Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Climate Rewind


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 05:40 AM

https://www.scienced...p Science News)

 

 

Turning carbon dioxide back into coal.

 

"While we can't literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock."  (Dr. Torben Daeneke)

 

Or reinventing the wheel?  (hazelm)



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 03:14 AM

https://www.scienced...p Science News)

 

 

Turning carbon dioxide back into coal.

 

"While we can't literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock."  (Dr. Torben Daeneke)

 

Or reinventing the wheel?  (hazelm)

The obvious snag with this is that, unlike conventional CCS (carbon capture and storage) which merely requires the energy to pump CO2 into empty underground reservoirs, this method involves electrochemical reduction of CO2, back to carbon. It therefore requires an energy input equal to the energy released by burning the coal or oil in the first place. Such a method will only be viable if we have enough surplus energy from renewables to expend on this. To make a difference to atmospheric CO2, the energy input would have to be vast. Frankly, the chances of that seem to be zero.   

 

It's a nice piece of chemistry, no doubt, but I feel the authors have just included this fanciful application to give their research some specious topicality. 



#3 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 04:51 AM

The obvious snag with this is that, unlike conventional CCS (carbon capture and storage) which merely requires the energy to pump CO2 into empty underground reservoirs, this method involves electrochemical reduction of CO2, back to carbon. It therefore requires an energy input equal to the energy released by burning the coal or oil in the first place. Such a method will only be viable if we have enough surplus energy from renewables to expend on this. To make a difference to atmospheric CO2, the energy input would have to be vast. Frankly, the chances of that seem to be zero.   

 

It's a nice piece of chemistry, no doubt, but I feel the authors have just included this fanciful application to give their research some specious topicality. 

Your point is much more up to date and scientific than mine.  With my memories, I have a different vision.  I envision that rehabbed coal being dug up and dropped into the old pot-bellied stove for heat while soot ("black snow")  rains down on Indianapolis.  I even had to read Dr. Daeneke's comment several times to become convinced that that isn't what was being said. 

 

Oh well.  Give them credit for trying. 



#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 08:43 AM

So Pessimistic. The earths electrical power supply, could easily be generated from solar, generated in the worlds deserts. It just takes a change in the economy of wealthy nations caused by perhaps global sea level rises or more likely perhaps running out of oil and gas. If it is in a countries national interests, said countries might invest in solar in the worlds deserts, and might help to stabilize unstable areas.

 

Optimistically: Politicians globally might agree that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2, and do something before the fossil fuels are all used up. In the present climate of denial, by some elected leaders, this is unlikely.

 

Solar power generation does not have to be about building walls :(  but it could be a start and bring down the cost of solar generation  :shocked: However it is probably better to place solar panels where the neighbours are not going to throw stones at them.  :innocent:

 

Edit link https://solarlove.or...d-solar-energy/

I'm just looking at the chances of this type of energy-intensive CO2 removal technology versus its competitors, such as CCS, reforestation etc.

 

I really do not think a scheme that relies on putting back 100% of the energy originally obtained from fossil fuel burning is going to make the cut, when there are other options.

 

The tide is turning on fossil fuel, that will happen. Just look at the turmoil in the automative market today. The shift to electric seems unstoppable. A few dinosaurs like Trump won't hold back that tide. But it will be a very long time before we have so much renewable energy, if we ever do, that we can afford reduction of carbon to elemental form as a solution to our CO2 problem. We have other methods.

 

What we have to watch, I think, is the new economy of batteries. There are already looming problems (pollution, child exploitation, corruption, geopolitics) associated with extraction of elements for battery manufacture. We need to start focusing the international community on some of this before it breeds new monsters.



#5 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 09:33 AM

Exploitation appears to be a part of human behaviour in some Alpha types. 

 

The battery issue might be solved by developments in super capacitors. https://phys.org/new...er-reality.html These can release a lot of power very quickly, way faster than any chemical battery :)

 

China appears to have the most lead followed by Australia and the USA https://www.indexmun...s/?product=lead . What kind of monsters are you thinking about, lead pollution ? incorrect disposal of batteries? Is the child exploitation in the recovery of lead from recycled batteries? I dont think there is much child exploitation in the following countries https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/oecd-leading-countries-in-recycling.html Are you perhaps thinking of India?

I'm thinking of critical elements such as cobalt and tantalum etc that are mined in unstable and corrupt places.  



#6 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 11:09 AM

Ah Cobalt DRC https://investingnew...ssia-australia/

 

1. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Mine production: 64,000 MT

The DRC is by far the world’s largest producer of cobalt, accounting for roughly 58 percent of global production. The country has been the top producer of the metal for some time, and its output remained the same from 2016 to 2017 at 64,000 MT.

As demand for cobalt rises, increasing attention is being directed at the DRC. Cobalt mining in the country has been linked to human rights abuses — last year, Apple (NASDAQ:AAPLtemporarily stopped buying cobalt mined by hand in the DRC. In addition, Congress in the DRC recently passed a revised mining law that is set to increase taxes on cobalt and other metals; the news has left miners concerned about how they may be impacted, and could push cobalt prices even higher. 

Despite those challenges, the DRC is likely to remain key to the cobalt market for the foreseeable future.

And Tantalum Ruanda followed by DRC https://investingnew...zil-drc-canada/

 

and Tantalum Rwanda closely followed by the DRC https://investingnew...zil-drc-canada/

Exactly. DRC is one of the most corrupt and backward countries on the planet and if our industries depend on minerals from there it will become the focus of all sort of criminality and geopolitical chicanery. I think there are moves to battery technology that does not rely on Co , partly for reasons such as these, but I do not know how successful they are. 



#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 02:46 PM

Chicanery:> Perhaps it will be in the interests of other countries to further destabilise the DRC to gain control over the resources of the DRC, and maintain a stable first world economy :(  perhaps I have lived too long. 

You mean China I presume. 



#8 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 01 March 2019 - 10:45 AM

Assuming the human race is finally successful in eradicating itself, the planet should recover quickly on its own.  It is time for this failed experiment to end. :hal_skeleton:



#9 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 01 March 2019 - 10:51 AM

82259471-ruins-of-an-old-brick-building-



#10 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 01 March 2019 - 11:04 AM

Chernobyl.

 

p04qw3br.jpg



#11 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 01 March 2019 - 11:11 AM

Catfish in the reactor cooling pond at Chernobyl.

 

http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam



#12 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 08:06 AM

https://www.washingt...lert-hse&wpmk=1

 

From Washington Post:  "Most ponds and landfills holding coal waste across the U. S. have leaked toxic chemicals into nearby groundwater."



#13 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 09:12 AM

Was the US disposal of industrial waste and munitions in the past regulated. Even with regulations and controls the toxins in the ponds and ground water can not be removed retrospectively. 

I don't think so.  I'm guessing based on a story about  post WW II.  The story said there are tons of old war machines in the Gulf of Mexico.  The army didn't know what to do with them.  So, dumped them in the Gulf.  They do make nice nesting grounds for fish, I've read.  Anyway,  I doubt we'd do that today.  Maybe we have grown a tad wiser.  Maybe

 

There is also this.  In Saint Louis, citizens are warned not to swim in the Mississippi River because of its pollution.  Yet they take their drinking water from same river. 

 

So, no, I'd guess we didn't have very good regulations back then.



#14 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 10:00 AM

I suspect you are correct.

 

I sailed up the Ptomac into washington, passing a graveyard of old war ships. There also places in the Ptomac where it is forbidden to anchor because they dumped old munitions into the river.  

 

Interestingly the parks are trying to restock the ptomac, with oysters which clean the water to encourage more fish. The US military however have firing ranges with mortars which they fire into the ptomac, creating water spouts and obviously shock waves that kill the fish and probably the oysters as well. It is a bit of a disjointed policy wouldnt you think.

That is pretty much how it goes.  We pass many a law that never gets enforced.   Cleaning snow off sidewalks and salting them, for instance.  Cities have laws requiring that all sidewalks be  kept clean and safe.  Some of those sidewalks are actually city property..  Not only do they not get cleared but street crews  pile snow from the streets onto the sidewalk.

 

That's just a minor example. 



#15 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 09 March 2019 - 03:15 PM

https://www.scienced...p Science News)

 

 

Turning carbon dioxide back into coal.

 

"While we can't literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock."  (Dr. Torben Daeneke)

 

Or reinventing the wheel?  (hazelm)

 

If we burn coal to produce energy, where will the energy come from to turn the carbon back to coal?  If we had that surplus energy then we could use it instead of coal and the plants would eventually sequester the surplus carbon.   

 

We can all do little things to decrease our energy consumption and use of fossil fuels.  Here is a suggestion to improve energy efficiency in your car. 

 

tumblr_inline_p5c1vru8hh1r09riw_500.jpg



#16 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 09 March 2019 - 04:05 PM

If we burn coal to produce energy, where will the energy come from to turn the carbon back to coal?  If we had that surplus energy then we could use it instead of coal and the plants would eventually sequester the surplus carbon.   

 

We can all do little things to decrease our energy consumption and use of fossil fuels.  Here is a suggestion to improve energy efficiency in your car. 

 

tumblr_inline_p5c1vru8hh1r09riw_500.jpg

I didn't realize you had to  do that.  I've never heard anyone even talk about it.  

 

As for burning coal, all I can say is "you'll be sorry". 



#17 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 09 March 2019 - 05:13 PM

That is pretty much how it goes.  We pass many a law that never gets enforced.   Cleaning snow off sidewalks and salting them, for instance.  Cities have laws requiring that all sidewalks be  kept clean and safe.  Some of those sidewalks are actually city property..  Not only do they not get cleared but street crews  pile snow from the streets onto the sidewalk.

 

That's just a minor example. 

 

Just a minor point of clarification, ALL sidewalks alongside public roads are owned by that government entity.  They are located inside the public road right-of-way, which is land owned by that entity (city, county, or state).