Printable View
I agree that there is more to hurricane activity and intensity than just sea temperature. One of the risks of AGW is that it is unknown how the climate in certain regions will change and how that will affect weather. So far, the impact of AGW has been mild. As the average global temperature continues to climb over the next 50 years we should see how it affects hurricanes and typhoons.
Would not surprise me to see a storm of the century one of these years.
Interesting article on AGW and hurricanes, especially the 2005 season.
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/Sp...tions_4xq.html
Extreme weather strikes England.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/St...111496,00.html
"Several weather stations had recorded their highest levels for June. Sheffield had 236mm by 2pm. "It's not even the end of the month," said the Met Office.
But is it climate change? The official line is that no one can pin any one event on anything as vast as global warming. However, with temperatures generally rising around the world, and subtropical temperatures becoming more common in Europe, extreme events are predicted, with intense localised storms becoming the norm. After a drought last year, the autumn and winter combined were the wettest on record in Britain, and the three months of spring were the hottest on record for the whole of the UK, since 1914.
Despite the rain, average June temperatures so far are well above normal. Yet in April it was hard to believe Britain was not becoming as climatically attractive as the south of France, or the highlands of Kenya."
Another link from a UK perspective...the UK Met Office is predicting a below-average last 5 months of the Atlantic tropical season.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20070619.html
Interesting article on CO2 capture from coal-fired power plants.
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/a....cfm?a_id=1502
once mature, that technology could probably be perfected to the point that it only costs 3 or 4 times as much as current energy production.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Not much to perfect. I guess you didn't read the article closely. It would cost about 1/3 of today's cost. So if a new coal-fired powerplant costs $2 billion to build, building one using oxyfuel would cost $3 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Probably the cost would go down further once new technology was developed to extract oxygen from the air.
:icon_roll: :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as usual, you don't understand what you're talking about.
:icon_roll: :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
"The levelized cost of electricity (COE) is made up of contributions from the capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, consumables, and fuel costs. The levelized COE was calculated to be 5.0 ¢/kWh for the air-fired reference plant and 6.6 ¢/kWh for the oxyfuel plant."
How you get 3 or 4 times the current COE is beyond me. Sure, there will be costs associated with storage of the CO2 but I suspect that like other air pollution control systems the costs will fall considerably. Could be that a market will develop for CO2 so that the acutal cost of electricty would fall using the oxyfuel system.
You sound like you work for the power generation industry.:bigcry:
http://www.energypulse.net/images/articles/Seltzer1.gifNice graph.....
Looks like atmospheric CO2 was increasing exponentially prior to the increase in anthropogenic CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I don't see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Look at the behavior of the graph prior to the blue line entering the picture. Looks like the start of an exponential curve.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
:laugh: :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
i don't know where they got their numbers, but that is rediculous. currently, energy produced by coal is significantly cheaper than natural gas. an air-fired coal gasification plant is roughly on par with natural gas if you don't count the difference in capital cost to build the facility. add in the air separation, back-end scrubbing, and storage/disposal of the co2 and you have trippled your cost before you start looking at the capital cost.
ok, i finally skimmed through the rest of the article. i see now that they are not talking about pre- AND post- combustion removal together, which is what it sounded like reading the beginning of the article. when you figure in the added boiler efficiency of running without nitrogen, the operating cost may be close to what they say. however, i think the cost for a coal-fired operation with no co2 capture is inflated. a new technology cfb boiler/ stg plant is probably closer to 4-4.5 cent/kwh, but i don't know how they are weighting capital. at any rate, i seriously doubt that their capital and maintenance cost estimates are anywhere near realistic, considering that such a plant has never been built. not to mention the $18/ton mitigation cost, which is conveniently left out of the comparison chart, and is most likely severely underestimated.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
all that said, i think it is a really good idea. its that kind of innovation that makes life better to the rest of us. i just think it is a waste even if it only costs 5% more than a plant without co2 capture. it won't ever have a significant effect on global climate, and it will create more trouble than it's worth in the long run.