Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 315 64.02%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 130 26.42%
Not sure 26 5.28%
Climate change is a hoax 21 4.27%
Voters: 492. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-10-2019, 08:11 PM   #101
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Hydrogen isn't an energy source though, it's an energy transportation mechanism. It's a battery.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 08:48 PM   #102
snootchiebootchies
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Hydrogen isn't an energy source though, it's an energy transportation mechanism. It's a battery.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. You can use hydrogen in combustion devices, such as furnaces, boilers, recip engines, gas turbines, etc. They are not just for fuel cells. There are obviously more caution required in handling hydrogen but you can burn it like a fossil fuel. For home heating, you would probably want to generate the hydrogen on-site rather than store compressed hydrogen due to fire/explosion risks but it's all possible.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think hydrogen is the solution to all our problems but I think it's another tool in the tool belt.
snootchiebootchies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:05 PM   #103
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

But you have to get the hydrogen from somewhere, since it's not naturally occurring (i.e. you can't just dig it out of the ground like coal or put uranium close to more uranium like nuclear) you have to make it. Making it takes energy (more energy than you get burning it) and/or releases the waste products your trying to avoid in the first place.

Most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:13 PM   #104
snootchiebootchies
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Exp:
Default

You can produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It's not an efficient process but if the source of the electricity is from renewables, it would be a zero carbon emission energy source for heating your home. It's a more likely zero carbon solution than nuclear energy. I doubt there will be a nuclear power plant approved in Canada during my lifetime.
snootchiebootchies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:15 PM   #105
snootchiebootchies
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Exp:
Default

snootchiebootchies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:26 PM   #106
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
The correct answer is number one...and the only thing that can help mediate it is technology...just like it has for every other issue that most of us don't even know exists anymore.
Carbonengineering.com

I agree. This and technology like it, and bio-engineering earth is the best answer.

Save earth + make life sustainable on this planet.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:26 PM   #107
Derek Sutton
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Derek Sutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sunnyvale
Exp:
Default

nm
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Derek Sutton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:31 PM   #108
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
You can produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It's not an efficient process but if the source of the electricity is from renewables, it would be a zero carbon emission energy source for heating your home. It's a more likely zero carbon solution than nuclear energy. I doubt there will be a nuclear power plant approved in Canada during my lifetime.
That's what I meant when I said it wasn't an energy source, it's a battery.

The renewables would be the actual energy source, the hydrogen is just the delivery mechanism.

I think eventually they'll improve batteries enough that hydrogen won't really take off, but maybe it does stick around for things like heating homes.

EDIT: As for nuclear, I think China maybe be the one to lead there since they don't have to worry about the kinds of red tape most other places do, though I remember reading that there was a thorium reactor starting up in the Netherlands recently too.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:33 PM   #109
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
You can produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It's not an efficient process but if the source of the electricity is from renewables, it would be a zero carbon emission energy source for heating your home. It's a more likely zero carbon solution than nuclear energy. I doubt there will be a nuclear power plant approved in Canada during my lifetime.
It is much more efficient to use the electricity directly to power BEVs and the like. And again, hydrogen is not an energy source there is not enough of it occurring naturally.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:37 PM   #110
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
Carbonengineering.com

I agree. This and technology like it, and bio-engineering earth is the best answer.

Save earth + make life sustainable on this planet.
There are 3 or 4 different versions of this too using different science

http://www.climeworks.com

Climeworks as a negative emissions demonstration plant in Iceland using geothermal to power the whole process. And it sequestering in Iceland the CO2 reacts with the rock to permanently sequester.

We just need a 3 to 4 factor reduction in cost as we are in the $100-$200 range right now. Which is pretty good because that about a 10 factor reduction over the last 10 years when it was forecast at over 1000 / tonne

Last edited by GGG; 04-10-2019 at 09:42 PM.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:41 PM   #111
snootchiebootchies
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
It is much more efficient to use the electricity directly to power BEVs and the like. And again, hydrogen is not an energy source there is not enough of it occurring naturally.
I'm not sure what you mean by "naturally". Hydrogen is a major component of water and when hydrogen combusts in air, it reverts back to water. I mean, how natural is natural gas or propane or gasoline or coal? You have to expend energy to harvest it, just like hydrogen.
snootchiebootchies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:55 PM   #112
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
You have to expend energy to harvest it, just like hydrogen.
Yeah, that’s the problem.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 10:02 PM   #113
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "naturally".
Meaning it's not just lying around to harvest. As you say you have to make it, which takes more energy than you get by burning it.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 10:46 PM   #114
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "naturally". Hydrogen is a major component of water and when hydrogen combusts in air, it reverts back to water. I mean, how natural is natural gas or propane or gasoline or coal? You have to expend energy to harvest it, just like hydrogen.
Hydrogen makes up 0.00005% of the atmosphere which makes harvesting it from the air not feasible. To refine from water takes more energy than you get back which makes it an energy storage medium not a fuel. Compare that to oil, coal, natural gas etc. which is the result of millions of years of (mostly) solar energy being concentrated into a small space. And you get much more energy back versus what is needed to bring the energy to market.

To put fossil fuel into perspective a Tesla battery weighs 1000+ pounds and contains as much energy as less than 2 gallons of petrol.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 12:00 AM   #115
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99 View Post
Way way off topic


Im really unaware, but why is nuclear energy not more of an option?

It seems it may still hold a stigma because of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl etc?

One would have to believe that technological advances in the last 40 years would surely see such accidents far less likely to happen no? There must be better ways of dealing with the radioactive waste than that long ago as well...no?

Or is it just so cost prohibitive to build now?

As burn this city points out, it is the same genre of enviro crazies screaming and yelling about climate change today, that virtually shut down the most efficient and environment friendly energy source ever known to man through the late 60's and into the 70's.

Because all these things are man made/developed, there will always be imperfections/accidents no matter what. However the planet itself would likely be way better off without the massive spike of fossil fuels the last 4 decades, that was needed to replace what just a handful of reactors can supply...no?
You’re not wrong and nuclear I think should be vastly more of our energy mix. But also people don’t realize what energy use also entails beyond power.

It means fertilizer. Roads. Plastics of all types. Fuel for jets cars, anything. It means textiles, manufacturing, metallics, construction materials... everything. it literally means everything in our current society’s fabric.

And nuclear doesn’t solve all of these other problems. It solves power. We can’t and don’t have nuclear reactor capability for planes or cars. We need technology to come a long long long way.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 12:41 AM   #116
snootchiebootchies
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Meaning it's not just lying around to harvest. As you say you have to make it, which takes more energy than you get by burning it.
Yes, generating hydrogen by electrolysis is a net energy loss. Hydrogen makes sense in certain applications where gains in efficiency from using it in a combustion device helps offset some of the loss from generating the hydrogen.

Last edited by snootchiebootchies; 04-11-2019 at 01:21 AM.
snootchiebootchies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 01:01 AM   #117
Thor
God of Hating Twitter
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Hesitant to click on this thread for sake of lowering again my outlook on the human species, but only 3% say hoax, well done CP and thank you for again restoring my faith.
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Thor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 09:45 AM   #118
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Nuclear is unpalatable to plebs because they imagine the simpsons and chernobyl and not the fact that you are just making steam with hot rocks
stone hands is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:00 AM   #119
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Hesitant to click on this thread for sake of lowering again my outlook on the human species, but only 3% say hoax, well done CP and thank you for again restoring my faith.
If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.
__________________
http://nwcalgarylaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 10:12 AM   #120
transplant99
Fearmongerer
 
transplant99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.
Dont look at Facebook comments...literally the worst possible medium to garner public opinion.
__________________
Quote:
Tkachuk is more like Marchand than the other guys though. He's really ****ing good. He's just a total butthole.
Unknown Kings fan
transplant99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016