Global Warming Cont...

If you guys would like a good example of global warming here in the USA, take a look at how often the Ohio River freezes over Cincinnati. Of the 126 winters on record, the Ohio River at Cincinnati has froze over solid 14 times. The last time was in 1978, which was 31 years ago. Prior to 1978, the Ohio River at Cincinnati in those 95 years froze over 13 times which averages out to once every 7.3 years. I'm not saying that the Ohio River at Cincinnati will never freeze over again, but every year that passes decreases its likelihood. We are having a cold winter this year but it will probably not be cold enough to freeze the Ohio River at Cincinnati.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i don't know the reason -- maybe because it's the first time this week i've read a saltydawg post?

oh, you're asking why it's dumb. i'll answer that question with another question: how will the co2 be used for fuel?

---

Modern living through chemistry. Some folks are thinking about feeding it to small critters which will convert it to methane but I suspect solar energy to be used to convert co2 to carbon monoxide.

Y'all need to start a new thread entitled "Climate Change". Even the staunchest GW advocate has gotten off the silly "warming" bandwagon. Algore and his ilk, those seeking to profit from the scare tactics, have realized just how stupid they look continuing to make a losing argument. So, they have changed tactics to simple "change." If temps go up....it's man's fault, if temps go down (ice age)...that's man's fault too!

What's the REAL cause, you may ask? It's the sun! Some REAL scientific studies have shown how the sun's dynamic activities, through spots (cooler areas) and prominences (outburts of solar energy) over "short" (short by a star's timeframe) periods of 80-200 years, alter temps on Earth.

Now, Algore and your silly followers, unless you can do something about the sun, this whole mess is just silly.

Move on to something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Modern living through chemistry. Some folks are thinking about feeding it to small critters which will convert it to methane but I suspect solar energy to be used to convert co2 to carbon monoxide.

---

Some interesting facts. Coal-fired power plants in the USA produce about 1.9 billion tons of CO2 a year. Current technology can capture 90% of that or 1.71 billion tons.

The USA uses 390 million gallons of gasoline a day or about 1.1 million tons a day or about 400 million tons a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Modern living through chemistry. Some folks are thinking about feeding it to small critters which will convert it to methane but I suspect solar energy to be used to convert co2 to carbon monoxide.

---

so we are going to use more energy to turn co2 into an energy source? that makes a lot of sense. :icon_roll: the amount of fuel you could create through those processes would be very small, and the processes would be very expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

so we are going to use more energy to turn co2 into an energy source? that makes a lot of sense. :icon_roll: the amount of fuel you could create through those processes would be very small, and the processes would be very expensive.

---

Everything is relative. I don't agree with your assessment about the amount of fuel that could be produced from co2. I suspect that the cost would be reasonable given the economies of scale. Probably the end product would not be gasoline but who knows. What makes sense is that the real cost of the captured co2 would be zero since it has to be collected anyway to control atmospheric release. Plus the cost of storing co2 underground has to be very high. Start with that reality and the subsequent cost of converting co2 to other industrial chemicals looks every reasonable, probably less than the cost of pumping it underground. Other advantages include creating jobs in the USA and not sending our money overseas to dictators. We are talking about national security and making America strong again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Everything is relative. I don't agree with your assessment about the amount of fuel that could be produced from co2. I suspect that the cost would be reasonable given the economies of scale. Probably the end product would not be gasoline but who knows. What makes sense is that the real cost of the captured co2 would be zero since it has to be collected anyway to control atmospheric release. Plus the cost of storing co2 underground has to be very high. Start with that reality and the subsequent cost of converting co2 to other industrial chemicals looks every reasonable, probably less than the cost of pumping it underground. Other advantages include creating jobs in the USA and not sending our money overseas to dictators. We are talking about national security and making America strong again.

---

the problem is that your "reality" begs the question. it most certainly is NOT "reality" that co2 needs to be captured by some man-made means. if co2 is not a problem (and it's not) then it is waste to capture it in the first place.

plus, your statement was that controlling carbon emissions would be GOOD for the lower and middle classes. i am still trying to figure out how spending 5 times as much on fuel would be good for folks that barely scrape by as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

the problem is that your "reality" begs the question. it most certainly is NOT "reality" that co2 needs to be captured by some man-made means. if co2 is not a problem (and it's not) then it is waste to capture it in the first place.

plus, your statement was that controlling carbon emissions would be GOOD for the lower and middle classes. i am still trying to figure out how spending 5 times as much on fuel would be good for folks that barely scrape by as it is.

---

No, the reality IS that co2 has to be captured from coal-fired power plants. You are in denial, buddy. Just wait and see what the current Congress and new President does about co2 capture.

Capturing and converting co2 into fuel will create plenty of high paying JOBS here in America. That helps the lower and middle classes. Secondly, your assumption about the cost of this new fuel is wrong. Probably will be cheaper than $2 a gallon.

Does anybody here ever wonder why the price of sheet-rock is so cheap? It's because gypsum is a waste material from scrubbers on coal-fired power plants. If sheet-rock manufacturers had to pay for the cost of mining gypsum, the cost of sheet-rock would probably double or triple.

Capturing and storing CO2 will make things more expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Capturing and storing CO2 will make things more expensive.

---

Well, capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants will make the cost of electricity more expensive since about 50% of our electricty comes from coal. However, I don't see any need to store the CO2 underground except for enchanced oil recovery. The increased cost of electricity will be off-set by greatly reduced oil imports and more domestic jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Well, capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants will make the cost of electricity more expensive since about 50% of our electricty comes from coal. However, I don't see any need to store the CO2 underground except for enchanced oil recovery. The increased cost of electricity will be off-set by greatly reduced oil imports and more domestic jobs.

---

You have to store it once you capture it. It is not economically practical to separate CO2 and then run it through an inline process to convert it to something else. There will be both separation and storage costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Well, capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants will make the cost of electricity more expensive since about 50% of our electricty comes from coal. However, I don't see any need to store the CO2 underground except for enchanced oil recovery. The increased cost of electricity will be off-set by greatly reduced oil imports and more domestic jobs.

---

Evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Evidence?

---

Well, plenty of jobs will be created to capture CO2 and its short-term storage/conversion. That's self-evident. What is not self-evident is the economics and in that regard I don't think there is any evidence currently available that would satisfy a skeptic since the whole idea of using CO2 as a fuel is based on future technology. So it comes down to a judgment call as to the ability of technology to achieve cost-effective industrial processes. My view is that technology can do it since our current world has achieve unbelievable techology change over the past 100 years and I see no change to that rate of transformation.

You guys seem to be pretty smart. So stop wasting time and energy on things that don't matter, like GCC (global climate change), and figure out how to fix the one thing that really is important to all life on planet Earth: the BCS. We all know George W Bush bares sole blame for GCC and he is going out, so that will cease to be a problem anymore.