Climate Change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

OK playing the typical lame meme games when you don't have substance? OK

Attachment 427893


You're the idiot who brought up GAWD.. And I've pegged you perfectly..

---

Solid follow up meme, you're learning!

"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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

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.

---

How much impact/help would banning grape/wine production have? Where is most of the H2O going?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

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.

---

Denmark is positioning themselves to produce hydrogen via electrolysis from wind power. Their plan is to turn it into a major export industry.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raisingarizona13

That's what she said.

---

Perfect usage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raisingarizona13

That's what she said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted reborn

Perfect usage

---

He said it too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

He said it too...

---

If she did it right and that's his thing......I suppose so :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

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.

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.)

My take is that this is an all solutions at once approach that’s necessary. There are definitely plans being made for injecting CO2 into the ground for storage. Many provide multiple solutions. Wetland restoration in bays, coastlines, estuaries provide ecological benefits, assist with protecting inland adjacent built-out areas from sea level rise, provide recreational benefits, provide jobs (planning, development, and maintenance), and provide sequestration.

In California, I see biomass as a necessary component for forest restoration, dealing with veg ag waste, and dealing with veg waste from landscape property maintenance. It seems a far better alternative compare to other options, such as high severity massive habitat transitioning wildfires, enormous open pile burns, and open ag burning.

My take is that we are totally fucked.

Enjoy the day I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

My take is that this is an all solutions at once approach that’s necessary.

---

This ^^X1000
In order to have measurable impact in the next few decades, all options, tailored to the local energy opportunities, ecology, and economy need to be implemented yesterday. Especially the ones that help preserve ecosystem resilience and economic adaptability. There is no silver bullet, but for the removal of our species from the equation. And I like being here, and providing that opportunity to my progeny.

“We can’t afford the luxury of nihilism.”

Whoa .... who said anything about ferrets in the bathtub?!?!?

Absolutley, anything that produces a net, however slight, reduction in green house gases, should be employed if possible.
The trick is to convince lazy, change resistant people to buy in and participate. The zombie cultists are a complete lost cause and no energy whatsoever should be wasted on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCMtnHound

This ^^X1000
In order to have measurable impact in the next few decades, all options, tailored to the local energy opportunities, ecology, and economy need to be implemented yesterday. Especially the ones that help preserve ecosystem resilience and economic adaptability. There is no silver bullet, but for the removal of our species from the equation. And I like being here, and providing that opportunity to my progeny.

---

Yep , And it must be done in a way that doesn't create millions of poor people . Lets see what happens in Europe this winter . It's going to be bad when people can't afford heat ,they'll resort to burning everything and anything to stay warm ,definitely not friendly to the environment.

As far as injecting C02 into the ground ...Bad Idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
A seismic event could trigger a disaster.

Ok ....flash forward Fossil fuels are gone .....Now all of the byproducts that are integrated into daily life will need to have substitutes , plastic in skis? Tires, computers ,pretty much start from scratch to re engineer life.

Like RA says totally effed .....Good intentions can have detrimental un intended consequences ......

Plant Trees!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

The trick is to convince lazy, change resistant people to buy in and participate. The zombie cultists are a complete lost cause and no energy whatsoever should be wasted on them.

---

I’ve been told that biomass in California has very thin margins. In most of NorCal, there’s also the issue of dependence on pge.

Article on co2 injection in California: https://mavensnotebook.com/2022/01/0...26373291015625

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

....The trick is to convince lazy, change resistant people to buy in and participate....

---

.
that isnt going to happen soon

carry on ....
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AirheadD8

Yep , And it must be done in a way that doesn't create millions of poor people . Lets see what happens in Europe this winter . It's going to be bad when people can't afford heat ,they'll resort to burning everything and anything to stay warm ,definitely not friendly to the environment.

As far as injecting C02 into the ground ...Bad Idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
A seismic event could trigger a disaster.

Ok ....flash forward Fossil fuels are gone .....Now all of the byproducts that are integrated into daily life will need to have substitutes , plastic in skis? Tires, computers ,pretty much start from scratch to re engineer life.

Like RA says totally effed .....Good intentions can have detrimental un intended consequences ......

Plant Trees!

---

The fact that we don't burn fossil fuels doesn't mean we can't use them to make stuff, provided we can make that stuff without generating CO2. I'm totally ignorant of the chemistry involved and maybe that's not possible, or maybe it means completely changing refineries. Better yet, maybe we can make more stuff out of all the biomass we get from raking the forest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

I’ve been told that biomass in California has very thin margins. In most of NorCal, there’s also the issue of dependence on pge.

Article on co2 injection in California: https://mavensnotebook.com/2022/01/0...26373291015625

---

What do you mean by thin margins? I can think of a couple of ways to interpret that. And do you mean biomass for electricity generation? I assume that's what you're talking about, or do you mean biomass for hydrogen production?

Thin profit margin for investors to get a facility built and operating, so I’ve been told… and I believe that’s both of those types of biomass facility. I conflated the two (energy and H production). Sry