Posted on 02/15/2009 8:24:17 AM PST by Clint Williams
"Although scientists are agreed that we must cut carbon emissions from transport and electricity generation to prevent the globe's climate becoming hotter, the most advanced 'renewable' technologies are too often based upon non-renewable resources including indium and platinum -- resources that could dry up in 10-15 years if they were widely used in the renewable energy market."
see post #20
While it is entirely practical and necessary to cut the emissions of carbon MONOXIDE (a biologically poisonous gas) and unburned hydrocarbons, as well as particulate carbon, the attempt to apply this limitation to carbon DIOXIDE, is both self-defeating, and for practical purposes, impossible, as the evolution of carbon dioxide takes place well outside the purview of mere mankind. Say we managed to curb ALL production of carbon dioxide, by total prohibition of all combustion of coal, petroleum, natural gas, and even cellulostic forms of carbohydrates. The atmospheric content of carbon dioxide would drop a microscopic amount, and within sixty days or less, the natural level of carbon dioxide in the air would be restored to its former level. The evolution and reabsorption of carbon dioxide goes on continuously, with or without the participation of human activities.
Air Composition
The sea-level composition of air (in percent by volume at the temperature of 15°C and the pressure of 101325 Pa) is given below.
Name- Symbol- Percent by Volume
Nitrogen- N2- 78.084 %
Oxygen- O2- 20.9476 %
Argon- Ar- 0.934 %
Carbon
Dioxide- CO2- 0.0314 %
Neon- Ne- 0.001818 %
Methane- CH4- 0.0002 %
Helium- He- 0.000524 %
Krypton- Kr- 0.000114 %
Hydrogen- H2- 0.00005 %
Xenon- Xe- 0.0000087 %
Water vapor is a highly variable component of the atmosphere, ranging from less than 1% to more than 4% of the volume of a given amount of air, and is expressed as “relative humidity”.
Source:
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
by David R. Lide, Editor-in-Chief
1997 Edition
Agreed, and we have not even begun to tap the possibilities, because a nation of sheep are being distracted by a cast of buffoons who don’t know or care what renewable energy really is.
They prefer to wax pc on such things as wind and solar that enjoy positively ridiculous efficiency percentages. While the nation is suffering from all the delays bad information and a direction that will lead nowhere in solving short term, much less long term energy needs.
Like Mithter Limbaugh is fond of saying, “ignorance is very expensive” or something on that order.
“Only those trying to cash in on the latest junk science. LOL”
On Thursday afternoon on the Bloomberg channel they had a guest on, a guy who looked as if was in his late 60’s, tell the interviewer that he has made millions in the “green” industry. He went on to say that the “green” wave that is engulfing the US currently is a huge money maker for him and his partners. The host looked on with his jaw dropped and a look on his face as if to say “hey, I don’t think the gov.t wants this info leaked out to the public”. Absolutely classic.
Uuuhhh ......... would not there be a huge negative ecological impact if huge areas are covered by solar panels? No light getting to the ground means no plants growing under neath. No plants means erosion when it rains and no food for critters and people grown there. Then there's the heat coming off of all that black surface. Not to mention the chemical pollution generated during the manufacturing of all those panels. But lets not get in the way of a lot of eco-nazies getting rich.
I work with large Utilities and when the CEO's started spouting the CO2 crap (about 3 years ago). I knew that they were trying to figure out how to game the system. They really don't have a choice if they want the company to survive and prosper(sad really).
Remember that CEO’s of utilities are usually lawyers, not engineers. Maybe, just maybe, a few are engineers with an MBA and were never really serious engineers.
50KW. WOW. Wish you lived next door to me :)
Do you store any of that? How?
Convert it to AC?
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with using wind power where it is economically advantageous but nuclear power is going to be required if we are serious about energy self sufficiency.
With all the atom smashing going on these days, I wonder why no one had yet come up with a bulk process for stripping protons and neutrons of one element to obtain a lower on the periodic table element or elements.
For example, the element Lead is relatively cheap and available. If you could strip large bunches of protons and neutrons from a bar of Lead, most any other element you produced, or several of them, would all be worth a lot.
First you would create Thallium, then Mercury, then Gold, then Platinum, then Iridium and Osmium, any of which are very rare and valuable.
Yeah, but carbon dioxide has more letters than all those other gasses so it must be dangerous! /s
Water vapor, which has a highly variable level in our atmosphere, is a VASTLY more important “greenhouse gas” than ever carbon dioxide could be. It is also the greatest moderator of the climate of any factor we have on the planet.
By far the most dangerous and corrosive of all atmospheric gases is oxygen, one of the most reactive substances on the entire table of elements, second only to fluorine gas. Fluorine is so powerful it will react with the so-called “noble” gases, xenon, neon, argon and krypton, and is an element of which nobody has ever caught a whiff of its odor, as it destroys the very nerve cells that would otherwise relay the detection of the odor to the sensory identification part of the brain.
Destruction of the brain itself rapidly follows. If you REALLY want to wreck a biological speciman, expose it to an all-fluorine atmosphere.
From alchemy to nuclear physics, the never ending search for the philosophers stone goes on.
A ready supply of cheap “precious” metals? I hope someone succeeds with your suggestion.
Like the manufactured diamonds that are indistinguishable from mined diamond and strike terror into the hearts(of whatever pumps blood for them) of the DeBeers cartel.
The popular method of storing energy is taking the DC off the panels and charging batteries with the excess.
It can be done. But it’s ridiculously expensive. One mole of a material is 6.022x10^23 atoms. With Indium it’s 15.73 grams per mole. Think of how many atoms are in one gram alone. It’s easier to just dig it up.
But that’s a tricky statement. Why is it expensive? Right now, many molecular processes require thin sheet bombardment to produce rare and valuable effects.
If you started with an endless roll of lead foil, and continually bombarded it with the idea of knocking out protons and neutrons, eventually some percentage of the foil would be mostly thallium, the to a lesser extent the other elements. Then you just melt it down and chemically separate them.
It’s a commercial installation - and we use all of it...
BTTT
This claim is based on the old “known reserves” fallacy. Well, duh, known reserves of any valuable resource are going to be used up in a matter of a few decades — because nobody bothers to get off his ass and look for more if they already have access to a 10+ year supply. The only reason for exceptions is that somebody stumbled upon a 100+ year supply of one resource while out looking for something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.