Printable View
you see that it was supposedly offset by increased oil production. there would be no economic benefit to offset scrubbing trillions of cubic feet a day from power plants. there would also be nowhere to put it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
No economic benefit from preventing the oceans from dying and rising, a mininum 3 ft in the next hundred years, etc. you better wake up and smell the coffee.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
sorry, i'm not drinking the global warming kool-aid any time soon. three feet in 100 years! wow! so how much have they risen so far? try none (at least not any measureable amount).
There are only certain ways that you can do certain things. The technology is the same today as it was then.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
In spite of ever how much libs might desire it, we simply can't change the laws of physics.
You figured me out. Man, I hate riding around in my car or having electricity made from coal. I wish I could walk everywhere in the dark while smelling real bad because I can't take a warm shower. That would be the most awesome thing...ever!Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Ark Bob, over the past 100 sea levels have risen about 1 to 2 mm a year. Satellite data since 1992 shows an annual increase in sea levels of 3mm a year. The projection for the next 100 years about 1 1/2 feet total increase.
Really???? You mean material science has not improved during the last 35 years? Some how, I find that hard to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Just think, the first oil well drilling rig was made out of wood and discovered oil at what, 65 feet? According to your thinking, technological progress is impossible.
What about storing CO2 in mineral desposits?
Gee, that was easy/////////// Maybe LA Tech can get in on this area?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Nano Material Can Store Big Amounts of CO2
December 5, 2005 10:05AM
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are scaffolds of metal hubs linked together with struts of organic compounds -- a structure designed to maximize surface area. Just one gram of an MOF has the surface area of a football field. By modifying the rods in various ways, scientists were able to increase greatly the material's storage capacity.
University of Michigan scientists say they've discovered a new class of materials that might be used to remove carbon dioxide from factory emissions.
Since the Industrial Revolution, levels of carbon dioxide have been increasing, prompting scientists to search for ways of counteracting the trend.
The new materials invented and developed by Omar Yaghi at Michigan can store vast amounts of carbon dioxide, providing the highest carbon dioxide capacity of any porous material.
The materials, called metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) -- sometimes referred to as crystal sponges -- previously were shown to have great potential for storing hydrogen and methane.
On the molecular level, MOFs are scaffolds of metal hubs linked together with struts of organic compounds -- a structure designed to maximize surface area.
Just one gram of an MOF has the surface area of a football field.
By modifying the rods in various ways, Yaghi and colleagues were able to increase greatly the material's storage capacity.
Yaghi and co-author Andrew Millward report their finding in the online edition of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
this stuff is supposed to remove the carbod dioxide? if so, what do you do when it fills up? i would assume you would switch to another "sponge" and purge it somehow and collect the purge gas. you still have the problem of storing the gas. trillions of cubic feet a day. not to mention the huge pressure drop you would experience accross these "sponges" which would require bigger boiler ID fans and more energy to run them. and the huge cost of producing large quantities of these nano-structures. also, there would be no way to do any maintenance on them, so when they wear out, you would just have to replace them. then there's the possibility of the structures getting clogged up with particulate emissions. that's just a few of the issues that would cost mucho $$$$$$. it's not even close to being feasible at this point, and the presumed benefit is doubtful at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
actually, that's 11.8 inches over 100 years if you believe the 3mm per year. but you say they have risen 1 to 2 mm per year over the last 100. what made them rise so much in the first half of the century? i don't know where you're getting your numbers, but it sounds kinda fishy to me. even if you are right, 11.8 inches is a far cry from 3 ft a century. you obviously made up a number to make it sound worse, how do i know you're not doing it now? how do i know the people you are getting your numbers from are not streatching the numbers as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Col. Drake's wood "drilling rig" ... (actually, only the derrick was made of wood) ...has nothing to do with this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
No, I don't think technological progress is impossible. Being a real scientific and technological person (unlike you) I have participated in a good bit of this progress.
I was just stating facts..........There is nothing currently proven or in sight to significantly improve .... on a real world scale .... on the CO2 scrubbing technology of 40 years ago.
I'm not saying it won't ever happen, just that I've seen too many of these "scientific breadthroughs" out of many "prestige universities" turn out to be nothing but pie in the sky.......primarily the fruits of some graduate student's thesis or disertation and his tenured faculty advisor's zeal to get his name on it to increase the poundage of his "publications".....
1 1/2 ft is 18 inches in 100 years. But remember that is based on a constant rate. Since the averge global temperature is rising, one would expect the annual increase in sea levels to go to 4 mm a year and so on over the next 100 years. So probably looking at a 3 ft+ rise over the next 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Hey, man, do your research! Look at the latest story about the ice at the South Pole melting which was not predicted.
Derrck, that was the word I was looking for. Billpup, do some research on this topic and you might find that there has been some new developments since the '70s. Industry always says that it can't be done.....except when it suits their purposes. ROTFLMAO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
i don't know where you got your numbers, but i did the math. 3mm/year = 11.8 inches/century. but it doesn't matter. like you said, it depends on a constant rate. we don't know if that rate will go up or down, and it is doubtful if any of it can be controlled by man. "probably," especially coming from someone who knows absolutely nothing about the science, doesn't mean much. i don't have time to do any research on this. it is a waste of time to even spend a couple of minutes writing a reply on this thread. it doesn't matter how much any of this costs. if it's not free, then it's a waste of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg