Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

vtflyfish 03-22-2014 05:18 PM

OT, interesting sculpture
 
1 Attachment(s)
This sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin is called "Politicians discussing global warming."

Schultzz 03-23-2014 01:54 AM

Syngas or producer gas can be made by burning any kind of fuel and depriving the oxygen. Of course coal will produce higher BTU content. By depriving the oxygen the feedstock is broken down into different compounds including methane, butane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and others. The gas then needs to be scrubbed to eliminate contaminants.

Wood chips will produce producer gas without the undesirable by-products of coal. Wood chips can and do run generators. Bio-gasification can be made from just about anything including human and animal waste. Why isn't it used more? I refer you to Redhawk's statements about basic greed. The oil companies really don't want to build different infrastructures than they already have in place because fossil fuels already make them big bucks.

Ethanol made from something other than a product that is consumed could also prove feasible. Ethanol can be made from switchgrass and other crops that can be grown on less than desirable farmland. Sugar beets can be easily made into ethanol but who is willing to "bite the bullet" so to speak. Hydrogen can be produced a number of ways but needs a new way of getting to the consumer. Right now the big new thing is CNG which is being made available to private companies who invest in the facilities to fuel internal combustion engines, and convert the vehicles to use it. It is cheaper than gasoline, does not pollute the air and we have plenty of it. Vehicles that run on it have many less problems than those which run on gasoline or diesel. There are many advantages to run cars and trucks on CNG and they can also transfer over to gasoline if needed.

I am not advocating the discontinuation of using coal just recommending better ways to convert it into fuel which does not contribute to more environmental problems. Getting companies to change is difficult. Getting consumers to change is more difficult.

randomscooter 03-23-2014 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 215220)
Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD (Post 215210)
But I have long believed we should work our way out of fossil fuels for two reasons, neither of which has anything to do with climate:

1. Petroleum is a very useful chemical precursor to make many materials on which modern society depends. Burning it is not its best use.

2. The free market allocates resources well EXCEPT in cases where a limited resource will eventually run out. And even though it's not as close as shrill voices would like you to think, fossil fuel is limited and will eventually run out.

100% agreed. I tried to say the same thing awhile back but didn't put it anywhere near as succinctly. :thumbs:

I intended to couple the post (quoted above) that I made earlier in this thread with a :thumbs::thumbs: recommendation for the film "Pandora's Promise".

See also pandoraspromise.com.

randomscooter 03-23-2014 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215233)
Getting companies to change is difficult. Getting consumers to change is more difficult.

The formula is fairly simple:
  1. Offer an alternative at a price point that is profitable.
  2. Double the price of fossil fuels over the alternative.

DuctTape 03-23-2014 07:29 AM

Shultzz, besides gasification technologies to produce syngas, have you read any more about using plasma conversion? The plasma conversiuon doesn't require fuel as a commodity (coal or wood) but can use almost anything as its feedstock. Most startups are trying to get a foothold by "selling" it first as a waste disposal system and the syngas is a by-product. One such company which describes the process is: http://www.isescorp.com/SERVICES/Fac...ONVERSION.aspx

redhawk 03-23-2014 11:51 AM

"Make it profitable and they will come"

Schultzz 03-24-2014 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuctTape (Post 215236)
Shultzz, besides gasification technologies to produce syngas, have you read any more about using plasma conversion? The plasma conversiuon doesn't require fuel as a commodity (coal or wood) but can use almost anything as its feedstock. Most startups are trying to get a foothold by "selling" it first as a waste disposal system and the syngas is a by-product. One such company which describes the process is: http://www.isescorp.com/SERVICES/Fac...ONVERSION.aspx

Plasma gasification technology generally consists of 5 stages:
1) Feedstock handling, shredder;
2) Gasification by means of plasma torches fueled by air or oxygen. High residence times within the reactor ensure tars are cracked and minimize particulates from exiting with syngas stream;
3) Gas cooling, compressing. The temperature of the syngas when it exits the gasifier is ~1,000- 1,200⁰C, it is
immediately quenched to temperatures below 400 ⁰C
4) Syngas clean-up (mercury and sulfur removal;
5) Product preparation (power, fuel, chemicals




http://www.advancedplasmapower.com/s...cess-overview/

randomscooter 03-24-2014 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215244)
"Make it profitable and they will come"

Hawk, I'm guessing that your statement is in response to my earlier post...
Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 215235)
The formula is fairly simple:
  1. Offer an alternative at a price point that is profitable.
  2. Double the price of fossil fuels over the alternative.

I'm not sure how to interpret your statement, so I'll expand upon my own post and you can let me know if I am understanding your meaning correctly.

Perhaps the day will come when the profit motive no longer drives our socio-economic system. If your statement was an expression of disdain for our current system, then I respect it. But in the meantime, if we are to tackle and solve some of the pressing problems of our times, it is most likely that it will occur within our system's current framework. With that as a given, it is reasonable that business should expect to make a reasonable profit on any product they sell.

And perhaps that was your point. Indeed, "make it profitable and they will come" is exactly the message that will catalyze the change to new energy sources. Other energy sources are available to replace fossil fuels. As a gross over-simplification (perhaps), the main barrier to this happening is that the resulting product will not be competitive with the price of fossil fuels. So energy developers and suppliers are reluctant to pour their full resources into the necessary development (the science, the infrastructure, etc).

The obvious solution (to me at least) is to raise the price of fossil fuels to the point where the alternatives become the product of preference. And that is happening. We all gripe and moan about the ever-rising cost of fuel, and the exorbitant profits being raked in by the oil companies. Perhaps the oil companies are investing some of those profits in new technologies, or perhaps they really are just plain greedy. Perhaps a bit of both. I'll leave the cynicism to others. But regardless of their motivations, the fact is that the rising oil prices are making alternatives more attractive, and that is a very good thing.

cityboy 03-24-2014 07:25 AM

Another example of a change in attitude towards open discussion.

"A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered program editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on* February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.
If a program does run such a discussion, it will... be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality."

redhawk 03-24-2014 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215244)
"Make it profitable and they will come"

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 215285)
Hawk, I'm guessing that your statement is in response to my earlier post...


I'm not sure how to interpret your statement, so I'll expand upon my own post and you can let me know if I am understanding your meaning correctly.

I just like to reference "Field of Dreams" whenever I get a chance :)

cityboy 03-25-2014 07:44 AM

The reason that Climate Alarmists refuse to enter into debate is that they would lose very badly. Below is a very informative rebuttal by Christopher Monckton to an article by noted Climatologist Michael Mann ( author of the infamous hockey stick used by Al Gore).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/2...e/#more-106064

Glen 03-25-2014 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215348)
The reason that Climate Alarmists refuse to enter into debate is that they would lose very badly. Below is a very informative rebuttal by Christopher Monckton to an article by noted Climatologist Michael Mann ( author of the infamous hockey stick used by Al Gore).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/2...e/#more-106064


We get your point, which is apparently pumping millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing and has no effect on climate. If for every link you post the opposing side provided 5 contradicting it your opinion wouldn't change, so why not let it rest? I think as far as debate goes, it's the same tactic young earth creationists use when real scientists won't debate them (except for Bill Nye). They say the other side is afraid to lose but the real reason is they don't want to give them the legitimacy and attention they crave. As I posted some time ago, you may be right, or you may be wrong. If you are wrong, what do we do then? That's the real question.

TCD 03-25-2014 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 215350)
If you are wrong, what do we do then? That's the real question.

My $.02, from the previous thread:

"A better use of our time and money to help some of the potentially affected countries would be to try to educate them to stop hacking each other to death with machetes, but somehow that doesn't make the news. Maybe because there's no "green money" to be made on that."

"Where is the "Foundation to help relocate poor people in Bangladesh"? I will happily donate to that; but I begrudge every penny I'm forced to donate to the corrupt UN."

So the answer is, we will do nothing. Because to do anything that actually helps the situation will not bring grant money and campaign contributions.

Hobbitling 03-25-2014 12:06 PM

So, if we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't try to solve any problem?

cityboy 03-25-2014 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit (Post 215357)
So, if we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't try to solve any problem?

The world is already spending 1 billion a day on reducing CO2. Is that not enough for you?

cityboy 03-25-2014 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 215350)
We get your point, which is apparently pumping millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing and has no effect on climate.

Glen we are doing something about. I'm sorry if you feel 360 billion a year is not enough for you.

A question for all. The Pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. Which would be worse cutting it in half or doubling it?

I should mention that I'm not posting for you or redhawk or the professor since you minds are clearly made up and unchangeable. Too bad the counter stopped working. I think you'd be surprised at how many undecideds are still out there. I'm trying to provide them a balanced view by providing the facts rather then say the debate is over.

Glen 03-25-2014 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215359)
Glen we are doing something about. I'm sorry if you feel 360 billion a year is not enough for you.

A question for all. The Pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. Which would be worse cutting it in half or doubling it?

I should mention that I'm not posting for you or redhawk or the professor since you minds are clearly made up and unchangeable. Too bad the counter stopped working. I think you'd be surprised at how many undecideds are still out there. I'm trying to provide them a balanced view by providing the facts rather then say the debate is over.


I've said numerous times not being a scientist I can only go with gut feeling, like yourself. I am always willing to reconsider my opinions on things, but your posts aren't doing it. Nothing personal, just the way it is. Per my previous post, it is your mind that is made up, not mine.

cityboy 03-25-2014 03:23 PM

Glen, I already indicted what would change my mind. It seems that I'm the exception here however.
I respect your opinion and as I stated I'm not trying to change anyone's. In fact I've always tried to respect other's opinions no matter the subject. I've always felt that way.
Here's a story.
Many years ago a Jehovah Witness knocked on our door. My father spent 1 hour debating the guy. After he was done I asked him why. He said it was fun. To me it was a huge waste of time. That was 40 years ago and I still feel that debating never changes anyone's opinion. As I say I'm presenting the other side so others who have not decided can judge for themselves.
I can accept that someone thinks I'm dumb but I think it rude for them to publicly to say it.
What I can't accept is if someone accuses me of working for Big Oil or the 1% or comparing me to holocaust deniers (no one has done it in this forum). Also when I hear that the science is settled and the debate is over I get a little ticked off and know I'm being fed a line of bull.
Time will prove either you or I right one way or the other. Fortunately science isn't decided by opinion.
Since this is beginning to remind me of my father I will end it here although I reserve the right to post something here if its interesting or adds to the discussion.
Have a nice day.

Glen 03-25-2014 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215362)
Glen, I already indicted what would change my mind. It seems that I'm the exception here however.
I respect your opinion and as I stated I'm not trying to change anyone's. In fact I've always tried to respect other's opinions no matter the subject. I've always felt that way.
Here's a story.
Many years ago a Jehovah Witness knocked on our door. My father spent 1 hour debating the guy. After he was done I asked him why. He said it was fun. To me it was a huge waste of time. That was 40 years ago and I still feel that debating never changes anyone's opinion. As I say I'm presenting the other side so others who have not decided can judge for themselves.
I can accept that someone thinks I'm dumb but I think it rude for them to publicly to say it.
What I can't accept is if someone accuses me of working for Big Oil or the 1% or comparing me to holocaust deniers (no one has done it in this forum). Also when I hear that the science is settled and the debate is over I get a little ticked off and know I'm being fed a line of bull.
Time will prove either you or I right one way or the other. Fortunately science isn't decided by opinion.
Since this is beginning to remind me of my father I will end it here although I reserve the right to post something here if its interesting or adds to the discussion.
Have a nice day.


Cityboy,

Thanks for your response. No hard feelings I hope. I like your story. I made the mistake of opening my door once to similarly inclined folks and also debated. It was exhausting and at the end I wanted to send my dog after them. Unfortunately he is not an aggressive breed. :)

Hobbitling 03-25-2014 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215359)
A question for all. The Pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. Which would be worse cutting it in half or doubling it?
.

I'm pretty sure either would be have a pretty serious effect on the climate. which one would be worse? Take your pick. Ice age or sauna.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215359)
I should mention that I'm not posting for you or redhawk or the professor since you minds are clearly made up and unchangeable.
.

Quite the opposite. Show me evidence and data against climate change, which outweighs evidence for climate change, and I'll change my mind.
Not statements about media bias or vested interests or "follow the money". They may be true, or not, but that's not data.
Not attacks on people's characters, whether they are hypocrites or not. They may be a hypocrite, but that's not data.
Not public opinion polls. Opinions aren't facts, no matter how many people share them.
Not cherry picked 15 year bits of data that ignore larger trends.
Not focusing only on the atmosphere and ignoring ocean temperatures, and sea ice loss, and glacier melting.
Correct data is not necessarily complete data. you have to consider ALL the available data, not just the one piece that confirms your beliefs.

On the subject of the "pause" (if you look at only atmospheric data from a very specific time period). Here is a debunking of that bit of nonsense. Not that it will prevent it from popping up again and again in future threads.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

I'm very curious if the skeptics have any response to the ocean temperature and heat-content data. It's pretty obvious that the heat is mostly ending up in the oceans, and yet I keep seeing that same "15 year pause" data that completely ignores ocean temps.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.