Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
(OP)
I'm sure you've seen it or will pretty soon!
http://www.ft.com/indepth/climatechallenge
And here we go again. I wonder if they'll give me the money if I give them the best solution:
"If you don't want climate to change, put it in a beaker with a controlled temperature water bath and monitor it for ever. Otherwise, do nothing and get it in your mind CLIMATE CHANGES!! So does life."
http://www.ft.com/indepth/climatechallenge
And here we go again. I wonder if they'll give me the money if I give them the best solution:
"If you don't want climate to change, put it in a beaker with a controlled temperature water bath and monitor it for ever. Otherwise, do nothing and get it in your mind CLIMATE CHANGES!! So does life."
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>





RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA
i think he's got it right.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
Humans are part of nature, like it or not. The issue is we need solutions that don't break our economy, and are workable.
Wind farms worked well until someone discovered they kill birds. Hydroelectric works exect if you are a fish. Photovoltaic can actually change the climate, if applied in some places.
We do need solutions, but hitting the economy with a stick (tax) is not a solution in itself.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
You can, unfortunately, find flaws in every technology. Just have to come up with the plan, ahead of time, on how to manage the risks.
I agree, there is nor perfect solution and humans ARE part of nature.
Taxes... GIVE ME A BREAK!! since when have taxes worked to solve anything???? (other than bailing out businesses that did a poor job managing risks and running themselves, on purpose, to the ground)
cranky, as much as I would like to follow your idea and get rid of humans, usually the ones I'd like to get rid of are the ones that would make the call of whom to get rid of. So I discard the idea.
I still think that stationary energy generation should come from nuclear power and mobile energy (i.e. transport) should be hydrocarbon based.
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
I don't think we need more taxes.
Not in a house, not with a mouse, etc.
I agree there isen't a best solution for every situation.
Nuclear looks like a good BASE load energy solution for non-moble applications (can you believe someone wants to build a nuclear airplaine, I just don't see it flying).
Some wind, some hydro, some solar, isen't a bad mix.
But what about the application of time of use rates to help balance energy demand curves (I can do my loundry at Midnight).
Don't get me wrong, I believe a balanced approch, with nuclear as a base is a good model. And what little I know about moble energy sources the following sound good, H2, CH4, C2H6, or some mass transit system.
However, I do like mass transit, I just don't like the werdo's that ride it (I'll keep my car for now).
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
From what I understand parts of Alaska become swamps without the cold.
But I haven't yet seen proof that carbon dioxide causes warming. I have seen proof that sunspots caused above averidge earth tempetures, and the lack cause below averidge earth tempetures.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
cranky, I think NOBODY has seen froof of CO2 warming. It is based on too many assumptions to actually be clear.
As far as people, I wouldn't try to get rid of an x% of the population, but being us part of nature and the environment, shouldn't natural selection be allowed to run its course through the human population as well? We've proven time over time on how much we suck when it comes to trying to control the environment (Yellowstone park is a prime example; California where wildfires rage because of too much fire supression; the pine beetle; these are all good examples). Maybe if we weren't so overprotective of people more would die or wither away. Imagine, hard core environmetalists and politicians would soon fall through the cracks where they would be replaced by more capable people.... (before anybody labels me as a killer, there is sarcasm in my comment about letting people die)
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
Without even talking about technological interventions our attempts so far have been way off the mark. "Simple" interventions in the environment e.g. the cane toad, myxomatosis have been a resounding failure. Other issues like Japanese knotweed and crayfish (in UK rivers) show how sensitive some environments can be to outside interventions
IF global warming is happening then some long term contingency planning (and dedication of appropriate resources) might be a more appropriate way to spend money
Now i really need a coffee...
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
and few are even allowed to use them, due to widespread bans by homeowners' associations.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
Kill cats and live in teepees.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
Jeff Mirisola, CSWP, Certified DriveWorks AE
http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
How much will it cost to rid ourselves of these useless things? How long will the towers remain before they fall down from gravity/deterration?
Will someone start a wind farm recyleing program?
Or will all that used steel hitting the market really depress the steel prices?
Has anyone given thought to the end of life on these things?
What about photovoltaic panels?
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
As to the OP's "award"- the only meaningful reward for climate change risk reduction will be a price on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Once such a price is established, we can use existing technologies to deal with it. Anything else is window dressing.
Of course we'll pay ANY cost and make any changes to our lifestyle necessary as a result of the climate change we've caused, because we'll have no choice in the matter.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
You might have seen this one too, though. This one I like. My initial proposal for an entry wouldn't fly here
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
What we have done now with corn mash is reduced the price supports to the US farmers (and made a place to dump spoiled wiskey).
There was an EPRI study years ago about whole tree burning in power plants (I no longer have access). Where a 100MW plant could support a farm community in a diameter of 100 miles, more or less.
Biggest problem is water, but recycled water could work.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
Biomass is considered to be "carbon neutral", meaning the amount of carbon released when burned is equal to the amount removed from the atmosphere when the plant is growing.
For power companies, biomass has the potential to play an important role in reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by supplementing or replacing coal. Mixing biomass with coal is already a well established practice in several European countries.
Pelletized grain screenings is delivered to OPG's Thunder Bay Station. More recently, OPG's Nanticoke Generating Station successfully co-fired milling by-products with coal and OPG's Thunder Bay Generating Station conducted a test burn using pelletized grain screenings. The Atikokan Generating Station has been testing wood pellets with considerable success.
Notice the careful wording of the first line in the second paragraph. The accompanying picture (not included here) even shows a diesel truck delivering the fuel. So much for carbon neutrality. Grain screenings and milling spoils previously went into livestock feed.
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
This seems to be a technology that would be hard to intergrate into an existing plant, and a secure fuel source would have to be obtained.
So the over all processing and delevery may be a consiterable task.
New technology takes time to provide a major impact and most utilities don't want serial numbers one and two.
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
but then burning gasoline (= petrol) is also "carbon neutral"
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Climate Change Challenge!! $$$
rb1957 - I guess its just a timing variance.
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca