The Climate Change Debate Thread (Original Thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.


truthisfree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,182
A US company called NanoTech Engineering says their graphene solar panels reaches a 94% efficiency (compared to around 20% for large commercial silicon-based PV panels), and the cost per Watt of their panel will be 0.55 cents (compared to a US average of $3.26 for silicon PV panels).

NanoTech's panels are reportedly built from ten layers of graphene and a carbon nanotube forest on top. The CNTs convert the photons to electrons while the graphene is the conducting layer. The company says that this structure enables the high conversion efficiency - while still being very cost effective. They say the cost to produce and install the panels will be about one third of the cost of silicon based solar panels. They are in the process of finalizing a financing round, which they hope will bring in $30 million to enable them to commercialize the panels.

Can't post a link but google 'Nanotech Engineering Solar'.
That sounds amazing and am sure it is the future of energy. In the meantime graphene production is slow and expensive so it may take some time for the cost of production to decrease.

Edit: ON reading that article, they claim to be half the cost of traditional panels! wow...!
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
That sounds amazing and am sure it is the future of energy. In the meantime graphene production is slow and expensive so it may take some time for the cost of production to decrease.

Edit: ON reading that article, they claim to be half the cost of traditional panels! wow...!
You are sure, so sure you did not need an education.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,330
President Trump has astonished everyone (including probably a lot of Republicans) by appointing an academic meteorologist as his Chief Science Adviser. Kelvin Droegemeier is a Professor of Meteorology at Oklahoma State University.

And he does not deny the reality of climate change - he was appointed by the previous two Presidents to the National Science Board.



Professor Droegemeier's appointment has been broadly welcomed:

'John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, who served as the Obama White House's chief science adviser. Holdren called him "a solid choice."

"He's been a serious climate scientist, and he's been a serious science adviser to people in positions of influence."

Others who favour strong action on climate agreed.'


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01082018/kelvin-droegemeier-trump-picks-white-house-science-adviser-climate-change-extreme-weather

It may just be tokenism on the part of Trump, but the inability to find a climate change denier who was also a reputable scientist is surely another nail in the coffin of climate change denial. Drogemeier's expertise on extreme weather may also be recognition that the extreme events of the last two years (hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts) are also of growing political importance.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
President Trump has astonished everyone (including probably a lot of Republicans) by appointing an academic meteorologist as his Chief Science Adviser. Kelvin Droegemeier is a Professor of Meteorology at Oklahoma State University.

And he does not deny the reality of climate change - he was appointed by the previous two Presidents to the National Science Board.



Professor Droegemeier's appointment has been broadly welcomed:

'John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, who served as the Obama White House's chief science adviser. Holdren called him "a solid choice."

"He's been a serious climate scientist, and he's been a serious science adviser to people in positions of influence."

Others who favour strong action on climate agreed.'


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01082018/kelvin-droegemeier-trump-picks-white-house-science-adviser-climate-change-extreme-weather

It may just be tokenism on the part of Trump, but the inability to find a climate change denier who was also a reputable scientist is surely another nail in the coffin of climate change denial. Drogemeier's expertise on extreme weather may also be recognition that the extreme events of the last two years (hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts) are also of growing political importance.
Is he a climateologist? No good if he's not qualified in that.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,330
President Trump has astonished everyone (including probably a lot of Republicans) by appointing an academic meteorologist as his Chief Science Adviser. Kelvin Droegemeier is a Professor of Meteorology at Oklahoma State University.

And he does not deny the reality of climate change - he was appointed by the previous two Presidents to the National Science Board.



Professor Droegemeier's appointment has been broadly welcomed:

'John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, who served as the Obama White House's chief science adviser. Holdren called him "a solid choice."

"He's been a serious climate scientist, and he's been a serious science adviser to people in positions of influence."

Others who favour strong action on climate agreed.'


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01082018/kelvin-droegemeier-trump-picks-white-house-science-adviser-climate-change-extreme-weather

It may just be tokenism on the part of Trump, but the inability to find a climate change denier who was also a reputable scientist is surely another nail in the coffin of climate change denial. Drogemeier's expertise on extreme weather may also be recognition that the extreme events of the last two years (hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts) are also of growing political importance.
Trump counterbalances a sensible single step by taking 10 paces backwards - repealing Fuel Economy Standards regulations that reduce harmful emissions and greenhouse gases, and of course increasing the profits made by Big Oil.



https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/trump-takes-a-flyer-starts-process-to-gut-auto-mileage-standards/
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
On this appointment. Trump left it late because there were some decisions he intended to make right from the start. Now that he has made these changes, he must move on to make new ones over the remainer of his term. Therefore a scientific adviser will be useful. Where countries agree to disarm nuclear weapons is an example. Then there is use of public lands etc.
 
Last edited:

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
The average temperature at Cape Norris Jesup was slightly lower on the 1st August 2018 at just below 2 degrees C as opposed to almost 2 degrees in 2005. The maximum temperature was lower at 2 degrees this year compared to 3.5.

No real change except the gauge went a little higher 13 years ago. Weather archive in Cape Morris Jesup
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
Trump counterbalances a sensible single step by taking 10 paces backwards - repealing Fuel Economy Standards regulations that reduce harmful emissions and greenhouse gases, and of course increasing the profits made by Big Oil.



https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/trump-takes-a-flyer-starts-process-to-gut-auto-mileage-standards/
If I were Trump, I would give him this and ask him for a verbal report in 4 months.The US does not have significant additional acreage for corn production.

- The US had about 269 million motor vehicles in 2016, including about 113 million registered automobiles.

- At present, almost all 113 million automobiles use gasohol (90% gasoline/10% ethanol). If gasohol were 85% gasoline/15% ethanol, as advocated by ethanol promoters, at least 40 million additional acres would be required for corn production.

- The embedded energy for the entire infrastructure to produce corn and ethanol, and its continued renewal, requires billions of dollars of investments each year.

- Much more efficient biofuels production processes need to be invented. Gasohol, E10 = 90% gasoline/10% ethanol, by volume. The Btu of the ethanol would displace only 76330/116090 x 10 = 6.58% of the gasoline Btu.

- It would be much easier, and much less costly, to increase the mileage of the 115 million passenger vehicles, than have the politics-inspired, subsidized, environmentally destructive, marginally effective, corn to ethanol program.



https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/mbm/Ethanol_chapter1.pdf

http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/pubs/documents/EnergyBalanceIssueBriefMarch09.pdf

Ethanol and Energy Independence

The Oil Drum | The Energy Balance of Ethanol versus Gasoline



CO2 Emissions of Ethanol, Gasoline and Gasohol E10, Well to Wheels



The values in table 3 are based on the following:



- Ethanol includes the CO2 benefit of co-products.

- Gasoline does not include the CO2 benefit of co-products.

- The gasoline upstream factor is an EPA value.

- LHVs of fuels. See URL

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

- E10 combustion emissions 0.1 x 12.720 + 0.9 x 19.640 = 18.948 lb CO2/gal, about the same as gasoline. See table.

- Ethanol production CO2. See page 6

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

- E10 fuel density. See page H-3

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/exhibit-h.pdf

- E10 upstream emissions 0.1 x 13.556 + 0.9 x 5.055 = 5.895 lb CO2/gal



Table 3

Ethanol

Gasoline

Gasohol, E10

Combustion CO2, tank to wheels, lb/gal

12.720

19.640

18.948

Inch3/gal, definition

231

231

231

Cm/inch, definition

2.54

2.54

2.54

Cm3/gal

3785.411784

3785.411784

3785.411784

LHV, Btu/gal

76330

116090

112114

Joules/Btu, definition

1054

1054

1054

LHV, MJ/gal

80.45

122.36

118.17

Density, g/cm3

0.789

0.749

0.746

Weight, kg/gal

2.987

2.835

2.824

Heat content, LHV, MJ/kg

26.94

43.16

41.84

Upstream factor, well to pump

1.2568

Production CO2, well to pump, g/MJ*

76.5

Production CO2, well to pump, g/gal

6155

Gram/lb

454

Production CO2, well to pump, lb/gal

13.556

5.044

5.895

Total CO2, well to wheels

26.276

24.684

24.843



APPENDIX 1:

A very efficient, medium-size car on gasohol (90% gasoline/10% ethanol, LHV 112114 Btu/gal), at 41.5 mpg, would need 322.5 gallon to travel 13384 miles in a year.



A very efficient, medium-size car on 100% ethanol (LHV 76330 Btu/gal), at 28.3 mpg, would need about 112114/76330 x 322.5 = 473.7 gallon to travel 13384 miles. The ethanol yield of an acre of corn is 478 gallon.



Table 4

Ethanol

E10

Travel, miles/y

13384

13384

Mileage, mpg

28.3

41.5

Gallon/y

473.7

322.5

LHV, Btu/gal

76330

112114

Travel energy, Btu/y

36157440

36157440



APPENDIX 2

World crude oil production could be replaced with biodiesel produced by about 400 thousand square miles of kelp farms. The replacement of the world coal and gas production would require additional sea area, for a total of at least one million square miles.



World Crude Oil Production

Barrels/d, million

100

Gal/barrel

42

Gal/d, million

4200

Btu/gal, million

0.136119

Btu/d, trillion

571.7

Biodiesel from kelp, gal/acre/y

6000

d/y

365

Gal/acre/d

16.438

Btu/gal, million

0.136119

Btu/acre/d, million

2.23757

Sea area, acres

255500000

acre/sq mi

640

Sea area, sq mi

399219



APPENDIX 3

E10 combustion CO2 = 1.2568 x (19.64 x 0.9 + 12.72 x 0.1) = 1.2568 x 18.948 lb/gal = 23.816. The above table indicates 24.843, because a slightly different method of calculating is used.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-much-carbon-dioxide-is-produced-by-burning-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-FAQ-U.S.-Energy-Information-Administration-EIA.pdf



Table 6

Lb CO2/gal

Gasoline

19.64

Ethanol

12.72

E10 (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) wo/upstream

18.95

Upstream factor well to pump

1.2568

E10 w/upstream

23.816
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,330
Dara O'Briain on the hokey science crowd.

[video=youtube;uDYba0m6ztE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=uDYba0m6ztE[/video]

Climate change deniers into the sack, too.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Dara O'Briain on the hokey science crowd.

[video=youtube;uDYba0m6ztE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=uDYba0m6ztE[/video]

Climate change deniers into the sack, too.


OMG! Scolded by a comedian.



I feel so chastened...




That fat-boy needs to spend a little more time writing funny material, because he just ain't any more.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,330

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,010
PS: Case's "adjustments" are trivial and make no difference to the final temperature record. It is just one of the mythologies that deniers peddle.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
If the "adjustments" are irrelevant, why bother with them?

Frankly, suggesting that water drawn up in a bucket into a ship is likely to be significantly warmed by the atmosphere in the process is a load of cobblers. As is the neglect of the warming effect of turbulence in modern engine water intakes, the current source of ocean temperature data, per your article.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top