Climate change and human responsibility

[peter12]

If Canada wanted to make an outsize difference, why aren't we starting a federally managed initiative to subsidize the re-planting of 100 million hectares of trees? This seems like a no-brainer to me.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5471379/p...change-theory/

[Tron_fdc]

From my limited knowledge of hydrogen from university you need to have the infrastructure to fuel hydrogen vehicles (fuel stations), a safe way to transport it, and there is the exploding car theory where if you get rear ended you blow up like a Pinto.

This was a long time ago though, I don't know how transportable and unstable it is nowadays.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

From my limited knowledge of hydrogen from university you need to have the infrastructure to fuel hydrogen vehicles (fuel stations), a safe way to transport it, and there is the exploding car theory where if you get rear ended you blow up like a Pinto.

This was a long time ago though, I don't know how transportable and unstable it is nowadays.

May be that we need to create an infrastructure that pushes hydrogen to a fuel cell generator where it is converted to electricity to charge batteries in cars.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

If Canada wanted to make an outsize difference, why aren't we starting a federally managed initiative to subsidize the re-planting of 100 million hectares of trees? This seems like a no-brainer to me.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5471379/p...change-theory/

We are 2% of the words emmissions right now. The article states by planting 1 trillion trees trees you can get rid of 25 years of emmissions. So Canada just needs to plant 20 billion trees.

So for less than 20 billion dollars Canada could completely offset our current carbon impact. The current Carbon tax generates about 2.5 billion per year. So it sounds like Climate changed in Canada is solved.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by New Era

May be that we need to create an infrastructure that pushes hydrogen to a fuel cell generator where it is converted to electricity to charge batteries in cars.

Which is better

crude bitumen>oxygen injection>hydrogen>fuel cell>electricity
crude bitumen>oil>generator>electricity
crude bitumen>oxygen injection>hydrogen>generator>electricity

[Fuzz]

If we could find a way to combine that hydrogen with carbon we would probably have a really high energy density fuel that could be transported easily and burned in pretty much anything.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by zamler

Which is better

crude bitumen>oxygen injection>hydrogen>fuel cell>electricity
crude bitumen>oil>generator>electricity
crude bitumen>oxygen injection>hydrogen>generator>electricity

crude bitumen>oxygen injection>hydrogen>fuel cell>electricity
crude bitumen>oxygen injection>hydrogen>generator>electricity

Essentially the same process. The important part is the sequestration of carbon in the ground and the safe transportation and use of hydrogen to generate electricity. I think it depends on which process is most efficient and gets the most energy out of the hydrogen molecule with the least amount of pollutants. I think the fuel cell is supposed to be more efficient than burning hydrogen to generate heat to drive a steam turbine.

crude bitumen>oil>generator>electricity

Not as efficient and very dirty. Does not help with the main problem of carbon release into the atmosphere. If you don't give a #### about the environment or solving the climate change challenge, then this is the solution for you! If you are trying to sequester carbon where it already is, while extracting the fuel we need, this is not a good idea. The intent of the proposed process is to extract hydrogen from the bitumen while leaving the nasty byproducts in the ground where they are. It's carbon capture without having to do the carbon capture after the fact.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by fuzz

if we could find a way to combine that hydrogen with carbon we would probably have a really high energy density fuel that could be transported easily, that didn't damage the atmosphere or contribute to climate change, and burned in pretty much anything.

fyp

[zamler]

Originally Posted by New Era

Essentially the same process. The important part is the sequestration of carbon in the ground and the safe transportation and use of hydrogen to generate electricity. I think it depends on which process is most efficient and gets the most energy out of the hydrogen molecule with the least amount of pollutants. I think the fuel cell is supposed to be more efficient than burning hydrogen to generate heat to drive a steam turbine.

I tried to find data on hydrogen burning turbine efficiency came up empty. A fuel cell needs a fair bit of nickel and also platinum I can see the cost and availability being an issue for large scale fuel cell production.

crude bitumen>oil>generator>electricity

Not as efficient and very dirty. Does not help with the main problem of carbon release into the atmosphere.

Making batteries, solar cells, fuel cells, generators, motors, high voltage cable, electronics*, transformers etc. etc. all take energy to produce, very likely carbon based energy. Burning the oil directly does skip a whole bunch of energy hungry steps. That's one thing that grinds my gears hardly anyone is doing well to wheel calculations it's superficial nonsense hey look hydrogen has zero emissions.

If you are trying to sequester carbon where it already is, while extracting the fuel we need, this is not a good idea. The intent of the proposed process is to extract hydrogen from the bitumen while leaving the nasty byproducts in the ground where they are. It's carbon capture without having to do the carbon capture after the fact.

And we're back to how much energy does it take to extract hydrogen via oxygen injection, or whatever the exact process is which we don't know at all because all the articles gloss over it.

* this is a big one, these high tech systems rely heavily on micro controllers and support circuity producing such is energy intensive, uses larges amounts of water and is very polluting both in production and disposal. I rarely see anyone talk about this.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by zamler

I tried to find data on hydrogen burning turbine efficiency came up empty. A fuel cell needs a fair bit of nickel and also platinum I can see the cost and availability being an issue for large scale fuel cell production.

https://www.ge.com/content/dam/gepow...Generation.pdf

The difference between the process in the above paper and the process being discussed is the sequestration of the carbon after the fact. That should be noted as a significant difference, but the efficiencies of the turbines should be similar.

I will say this, there is a cost for everything, including the drilling and extraction of oil or the mining of bitumen. That's one of the things that really grinds my gears is that people don't take into consideration the amount of money it takes to drill for these resources, build the facilities to process oil and gas, transport them, and so on. It is costly as well, but those costs are ignored in comparisons.

Making batteries, solar cells, fuel cells, generators, motors, high voltage cable, electronics*, transformers etc. etc. all take energy to produce, very likely carbon based energy. Burning the oil directly does skip a whole bunch of energy hungry steps. That's one thing that grinds my gears hardly anyone is doing well to wheel calculations it's superficial nonsense hey look hydrogen has zero emissions.

So none of that stuff is needed to build a processing plant for oil? You can just pull oil out of the ground and burn it? Don't have to worry about refining the real icky stuff out of it? Don't have to worry about the effluent from that process and the pollution it creates? Don't have to worry about anything. Just have to take a cork screw, make a couple of twists, and there you go - free energy with no costs. I think we can agree there are substantial costs on that side of the ledger as well?

And we're back to how much energy does it take to extract hydrogen via oxygen injection, or whatever the exact process is which we don't know at all because all the articles gloss over it.

You're right, we don't know. It would be nice to know what the exact costs are, but based on the potential gain in protection to our environment and drag on the effects of climate change, the cost would have to be astronomical not to go down this route. A POC is needed to understand.

* this is a big one, these high tech systems rely heavily on micro controllers and support circuity producing such is energy intensive, uses larges amounts of water and is very polluting both in production and disposal. I rarely see anyone talk about this.

Come on. You don't think that there are massive amounts of micro-controllers and support circuitry in every step of the transmission or refinement process? I think you're ignoring the complex technology used to extract oil and refine the products, especially bitumen. I think we can assume that technology investment may be similar. If we get more information, then we can re-visit. As it is, we can agree its an unknown cost, but a similar process.

[blender]

I just stopped in and felt obliged to give props to New Era for doing some heavy lifting here.
Nice job.

[FlameOn]

It's coming out from Brazilian local newspapers that the Amazon rainforest wild fires were planned and coordinated by land developers and farmers ahead of time two weeks ago. This does not bode well for climate change longer term since the rainforest was one of the biggest carbon sinks on the planet.

https://www.inquisitr.com/5594380/tw...in-the-amazon/

How is climate change going to get under control with human greed always getting in the way? Media coverage is always giving the "balanced" view of climate change when it's near universal support for human responsibility in climate change among the scientific community.

[Lanny_McDonald]

As mentioned in another thread, the Kochs contributed greatly to the destruction of the planet for a quick buck. No eulogizing expected from those in the scientific community.

Koch escapes the climate hell he helped create.

[Weitz]

Are these the same fires that celebrities are tweeting 5-10 year old photos of? Along with fires from places like Montana?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Are these the same fires that celebrities are tweeting 5-10 year old photos of? Along with fires from places like Montana?

And apparently where the actual fire activity in the entire Amazon is close to average:

As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database, a research project that compiles and analyzes NASA data.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ires-in-brazil

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Are these the same fires that celebrities are tweeting 5-10 year old photos of? Along with fires from places like Montana?

Looks like it. I think that's more akin to people not doing due-diligence about what picture they use because the Amazon IS ON FIRE...

How bad?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49433767

Seems like you're trying to minimize the fires as fake?

[MelBridgeman]

Most of the fires are planned on agricultural land that has already been deforested

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Most of the fires are planned on agricultural land that has already been deforested

What fake news site did you get that from? www.ministeroftruth.brasil.gov

I mean they were "planned" but were done so at the expense of the environment because their government doesn't give a #### about climate change. Which is why what we do is so frivolous

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What fake news site did you get that from? www.ministeroftruth.brasil.gov

I mean they were "planned" but were done so at the expense of the environment because their government doesn't give a #### about climate change. Which is why what we do is so frivolous

The New York Times as per Scientists. But it's a behind a paywall.

Most of the fires were likely set by farmers preparing the land for next year’s planting, a common agricultural practice, said the scientists from the University of Maryland.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...fire-maps.html

[81MC]

It being a fairly normal practise is what should be the greatest issue. It’s not like the Amazon has been well preserved and this is a normal amount of burning. Several thousand km2 still being lost, and a President who is likely to allow that number to increase to the historically incredibly high number is rightfully giving people a wake up call.
It’s also not as if burning fields in Brazil is the only threat to the biome; feedstocks, biolfuel productions, resource, crop etc. I do fear society will focus on one thing while governments pretend to crackdown on the real issues, while the sole of the root causes are never addressed and we end up with save the rainforest stickers on the back of some Hybrid SUV out front of a Lululemon.