Innovating out of global warming

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not carbon, methane.

Methane is made of carbon.

[Undertoad]

So is my dick, but the shade it casts makes it global warming neutral.

[Happy Monkey]

The shade, as well as the fact that, outside of any petroleum-based food products you've eaten, it is also made out of carbon from the normal cycle.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Methane is made of carbon.

So are charcoal briquettes but we were discussing methane from cattle and termites, not carbon. There's a big fucking difference between co2 and methane, which was the point.

[glatt]

Cool thing about methane is that it naturally decreases over time on its own. It interacts with other molecules in the upper atmosphere (I can't remember which ones right now, but a Google search would turn it up) to split apart into two more benign compounds. Methane has decreased consistently over time until humans started rice farming (produces lots of methane) and animal husbandry (cow burps.) It's encouraging, because it means that if we stopped those activities (fat chance), then the methane would eventually go back to pre-industrial levels.

[Undertoad]

Wikipedia says CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O.

doh

[Clodfobble]

Yes, but that equation doesn't mention that a substantial amount of energy is required to make it happen. Any reaction that adds O2 and results in CO2 and H2O is basically just the substance burning. It's not spontaneous.

[glatt]

I don't have the thing in front of me where I read it, but if I recall correctly, it happens in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays (or some such) provide the energy. And while CO2 is a byproduct, and is also a warming compound, it warms less. 23 times less if I recall correctly from a post above.

[richlevy]

In addition to producing more CO2, isn't another part of the problem deforestation? What I am not clear about is the relative properties of plants in scrubbing CO2. If you turn a rainforest into pasture, wouldn't the grass also process CO2?

I'm not sure, but I've started revisiting The RainForest Site

Thank you! Your click has funded the preservation of 11.4 square feet of endangered rainforest. Please click every day and support the sponsors below, who pay for your gift.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So are charcoal briquettes but we were discussing methane from cattle and termites, not carbon. There's a big fucking difference between co2 and methane, which was the point.

Charcoal is also made from carbon in the normal cycle. There are all sorts of things that emit gasses in the normal cycle. Fossil fuels release carbon that has been sequestered since long before humanity appeared.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The normal cycle is also sequestering carbon. Those swamps that are burping methane are in the process of making coal and diamonds.

Now working with the premise we are looking for solutions, swamps and termites are the leading producers of nasty, 23 times more harmful, methane. But, cattle are a major producer that we can do something about fairly quickly. It's a solution, albeit an unpopular one, with bloody handed, sinews hanging from canines, predator eyed, meat eaters.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The normal cycle is also sequestering carbon. Those swamps that are burping methane are in the process of making coal and diamonds.

At the normal rate.

[tw]

Meanwhile, foreigners are developing new products and markets because innovation is smarter than reading science rewritten by White House lawyers. For example, at best, maybe 40% of energy used to create electricity actually creates electricity. What happens to the well over 60%? Lost. Wasted. More global warming gases created to do nothing productive. The waste is that large.

Fiat had pioneered a solution back in the 1970s when energy prices were higher - in today’s money about $7 per gallon of gas. Their product disappeared when energy prices dropped to the lowest in the history of mankind.

SenerTec in Germany and Honda in Japan now manufacture household generators that produce electricity and then use that other 60+% of wasted energy to warm homes. This is normally done in Manhattan (NY) and in Philadelphia on a city wide scale to heat skyscrapers. Currently, the technology is cost effective in homes requiring 4000+ heating hours per year.

However White House lawyers tell us such solutions mean we must all drive Chevettes (product from a world's worst auto company) and live in dark, cold homes. Changes to the electric grid also required so that power can be purchased from what must be the new standards for household energy consumption. Nothing new here. This is simple thermodynamics. IOW innovation – not lawyers and MBAs– are required. Those who fear innovation also deny global warming solutions exist. Just another solution whose largest impediment is White House lawyers who rewrite research on global warming and stifle innovation. Notice where innovation goes to create new jobs, more wealth, etc.

[Undertoad]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4216744.html

Four scientific proposals to actively combat gw. One already started.

[Happy Monkey]

New fuel cell technology.

Looks good. Twice as efficient as equivalent generators.

While using non-hydrogen fuel means that the cell will produce CO2, Acumentrics fuel cells consume half as much fuel as a comparable small-engine generator, per kW. So they produce the same amount of electricity, while consuming half as much fuel, and producing half as much CO2.