Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Things are Starting to Warm Up Part III 6
- Thread starter dik
- Start date
"This whole thread, both parts, exists to post a link to every single weather related event that happens and blame it solely on climate change."
and we can see how well that has gone. Hence, lets assume climate change is real and driven by CO2, what engineering solutions can we think of ?
and yes, as dik has pointed out, what are the issues with these.
I suspect that the climate change is such that if we stopped burning FFs today, it would take well over 100 years for the level of CO2 to return to its natural level (whatever that means ... lets say it means pre-industrial levels, like 280ppm). I suspect that maybe things have already been set in motion (like potentially thawing of the permafrost) that may make this outcome unachievable. I think the social and economic cost of such a response is so unrealistic that this is not seriously an option, particularly if we don't see us achieving the target ?
I suspect that we should not continue burning FFs at the ever increasing rate we are.
Then we should do "something".
Stop burning coal, or use a significant part of the energy produced to recover most of the CO2. I don't know coal PPs ... how reasonable is this ?
Build more nukes ... but will take 20+ years to come online.
Double the renewable power output ... every 5 years ?
I think many of the things we are doing (like SAF) are little more than window dressing.
I think many things we do (like carbon trading, or zero carbon offsets) are less than window dressing (and maybe only marginally above scam/fraud).
thoughts ?
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
and we can see how well that has gone. Hence, lets assume climate change is real and driven by CO2, what engineering solutions can we think of ?
and yes, as dik has pointed out, what are the issues with these.
I suspect that the climate change is such that if we stopped burning FFs today, it would take well over 100 years for the level of CO2 to return to its natural level (whatever that means ... lets say it means pre-industrial levels, like 280ppm). I suspect that maybe things have already been set in motion (like potentially thawing of the permafrost) that may make this outcome unachievable. I think the social and economic cost of such a response is so unrealistic that this is not seriously an option, particularly if we don't see us achieving the target ?
I suspect that we should not continue burning FFs at the ever increasing rate we are.
Then we should do "something".
Stop burning coal, or use a significant part of the energy produced to recover most of the CO2. I don't know coal PPs ... how reasonable is this ?
Build more nukes ... but will take 20+ years to come online.
Double the renewable power output ... every 5 years ?
I think many of the things we are doing (like SAF) are little more than window dressing.
I think many things we do (like carbon trading, or zero carbon offsets) are less than window dressing (and maybe only marginally above scam/fraud).
thoughts ?
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Well, this is why I started the other thread. The heat is here. How can we radiate it in to space. I was making a jab at my own side with the space lasers comment but maybe solar powered microwave arrays that supercharge albedo are the solution? Seems more useful than storage.
rb1957 said:
Not reasonable. Coal provides over a third of the world's electrical power, and the total amount of electricity generated by coal continues to increase. Coal is still growing faster than it is being replaced by renewables. Peak Coal is long way off.
rb1957 said:
20 years is NOTHING. It's really weird that people think 20 years is too long. It will be a miracle if emissions reduce at all in the next 20 years. Emissions have increased 50% in the last 20 years despite everyone promising to cut by 20% by 2020.
It has taken centuries for our energy systems to develop to this point and it will take centuries to move beyond fossil fuels.
thermionic1
Electrical
One solution that is being used is coal gasification. From Wiki:
"The gasification process makes coal react with pure oxygen and steam to produce synthetic gas, or syngas. Syngas burns cleaner than burning directly the coal and stripping the pollutants out of the exhaust gas. And syngas may be used to fire a combustion turbine. The combustion turbine exhaust gases are then routed through a large heat recovery steam generator that is used in conjunction with a steam turbine to further increase the plant's efficiency."
This is baseload power and uses a resource that the US and other countries have plentiful stocks of and an existing mining and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, a coal pile is a big battery of sorts that can sit outside in all weather and be utilized.
Not perfect, but better.
"The gasification process makes coal react with pure oxygen and steam to produce synthetic gas, or syngas. Syngas burns cleaner than burning directly the coal and stripping the pollutants out of the exhaust gas. And syngas may be used to fire a combustion turbine. The combustion turbine exhaust gases are then routed through a large heat recovery steam generator that is used in conjunction with a steam turbine to further increase the plant's efficiency."
This is baseload power and uses a resource that the US and other countries have plentiful stocks of and an existing mining and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, a coal pile is a big battery of sorts that can sit outside in all weather and be utilized.
Not perfect, but better.
- Thread starter
- #126
- Thread starter
- #127
- Thread starter
- #128
A big part of the solution will be the reduction in our dependence on coal and oil; this is not being addressed, it would seem.
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
Guest102023
Materials
thermionic1 said:
The US government has been pumping money into this idea since at least the 1970s and there’s not much to show for it.
The horrific impacts of mountaintop removal alone should be sufficient reason to stop using coal for any reason. Then what is done with the leftover solid?
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
- Thread starter
- #130
Another concern, a lot of snakeoil salesmen will be coming out of the woodwork...
In another vein, more fresh water on the horizon:
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
In another vein, more fresh water on the horizon:
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
Guest102023
Materials
Tomfh said:
20 years is
Dismiss me as ‘alarmist’ but when there’s a fire in the building I pull the alarm.
"A big part of the solution will be the reduction in our dependence on coal and oil; this is not being addressed, it would seem."
ok, so what engineering solutions would reduce our dependence on coal and oil (or FF) ?
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
ok, so what engineering solutions would reduce our dependence on coal and oil (or FF) ?
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
"20 years is less than the time we have to start turning this around."
yes, I agree, so building nukes now would help, yes?
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
yes, I agree, so building nukes now would help, yes?
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
- Thread starter
- #134
A drastic reduction in the use of these for a start. Alternate energy sources will have to be found and implemented. I'm not sure about the 20 years. I think this is just politicospeak to avoid having to do anything. Perhaps other engineers out there can offer a solution.
It's like chicken soup... it can't hurt...
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Nuke is the worst if climate heating is caused by actual heat generation.
Guest102023
Materials
TBE said:
It’s not and you know it.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
"I'm not sure about the 20 years. I think this is just politicospeak to avoid having to do anything." ... 20 years was my guess at the time needed to bring nukes online.
"Alternate energy sources will have to be found and implemented." ... for an engineer this is "politicospeak". An engineering solution could be double investment in renewables (and research into other forms) ... and fund this investment with an additional gas tax.
I would like to redirect 1% of the defense budget to fusion energy research (but I figure Ukraine has put paid to that idea).
"It's like chicken soup... it can't hurt." ... yes, it can ... it can burn you !
@TBE ... nukes are no worse than any other power generation (if the generated power is the problem).
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
"Alternate energy sources will have to be found and implemented." ... for an engineer this is "politicospeak". An engineering solution could be double investment in renewables (and research into other forms) ... and fund this investment with an additional gas tax.
I would like to redirect 1% of the defense budget to fusion energy research (but I figure Ukraine has put paid to that idea).
"It's like chicken soup... it can't hurt." ... yes, it can ... it can burn you !
@TBE ... nukes are no worse than any other power generation (if the generated power is the problem).
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Nuclear power utilizes low efficiency saturated steam cycles and uses steamed ups to control output. It produces much more waste heat per kilowatt hour than conventional fueled power plants.
Guest102023
Materials
Aether was an emerging theory too.
Then it went away, and today physics students ask “what were they thinking?”
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
Then it went away, and today physics students ask “what were they thinking?”
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question