River basin users that should be allocated less are the users that draw water from outside the Colorado river basin.
I don't give a shit that they had a say back in 1922. Look at the map, its not their water.
These powerful groups should be the first to tighten their belts considering they aren't taking their native water, but rather stealing it from a basin over.
-Denver
-California Agriculture in the Imperial valley
-LA (desalination plants anyone???)
Why nobody singles out these users is odd to me.
Attachment 427775
$200K? How much were the first Teslas? If this can be scaled up to demand and price cut in half, we've got something right??
Hydrogen-powered Ford Ranger hits the road
So you want to completely change the water rights of America and have it declared that only people and land that are located in a watershed have a right to any of its water? [emoji848]Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy Rideout
Don’t forget MX
Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.
Oh, wait.
But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.
Playing god and physically moving water out of its native watershed effects the local environment in a multitude of negative ways, and since this entire thread is about climate change and the environment, I'm here to say that due to those negative effects, these should be the first user groups to tighten their belts.Quote:
Originally Posted by neufox47
Now that you mention it though, we do need a complete rework of the water rights in the American Southwest as the current agreement is clearly not working.
But wait... isn't that same God supposed to save the righteous from the other ill effects of burning fossil fuels, not having to wear masks during a pandemic.. pretty much everything except needing a gun to defend yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy Rideout
I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.
That reminds me of this power generation facility in Michigan. My daughter interned for the company that ran it and got the tour. Pretty cool concept to use the excess nighttime power to refill the pond for daily generation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludi...ge_Power_Plant
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
Attachment 427890Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Waste our time, stray from the topic at hand, and provide an ill informed opinion. Congratulations on the ignorance trifecta!
I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this studyQuote:
Originally Posted by Supermoon
Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.
Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:
- 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
- say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
- Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.
Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).
PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh
While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.
I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this studyQuote:
Originally Posted by Supermoon
Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.
Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:
- 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
- say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
- Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.
Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).
PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh per cycle
While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.
OK playing the typical lame meme games when you don't have substance? OKQuote:
Originally Posted by Percy Rideout
Attachment 427893
You're the idiot who brought up GAWD.. And I've pegged you perfectly..
That's what she said.Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Solid follow up meme, you're learning!Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
"playing god" is a euphemism for when man tries to upend the natural order of things.
Why that word triggered you may require introspection on your part, not force the TGR collective to read your tangential drivel that does not address the topic at hand, at all.
Don't have substance? I'm here on topic talking about problems and potential solutions related to climate change. You're in here talking....politics....god.... Honestly we are all at a loss on where your (lack of) logic is going here.
Speaking of substance. Do you have any substantive opinions on climate change? TGR has different forum options for your political opinions if that's what you solely choose to dwell upon.
New Yorker article on energy storage. Physics for poets.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ewable-storage
Much as I hate to admit it, Percy is echoing what John Wesley Powell said--that agriculture and habitation in the West should be limited and only be along watercourses. But now we're 150 years of unrestrained growth and development and industrial agriculture in the desert and trying to dig our way out of a hole, which is tough to do. It's hard for me to imagine that Phoenix and Las Vegas will exist in 20 or 50 or who knows how many years. Even cities on big rivers, like Sacramento, aren't safe.
This might be a solution..
https://youtu.be/sD_8O5pAyes?t=90
Enough salt to last forever!
How much impact/help would banning grape/wine production have? Where is most of the H2O going?Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Denmark is positioning themselves to produce hydrogen via electrolysis from wind power. Their plan is to turn it into a major export industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Producing electricity on an industrial scale that doesn’t emit carbon is a huge task. Neither Solar or wind are able to scale up to that currently. We’re going to need some serious innovation and investing. I’m not optimistic.
It doesn’t have to be carbon zero. Just really low carbon. Especially if ICEs, shipping, etc get off fossil fuels.
Perfect usageQuote:
Originally Posted by raisingarizona13
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisingarizona13
He said it too...Quote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
If she did it right and that's his thing......I suppose so :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Biomass to hydrogen: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...t%20combustion.
Biomass for hydrogen makes sense if the source is material that would otherwise be burned or landfilled and turned into fee methane. It doesn't make sense if, as the article suggests, plants are grown for the purpose of turning them into hydrogen. If there is land that isn't needed for food (is there?) better to plant trees and let them keep growing and absorbing carbon and producing hydrogen with non-carbon energy.
It’s being explored to address ag practices that typically included open burning. It’s also being explored as a part of forest management.
Yeah, that's an appropriate use of biomass. When a biomass plant was being considered for the landfill outside Truckee they said there was far more biomass from clearing projects than the plant could handle. But the article did claim that there's a lot more ag capacity than we need for food --which I doubt, especially when western ag goes off line due to lack of water--which should be used for biomass. In any case, growing plants specifically to turn into hydrogen isn't the way to go long term. As a transition it does make sense. I wouldn't count on carbon capture though--according to my geophysicist friend who designs carbon capture projects he thinks capture can reduce CO2 by 5-10% of the amount emitted.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
That was what caught my eye: too much CO2 to get a little H.
I should clarify--what my friend said is that carbon capture, if employed to the fullest extent possible, would reduce carbon emissions by 5-10% of the current total national amount. This was a totally of the top of his head number. Presumably the CO2 generated by biomass plants would be captured much more effectively. But then what to do with the CO2? The number one use is to inject into oil wells to squeeze out more oil. Number to is to manufacture synthetic fuels and plastics. Or it can be injected into the earth, which sounds like another huge industry if we make biomass hydrogen on a massive scale.
On another note, watching a piece on saving Venice (from rising seas, not from the Russians)--apparently salt marshes are far more effective absorbers of carbon dioxide than forests. (And by far the biggest users of CO2 are algae, so be careful when you call someone pond scum--you would be praising them. Maybe we should stop worrying about nutrient runoff into bodies of water--like Lake Tahoe--in order to preserve their clarity.)