Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . "Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. How much CO2 was released making, shipping and installing the panels? How much of a waste disposal problem in 20 or so years? |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Buerste" on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:44:53 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "Stu Fields" wrote in message . .. "Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. How much CO2 was released making, shipping and installing the panels? How much of a waste disposal problem in 20 or so years? Details, details - if it doesn't matter to Al Gore, then it doesn't matter. The important thing is that now Stu can feel superior to the rest of us, for his lower Carbon Footprint. Oh, and if anyone needs carbon credits, I'm willing to sell the offsets from not using my Learjet to fly to the coast. But hurry, I'm thinking about upgrading, to not flying my private 737, in the near future. tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich. "I wish you wouldn't use the mind control device - I get these terrible migranes until it's finished." Jonathon |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote:
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product? G Gunner One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Buerste" wrote in message ... "Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . "Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. How much CO2 was released making, shipping and installing the panels? How much of a waste disposal problem in 20 or so years? You know we don't do long term planning. If it gives a good appearance that is the main thing that is required. Unintended consequences happen on another guy's watch. Haven't you been paying attention? |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote: I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product? G Gunner Nope. I've never done the MIG thing. I'm a TIGer and only use pure Argon.. And use the Co2 saved to belabor my Green Friends. I can't get too excited about the Green movement until they start including population as a major factor. |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Jul 17, 6:33*pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: *Are you ready? * * * * * * * * * * * *300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Phil Let me take a stab at that one, I will make educated guesses as needed. 500 pounds C02 equates to 136 pounds of carbon and 364pound of Oxygen I believe that they are assuming the solar power is replacing electricity derived from coal, oil, or natural gas. I'll use coal (because it seems easier right now) but I don't believe it will make a big difference. Assume that coal is mostly composed of long hydrocarbon chains the carbon to hydrogen ratio is roughly 1/2 on an atom basis, but 12/2 on a weight basis, so the 136 pounds of carbon came from 159 pounds of coal. A quick google search says that coal has 8000-13000 BTU per pound and that a BTU equals 2.93X10^-4 KWh, Assume that power generation is 50% efficient at extracting the energy in coal. So with a little math Stu's solar electric system has generated 3.7 KWh worth of electricity. CarlBoyd |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message ... "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Carl" wrote in message ... On Jul 17, 6:33 pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote: "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Phil Let me take a stab at that one, I will make educated guesses as needed. 500 pounds C02 equates to 136 pounds of carbon and 364pound of Oxygen I believe that they are assuming the solar power is replacing electricity derived from coal, oil, or natural gas. I'll use coal (because it seems easier right now) but I don't believe it will make a big difference. Assume that coal is mostly composed of long hydrocarbon chains the carbon to hydrogen ratio is roughly 1/2 on an atom basis, but 12/2 on a weight basis, so the 136 pounds of carbon came from 159 pounds of coal. A quick google search says that coal has 8000-13000 BTU per pound and that a BTU equals 2.93X10^-4 KWh, Assume that power generation is 50% efficient at extracting the energy in coal. So with a little math Stu's solar electric system has generated 3.7 KWh worth of electricity. CarlBoyd Carl: Our average usage has been about 40kwh/day. Our meter numbers are slightly decreasing. We appear to be generating more than we use... According again to the display we are producing around 40+kwh/day. 30-230w panels. For me the best part is to watch the meter wheel turn backwards.... |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Stu Fields" on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:08:24 -0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote: I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product? G Gunner Nope. I've never done the MIG thing. I'm a TIGer and only use pure Argon.. And use the Co2 saved to belabor my Green Friends. I can't get too excited about the Green movement until they start including population as a major factor. If only they would cease to exhale CO2 with every breathe. tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Stu Fields" wrote:
Nope. I've never done the MIG thing. I'm a TIGer and only use pure Argon.. And use the Co2 saved to belabor my Green Friends. I can't get too excited about the Green movement until they start including population as a major factor. Think how much carbon is saved by keeping an illegal in mexico. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:56:55 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message .. . I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. Is this the same software that the IPCC used to give use the hockey stick? Thanks, Rich |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:33:41 -0400, Phil Kangas wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ The software was provided by IPCC.... Cheers! Rich |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Cheers! Rich |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:21:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote: I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product? G He's mig welding on solar cells? Damn! That's a lot of electricity! Thanks, Rich |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:37:24 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote: He's mig welding on solar cells? Damn! I've been doing various kinds of welding on solar and wind power for about 15 years. http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images...28Small%29.jpg That's a lot of electricity! Not really. I probably average about 4kW when welding, but that's usually not for very long. An hour of "welding" tends to be about 55 minutes of fitting, jigging, grinding, etc. 5 minutes at 4kW and 10 cents per kWh is about 3 cents worth. Most days when I'm welding, the overhead lighting, grinders, saws and air tools use more energy. Wayne |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. -- Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels, throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions, without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711 |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic wrote the following: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon in plants and animals that you ate. The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal. -- Ed Huntress |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
Larry Jaques wrote:
Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. You do know, don't you, that none of this was EVER an issue before the rain forests were "harvested"? |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic wrote the following: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon in plants and animals that you ate. The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal. This is different carbon? |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Don Foreman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic wrote the following: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon in plants and animals that you ate. The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal. This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Jul 25, 2:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. Dan |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
In article
, " wrote: On Jul 25, 2:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. Dan I *think* what Ed and others are saying is that the sequestered CO2 has been sequestered for a very long time, but is being released now at a far faster rate than it would be by natural processes, which then raises the proportion of it in the atmosphere more than it ordinarily would if left alone. It's the *rate* of release that's important, not the overall amount. Hell, that is what he *did* say! |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
|
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Jul 25, 7:59*am, " wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. *He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. *So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. *It is faulty logic. *I too have an engineering background. *The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan The carbon in plant tissue will reenter the atmosphere one way or another, either you eat or burn it or it decomposes. jsw |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Jul 25, 9:32*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 7/25/2010 7:59 AM, wrote: On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed *wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. *He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. *So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. *It is faulty logic. *I too have an engineering background. *The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. However the long term effect of releasing a pound that was sequestered by a corn plant over the last several months and will be resequestered by the corn plant you are planting in the same location next spring is different from the long term effect of releasing a pound that has been buried in a hole in the ground for the past million years. If there is a difficulty with CO2 (and I'm not taking that as proven) the difficulty comes from releasing 150 or so million years worth of sequestered carbon in a century or so, with no in-place process for resorbing it. So, yes, the source does matter. Ah, but the lb of CO2 that was sequestered by the corn plant is not going to be the same lb of CO2 that will be sequestered by the corn plant in the same location. The lb of CO2 sequestered by the corn plant next spring could be a lb of CO2 that has been buried in the ground for the last million years. The source only matters to those that want it to matter. It is pretty silly that the US is considering taxes to limit CO2 release from cars and light trucks when it would be a lot cheaper to put out the coal fires in China that release more CO2 than the cars and light trucks in the US. But to some the source matters. So CO2 from underground fires in coal mines does not count, but CO2 from cars counts. And of course CO2 from humans does not count in their minds because there is not much that can be done about it. In fact it is all fungible. A lb of CO2 is a lb of CO2. Dan |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. Yes he is. And he does it nicely. g He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. No, he's not. Because he's enough of an engineer to know that's irrelevant to the issue. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. Yes, it matters a great deal if the CO2 is just recycled from the planet's current load of atmospheric carbon, or if it's suddenly released from carbon stored and sequestered millions of years. As you emit CO2 from fossil sources, you increase the base load of atmospheric carbon, raising it to some value that existed millions of years ago. It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. Then let's see you put it to use here. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point? -- Ed Huntress |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"John Husvar" wrote in message ... In article , " wrote: On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. Dan I *think* what Ed and others are saying is that the sequestered CO2 has been sequestered for a very long time, but is being released now at a far faster rate than it would be by natural processes, which then raises the proportion of it in the atmosphere more than it ordinarily would if left alone. It's the *rate* of release that's important, not the overall amount. Hell, that is what he *did* say! Thank you, John. If any is genuinely surprised to recognize this phenomenon, I have to wonder what they think the whole issue is about. -- Ed Huntress |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 7:59 am, " wrote: On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. Dan The carbon in plant tissue will reenter the atmosphere one way or another, either you eat or burn it or it decomposes. Exactly. So human respiration, or any living thing's respiration, doesn't matter in terms of atmospheric CO2. It's a closed cycle, whether humans, or bacteria, or fungi are the ones that re-release the short-term sequestered carbon. When you burn fossil fuel, you're restoring levels of atmospheric CO2 that existed millions of years ago. I'll leave it to the post-doctoral climate-science fellows here on the newsgroup to argue what that means g, but the point at issue is whether human respiration has anything to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It does not. -- Ed Huntress |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 9:32 am, "J. Clarke" wrote: On 7/25/2010 7:59 AM, wrote: On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed wrote: This is different carbon? Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short period of time and then re-release it. You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. However the long term effect of releasing a pound that was sequestered by a corn plant over the last several months and will be resequestered by the corn plant you are planting in the same location next spring is different from the long term effect of releasing a pound that has been buried in a hole in the ground for the past million years. If there is a difficulty with CO2 (and I'm not taking that as proven) the difficulty comes from releasing 150 or so million years worth of sequestered carbon in a century or so, with no in-place process for resorbing it. So, yes, the source does matter. Ah, but the lb of CO2 that was sequestered by the corn plant is not going to be the same lb of CO2 that will be sequestered by the corn plant in the same location. The lb of CO2 sequestered by the corn plant next spring could be a lb of CO2 that has been buried in the ground for the last million years. The source only matters to those that want it to matter. It is pretty silly that the US is considering taxes to limit CO2 release from cars and light trucks when it would be a lot cheaper to put out the coal fires in China that release more CO2 than the cars and light trucks in the US. But to some the source matters. So CO2 from underground fires in coal mines does not count, but CO2 from cars counts. And of course CO2 from humans does not count in their minds because there is not much that can be done about it. In fact it is all fungible. A lb of CO2 is a lb of CO2. Dan Who has claimed that the CO2 from the coal fires in China don't count? It has been reported on "liberal" NPR. Do we have a politically feasible means of putting them out? Obviously CO2 from humans is not controllable except by population control, probably a less popular subject than global warming reduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:54:54 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic wrote the following: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon in plants and animals that you ate. The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal. I wonder if Algore told him to say that. I also doubt that he has read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again. Is it really ancient oil or does it just look like it and it's being made as we pump? (Though I haven't researched that much yet, either.) This is different carbon? While Ed's just being Ed (pointing out that I'm overestimating the total carbon output while he has been naively suckered into believing wildly overestimated effects of AGWK), yeah, they're different. Stored carbon isn't into the active system and being cycled and recycled at the moment, but folks counting this **** are into weird new math practices of their own. Think of it as the batteries in your flashlight now vs the unopened plastic-wrapped box of batteries in your fridge. -- It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed. -- Kin Hubbard |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:54:54 -0500, Don Foreman wrote the following: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic wrote the following: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message "Stu Fields" wrote in message I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system claims to have saved: Are you ready? 300# of Co2 If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice. I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved. 500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain? I don't believe it........ phil Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really grams... You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling: "The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l) "A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day. "Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre, which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08 kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change Research" -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK Just a thought.... ;-) Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in the same day, etc. Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon in plants and animals that you ate. The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal. I wonder if Algore told him to say that. Larry, if you had half enough knowledge to make the claims you frequently make here about climate science, you'd recognize that this is THE fundamental issue concerning the burning of fossil fuels. But you don't, really, and it's clear you don't even recognize the basic issues. I also doubt that he has read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again. It has nothing to do with the question. Of course I've read about it. Although I realize that the complexities of climate science are 'way over my head, I'm interested in learning anything I can about energy issues. I just don't make proclamations about things I don't know enough about to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell. I find it amusing that so many people do. Is it really ancient oil or does it just look like it and it's being made as we pump? (Though I haven't researched that much yet, either.) Hey, if you like that, you'll love the Young Earth theories. They're fascinating, too. I especially like the ideas about how the Grand Canyon was formed in 5,000 years. It was the prototype for water-jet cutting. d8-) This is different carbon? While Ed's just being Ed (pointing out that I'm overestimating the total carbon output while he has been naively suckered into believing wildly overestimated effects of AGWK) Once again, I'll remind you that I have no opinions of my own about global warming. There are a few matters of physics I can address, but not the system-wide effects. You, on the other hand, continue to believe that you know all about it. , yeah, they're different. Stored carbon isn't into the active system and being cycled and recycled at the moment, but folks counting this **** are into weird new math practices of their own. Oh, cut the crap. All you have to do is count. It doesn't take "weird math" to make good estimates of fossil fuel consumption, and it's basic chemistry to measure how much carbon is released when it burns. Think of it as the batteries in your flashlight now vs the unopened plastic-wrapped box of batteries in your fridge. Are you planning to keep them there for millions of years? If not, then what are you talking about? -- Ed Huntress |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Jul 25, 10:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
It is faulty logic. *I too have an engineering background. Then let's see you put it to use here. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point? -- Ed Huntress What ever. I have put my engineering background to use. Saying the source of CO2 makes a difference is absurd. Some people will understand, some never will. Dan |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 10:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: It is faulty logic. I too have an engineering background. Then let's see you put it to use here. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from. No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point? -- Ed Huntress What ever. I have put my engineering background to use. Saying the source of CO2 makes a difference is absurd. Some people will understand, some never will. Dan As you say, some will understand. Others may never get it. -- Ed Huntress |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Jul 25, 11:45*am, "ATP" wrote:
Who has claimed that the CO2 from the coal fires in China don't count? It has been reported on "liberal" NPR. Do we have a politically feasible means of putting them out? Obviously CO2 from humans is not controllable except by population control, probably a less popular subject than global warming reduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire Well I think CO2 from coal mine fires counts. But I have not seen anyone saying that we should do the sensible things to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems to be all about how can we spend a bunch of money for not too much effect. Coal mine fires can be extinguished. You have to cut off the oxygen and cool the site so it does not reignite in the future. It isn't easy, but a lot easier than getting 100% reduction in the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere from autos and light trucks. Dan |
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 11:45 am, "ATP" wrote: Who has claimed that the CO2 from the coal fires in China don't count? It has been reported on "liberal" NPR. Do we have a politically feasible means of putting them out? Obviously CO2 from humans is not controllable except by population control, probably a less popular subject than global warming reduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire Well I think CO2 from coal mine fires counts. But I have not seen anyone saying that we should do the sensible things to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems to be all about how can we spend a bunch of money for not too much effect. Coal mine fires can be extinguished. You have to cut off the oxygen and cool the site so it does not reignite in the future. It isn't easy, but a lot easier than getting 100% reduction in the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere from autos and light trucks. Dan We should do what we can to help/pressure the Chinese to put out the fires. Cheapest reduction first makes sense. Most efforts to reduce CO2 from cars and trucks also reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which brings a host of other benefits. I think one of the most effective ways to reduce the growth in CO2 production would be to stop or curtail legal and illegal immigration and the resulting population expansion in developed countries. That won't happen as long as those who benefit from cheap labor continue to influence government. |
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:13:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . : On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message m... The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal. I wonder if Algore told him to say that. Larry, if you had half enough knowledge to make the claims you frequently make here about climate science, you'd recognize that this is THE fundamental issue concerning the burning of fossil fuels. But you don't, really, and it's clear you don't even recognize the basic issues. I also doubt that he has read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again. It has nothing to do with the question. Of course I've read about it. Although I realize that the complexities of climate science are 'way over my head, I'm interested in learning anything I can about energy issues. I just don't make proclamations about things I don't know enough about to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell. I find it amusing that so many people do. I recently talked to a larry in person. He has clownish opinions on *everything*, and I always enjoy hearing his latest rants. One of my favorites was when he said he was going to move to Alaska to decrease his cost of living. His own life is falling apart, so my latest question was, given that he'd admittedly bungled that, then what qualified him to disregard the opinion of experts etc. on so many subjects. He said that the experts are all overeducated liberal know-nothings, and that what we really need are more "down to earth" people like him to run things, beginning with Palin. Then he declared that if we'd had that for the last 20 years, then his life would have turned out better. I could almost visualize the shrug :-) Of course he thinks that the tea party is great blah blah blah. So next time I see him I'm going to ask what he thinks about Angle cutting off his SS, and try to keep from laughing too hard at whatever he comes up with. Wayne |
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Power
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:16:30 -0700, Steve Ackman
wrote: It takes a LOT of energy to produce PV panels. From what I've read, Let's see the cite. 'Cause I've read that Elvis is alive, working at 7-eleven by day, and posting to usenet at night. :-) a PV panel will never make up the carbon it cost in its expected 25 year life span. This study says 3 years for energy payback. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf This one says 6 years for carbon payback. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2642/1/2642.pdf Both numbers expected to improve substantially. Wayne |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Solar power | Metalworking | |||
Solar Heating / Wind Power / Solar Power / UK Grants | UK diy | |||
Solar Power | Metalworking | |||
Solar power | Home Ownership |