backtop


Print 166 comment(s) - last by piroroadkill.. on Sep 16 at 4:31 PM


The world's first industrial scale carbon sequestration plant pumps carbon dioxide up to 800 m underground. Unfortunately it is not very popular with climate change skeptics and environmentalists alike.  (Source: Der Spiegel)

The new plant receives CO2 shipments by truck from a special 45 MW coal plant 217 miles away.  (Source: Der Spiegel)
New plant pumps carbon safely into the ground, but is it really helping?

Carbon sequestration technology aims to store carbon, regardless of its source, whether it is from a new high-efficiency coal plant or an ancient relic of a plant.  In the past, researchers looked at many ways of doing this.  Some argued to put it in the sea while others argued to sink it in artificial wetlands.

However, the most popular idea is to pump it underground.  The U.S. Department of Energy already launched an expensive initiative to test out such a system.  Now Swedish power supplier Vattenfall has beat everyone to the punch, building and bringing online the world's first industrial-ready carbon sequestration plant, located in Brandenburg, Germany.

Construction on the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plant began two years ago.  The plant cost $97.4M USD to construct.  Many view it and other CCS plants as essential for coal to stay competitive against greener energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power.  The plant officially opened with a ceremony this Tuesday.

The power plant used by the facility is a specially built 45 MW plant 350 kilometers (217 miles) away.  CO2 is delivered by the truckload to the waiting plant, where it is pumped underground into a natural gas reservoir.  Vattenfall's main competitor, RWE, is looking to build a 450-megawatt CCS power plant in Hürth, nine kilometers southwest of Cologne.

The technology is thought to be viable at current carbon credit costs when it can be coupled with a plant with about 1,000 MW of capacity.  Thus the current new plant is an experimental proposition, which is losing money in the short term.

At the new plant, gas is pumped into 800-meter-deep bore holes into the depleted reservoir.  Estimates vary, but it is expected to be trapped there anywhere from 1,000 and 10,000 years.

While some power companies are promoting the technology as a green dream, interestingly many environmental groups are vocally opposing it.  Over 99 organizations in a group called the "Climate Alliance" invited protesters to the opening of the plant.  They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.  Further, they say it will slow the adoption of alternative energy sources, lulling people into a false sense of security.

While some, particularly in the green community are particularly opposed to the technology, it doesn't seem likely to go away anytime soon.  SPD (Germany's top political party) head Kurt Beck acknowledged the criticism, but cautiously plugged the effort, stating, "One sees clearly that it is far more than just a theoretical beginning.  It is one of a number of solutions to the climate problem."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

crazy kids
By ViroMan on 9/12/2008 8:39:37 AM , Rating: 4
Eco Freak: Ohh.. its horrible... the coal plants are polluting!

Engineer: I have the solution! Ill take the CO2 out of the bad air and pump it back into the ground!

Eco Freak: HEY! Stop that! We need to have something to yell at!

Engineer: I can solve that too! <Puts a pump to the eco freak's mouth and starts pumping out the CO2 from the polluting eco freak>




RE: crazy kids
By 306maxi on 9/12/2008 8:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's pretty poor on the part of the enviro-tards.

I consider renewables to be a big part of the solution in the future just as nuclear power should be as well. But we should also look at whether CO2 can be stored like this as this can also be part of the solution.


RE: crazy kids
By wvh on 9/12/2008 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's not solution as such. It's delaying a problem, much like hiding a dead body under the floorboards.

:)


RE: crazy kids
By epobirs on 9/13/2008 1:04:58 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently you don't understand where coal comes from.

This is returning the carbon, released from burning the coal, back underground where the coal was first obtained. If the goal is to keep carbon out of the atmosphere, then this is entirely sensible.

The real question is whether CO2 is the threat it has been made out to be. So far the evidence says it has vastly less effect than the alarmist claims. On that basis the skeptics at least have a rational point for criticism. If CO2 isn't a problem then this sequestration operation is adding needless expense to energy production.

The environmentalist complaint that this is reducing the pace of development for alternative energy production is just plain whining. No amount of money and personnel is likely to deliver any time soon a replacement that will be both clean and so cheap we can immediately do away with our current power sources. So mitigation of those power sources' undesirable outputs is necessary.


RE: crazy kids
By jtemplin on 9/14/2008 6:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well reducing the pace of innovation is mentioned in the article but you forget to mention that in the preceding sentence the author cites the
quote:
group called the "Climate Alliance" invited protesters to the opening of the plant. They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.


That doesn't sound like whining to me. Sounds like something everyone can agree on. Reducing the efficiency of power generation to enable this re-capturing which may not have any effect on or relationship to climage change seems backward to me.

I mean, you said it yourself:
quote:
If CO2 isn't a problem then this sequestration operation is adding needless expense to energy production.

So you agree with the "environmentalist complaint"...does that make you a whiner too?


RE: crazy kids
By Storkme on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By porkpie on 9/12/2008 10:27:20 AM , Rating: 5
How is it a "stunt"? The plant doesn't release any carbon. Isn't that what the problem was supposed to be all along?

Honestly, this just reveals the enviros true agenda. They don't really believe in global warming (who does?), they're just using it as an excuse to reverse industrialization and take us all "back to nature".


RE: crazy kids
By BansheeX on 9/12/2008 12:38:44 PM , Rating: 5
The most hilarious and crazy thing about it is that, in light of the impossibility of this task, what they're inadvertently doing is slowing down cleaner successors. Because old technology, old types of fuel, invariably contributes to the development of its cleaner, more efficient successor. In other words, we would have never entered the nuclear and battery age if it weren't for fossil fuel combustion and horse crap all over the streets. Now we have the capacity to create vast amounts of power under any conditions 24/7 with a resource that is 10,000 years in supply, capturing the voluminously small waste before it enters the environment, storing it in impenetrable steel and concrete containers until our technology is so amazing that we can easily jettison it and other garbage into the sun. But... that's not good enough for them. Nothing is. Short of pie in the sky nonsense like windmills and solar for EVERYTHING, which is mathematically impossible for future needs and costs way more per energy unit. They have no answer, all they know how to do is fearmonger, lobby, and picket. The answer has been with us for thirty years and they've blocked it.

My contempt boils over for these people. They have no understanding of cost/benefit ratios, they think that millions dead, dying, and impoverished from oil resource wars and subsidized food-based bio-fuels is preferable to a chance of radiation contamination equivalent to being struck by lightning twice on the same day. There's more risk crossing the damn street, but they've turned nuclear into some kind of boogeyman. Vote me in as president and I will charge them all with crimes against humanity.


RE: crazy kids
By Jaybus on 9/12/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 4
I hope that includes Jerry Brown, Ronald Reagan's successor as Governor of California from 1975-1983, and one leaders of the 70,000 person anti-nuclear march on Washington in 1979 that essentially halted the building of nuclear power stations in the US for 28 years. Some of us still remember the hysteria.

Here's a tidbit. Every time there's a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, gasoline prices soar due to the shutdown of refineries along the Gulf Coast. We are right now expecting $1/gal hike in Tennessee to be caused by Ike. Yet Andrew hit the Turkey Point station in south Florida in 1992 and it was a non-issue. What does that say about the safety of nuclear power?


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 4:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you got me, what does this say about the safety of nuclear power? It has had pretty much 0% failure rate since inception.


RE: crazy kids
By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
With a 0% failure rate makes you wonder why eco-freaks are opposed to nuclear power doesn't it? Maybe they really just hate people.


RE: crazy kids
By Myg on 9/12/2008 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
I bet your one of those people who wants to live forever.


RE: crazy kids
By Shining Arcanine on 9/12/2008 6:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
The carbon never was a problem. The radioactive uranium and thorium, among other radioactive elements, that coal burning power plants, as well as their high cost per unit of energy, is the problem.


RE: crazy kids
By PhoenixKnight on 9/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 1:31:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why are you invoking some mythical conspiracy? Radical environmentalism isn't a conspiracy. It's simply a group of people that share a set of commmon beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-humanity.

From Greenpeace activists destroying GM crops to Sierra Club lawsuits preventing new power plants to PETA activists vandalizing medical facilities to Earth First! members torching factories and car dealerships -- the goals are the same.

It's no more an organized conspiracy than a mob is. But it's just as destructive.


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/12/2008 11:05:18 AM , Rating: 5
Considering we're not even sure that man-made C02 is really causing any warming, this is a complete waste of money.


RE: crazy kids
By walk2k on 9/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: crazy kids
By bhieb on 9/12/2008 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If it helps clean up the air


Sums up your attitude right there. There is absolutely nothing "dirty" about C02. Now I agree it isn't a good thing to be dumping into the air, but calling it unclean clearly highlights your eco-ignorance.


RE: crazy kids
By quiksilvr on 9/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: crazy kids
By Hare on 9/12/2008 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 5
Everything can be "toxic". Did you know that oxygen is also toxic? Same thing with dear old H2O, you can die if you drink too much water...


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 2:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies for duplicating your information; I didn't refresh before I posted.


RE: crazy kids
By foolsgambit11 on 9/12/2008 5:34:34 PM , Rating: 1
Perfect. Your logic is infallible.

I don't care how many toxins there are in plant exhaust. I just don't want them dumping their garbage in our public space. I can't just throw my grass clippings out in the street. My grass clippings are definitely going to be less toxic than plant exhaust. The city makes me pay to take away my clippings, or I can take care of them myself by composting it. Either way, it's my responsibility. I just think the plants should take care of their waste the same way I'm expected to take care of mine.

Why should I get a $200 fine for throwing a paper bag out my window on the highway, but coal plants can pump tons of garbage into our public spaces without any repercussions?

Since it's not realistic to expect all our coal powered plants to tackle this problem instantly, I support a carbon tax or a cap and trade system where people pay for their initial allotments of carbon usage.

(And yes, I realize these costs will be passed on at least partially to me.)


RE: crazy kids
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 8:57:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I support a carbon tax or a cap and trade system where people pay for their initial allotments of carbon usage.

Any tax levied against a company is paid for in full by its customers. If you buy power and the government taxes it, YOU pay the tax. IN FULL. The power company can't pay the tax unless it uses money out of its customer's pockets.

If the government decides that you somehow deserve a tax refund that is fine, but don't dilude yourself into thinking that you didn't pay the tax in the first place. Just be thankful that you are poor enough to receive welfare.

Remember a tax - any tax, acts like a tax on the economy.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/14/2008 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't care how many toxins there are in plant exhaust. I just don't want them dumping their garbage in our public space. I can't just throw my grass clippings out in the street. My grass clippings are definitely going to be less toxic than plant exhaust. The city makes me pay to take away my clippings, or I can take care of them myself by composting it. Either way, it's my responsibility. I just think the plants should take care of their waste the same way I'm expected to take care of mine.

If you want to be that strict about gas emissions, FYI your composting releases CO2, as well as CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) which are both greenhouse gases much, much worse than carbon dioxide. CH4 is 75 times worse, and N2O is 298 times worse. Furthermore, the fact that you mowed your lawn means the grass is able to remove less CO2 from the atmosphere.

You could also institute a breathing tax, for all the CO2 and water vapor you exhale (yup, good old H2O is also a greenhouse gas - we'll need to tax swimming pools and hot showers too). If you own a pet, you should have to pay more to offset their breathing. Baked beans should have a methane tax added onto them.

Yeah, this is getting silly, but I think by now you'll agree that this isn't a "why aren't they responsible like I am?" situation. Lots of things we do impact greenhouse gas emissions, not just power generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Occurre...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Methane_as_a_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_o...


RE: crazy kids
By Oregonian2 on 9/12/2008 7:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
But it's Natural so it MUST be good!!! Even the fuzzy cute kittens and baby deer produce it!


RE: crazy kids
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 1:57:44 PM , Rating: 3
You're talking about atmospheric concentrations of CO2 literally 20 to 100 times the current levels. Even if we TRIED to put that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we would likely fail. There simply isn't enough free carbon available.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 1
> ""Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis "

Too much of anything is bad for the human body. Too much oxygen in your organs is toxic and will destroy tissue, and people have died from water poisoning (and no, I'm not talking about drowning). Vitamins, iron, and other minerals are essential to our diet...but too of these are toxic as well.

CO2 is utterly benign. We emit it ourselves in every breath and in fact its a requirement not only for plants to survive, but humans as well (with none whatsoever in the air, seems we forget to breath). In massive doses -- far outside what one would ever see in the atmosphere, even after another thousand years of fossil fuel emissions -- it's dangerous, yes. But that's entirely irrelevant.


RE: crazy kids
By croc on 9/12/2008 9:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Carbonic acid, anyone?

The ocean is a great CO2 storage system, with one minor drawback. As atmospheric levels of CO2 increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. This in turn leads to a decrease in various organisms' ability to form their various calcium-based shells.

I guess the human race can live without shrimp, oysters, lobsters or reef-formation.... But shellfish do tend to be very low on the food chain.

But I am sure that the all-knowing masher already knows this and has the disputing data (no matter how cherry-picked) at his fingertips.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 9:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "I guess the human race can live without shrimp, oysters, lobsters or reef-formation"

The modus operandi of the AGW crowd-- start with a fact, then instantly extrapolate it to mean the sky is falling.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been ten, even twenty times higher in the Earth's past. Shellfish both survived and thrived during those periods. The notion that shrimp and lobster are about to go extinct is worse than sophomoric.

Furthermore, ocean productivity, as measured by the total global biomass, is on an upward trend, not downward. . . especially in cold Arctic waters, the ones most influenced by global warming. This research from just a few days ago concurs, though hundreds of similar papers exist:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1470...


RE: crazy kids
By Jaybus on 9/12/2008 2:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
So 0.036 to 0.039% is normal atmospheric levels and its not much of a problem until its 3%. In other words, if we increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 100x it will be toxic?


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/12/2008 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 3
Um, you do know that plants need CO2 in order to survive, right? Eliminate CO2 and life on Earth ceases to exist.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 3:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because of this statement, hippies heads are exploding all over the world. Nothing like conveniently forgetting that plants live on the stuff.


RE: crazy kids
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/12/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the more CO2 in the air the the more number of plants that will grow and the stronger (healthy) they will be... It's vitamins for plants.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By Omega215D on 9/12/2008 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
A bit too simplistic don't you think? Back to school with you.

Here's the detailed info on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Take a look at the chemical reaction that takes place and how the equation balances out.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 6:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
"All of these plants have eukaryotic cells with cell walls composed of cellulose, and most obtain their energy through photosynthesis, using light and carbon dioxide to synthesize food . About three hundred plant species do not photosynthesize but are parasites on other species of photosynthetic plants. Plants are distinguished from green algae, which represent a mode of photosynthetic life similar to the kind modern plants are believed to have evolved from, by having specialized reproductive organs protected by non-reproductive tissues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants

Now, according to the bold portion, plants use CO2 (carbon Dioxide, it is the same thing) to make food. DUH, they don't need CO2, they run on magic and dreams. Their by product of this happens to be oxygen, it is a cycle, go figure.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/12/2008 8:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
???

CO2 is carbon dioxide. Carbon = C, di = 2, oxide = O. Hence CO2.


RE: crazy kids
By johnsonx on 9/12/2008 10:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
oh dear, someone doesn't know what CO2 is.


RE: crazy kids
By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
Oh my God! Someone doesn't know what carbon dioxide is! Where have you been? There are millions of eco-freaks who done know anything about carbon dioxide but they are scared to death of it!


RE: crazy kids
By Cullinaire on 9/13/2008 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
Your blunder here is on a similar level to those who correct others' "grammer" (sic).


RE: crazy kids
By rcc on 9/15/2008 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's never a blunder to want to see correct grammar. It minimizes misunderstandings.

The fact that so much of the online community is too lazy to learn to use their tools is quite another problem.

Perfection is not necessary, but a basic proficiency would be more efficient.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 5:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
Your all right, i made a translation mistake as in dutch we usually don't use as many abbreviations as Americans do, it cot lost in translation ;-)


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/14/2008 2:01:14 PM , Rating: 1
Carbon sequestration won't do sh*t. Why don't we spend the money elsewhere, like creating cleaner-operating car production plants, or nuclear energy, or anything else that actually CLEANS THE AIR, and has a measurable impact on the environment. Carbon sequestration doesn't have any measurable impact on the environment.


RE: crazy kids
By nismotigerwvu on 9/12/2008 9:11:05 AM , Rating: 4
I wish I could get some of that Government money. I'll take just as much CO2 out the air and increase the O2 concentration while I'm at. For the low price of just 1.5 million dollars I'll plant a few trees :)


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 9:24:19 AM , Rating: 4
Whoa, slow down there, we don't need these crazy tree planting ideas. That isn't nearly expensive enough, or hair brained enough. What we need is a zany Mousetrap type machine, that snaps some sort of plank, after you turn the crank of course, and maybe knocks a ball right down a chute, and so on. What would it do? Who cares??!! It would be perfect to fix the problem.

/sarcasm


RE: crazy kids
By Spivonious on 9/12/2008 9:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the guy that jumps into the bucket.


RE: crazy kids
By SoCalBoomer on 9/12/2008 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like those hairbrained schemes that the Discovery Channel is promoting?

Like using bombs to plant trees? Hell, when I was in college, it was COLLEGE STUDENTS who planted trees - don't they still do that? We have PLENTY of college students. . . and they gotta be cheaper than a bunch of little bombs, planes, and trucks. . .


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing good to come from that Project Earth show was those wind balloons, those are slick, and could be a decent supplement to our current power structure. Everything else on that show so far has been just insane at best.

Hippies just need to go back to tree planting, it was free labor, and who doesn't like a good tree?


RE: crazy kids
By Murloc on 9/12/2008 1:32:00 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, it would more useful to stop using carbon and use nuclear and hydroelectric instead, and don't allow ppl destroy the ammazonian forest, if they put down trees the co2 will increase, so we need more trees.
What about a forest in the sahara.


RE: crazy kids
By AnnihilatorX on 9/12/2008 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
Would people stop lump-summing environmentalists!

There are critics groups whatever you do, and within a group called environmental activists they all have different ideas on how to tackle problems. An occupation called doctors include opticians, surgeons, you just can't expect them to share the same views and goals. Some may support an idea like this, some don't, some supports nuclear fission for the time being, some supports solar and wind. Just don't lump-sum them under 1 banner and call them hypocrites for yelling at every solutions, because chances are they are different people. There is not a single individual on this, and there is certainly no right way of solving environmental problems.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 10:59:05 AM , Rating: 4
The problem is that, regardless of what the rank-and-file environmentalists believe, the leaders of the environmentalist movement all share the same goals. The authors, public speakers, heads of all major environmental groups -- those are the people that set the agenda for the movement. They're the ones that control the billions in funding environmentalist groups receive each year, the ones that endorse candidates, organize protests, threaten corporations, file progress-blocking lawsuits.

Your opinion may differ from theirs. But they're the ones in charge of the madhouse.


RE: crazy kids
By Cygni on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
The "idea" may not have leadership, but the movement itself certainly does. And it is that movement, rather than some disembodied idea, that control what actions are taken and the consequences and detrimental effects of those acts.

It's no different than a political party. What the member on the street believes doesn't control the party. The leadership does. They're the ones who make the public statements, and control the laws passed and the actions taken.

The environmental movement itself has never been shy about expressing its true goals...and climate change is simply a stepping stone to achieve those goals.


RE: crazy kids
By foolsgambit11 on 9/12/2008 5:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oooh, you make it sound so sinister - "The environmental movement itself has never been shy about expressing its true goals..."

Would you care to explain what these "true goals" of the movement are? Because if they aren't environmental awareness, conservation, and stewardship, then I'm not sure I understand the English language.

There are different branches within environmentalism, to be sure, that all share those aforementioned goals, but have some additional ideas.

1. 'The Al Gore Greens' - Advancing technology will lead to a clean, healthy, sustainable utopia powered by peace and sunshine.

2. 'The Gung-Ho Greenpeace Guys' - misanthropic people looking to pick a fight who have stumbled upon supporting everything that isn't human, i.e., 'nature'.

3. 'The Granola Greens' - holistic hippies who believe that mankind should stumble back into the forests. After all, that's where them mushrooms and marijuana are, anyway, right?

How's that for sketching a caricature of the most vocal green proponents? The fact is, most people believe in the basic tenets of the green movement - environmental awareness, conservation, and stewardship. But it's the passionate advocates who get out there and get heard. It's the same as what happens in politics - the far left and the far right get heard, and the voices of compromise get drowned out.


RE: crazy kids
By Spuke on 9/12/2008 6:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would you care to explain what these "true goals" of the movement are?
Actually, he has posted them in other threads. He might do it yet again because it seems people here are blind as well as dumb.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 7:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Oooh, you make it sound so sinister"

In all candor, it is. It's arguably the largest threat to civilization and progress since the fall of the Roman Empire.

> "Would you care to explain what these "true goals" of the movement are?"

Be glad to.

quote:
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental
— Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!

quote:
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels
— Prince Phillip, speaking for the World Wildlife Fund.

quote:
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
— Lamont Cole, Yale University Professor and environmentalist

quote:
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
— Dave Graber, biologist, National Park Service

quote:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans
— Dr. Reed Noss, Biology professor and founder, the Wildlands Project.

quote:
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs
— Earth First! newsletter.

quote:
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species [mankind] upon the rest of the natural world—
John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News.

quote:
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed
— Pentti Linkola, noted Scandinavian environmentalist and author.

quote:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy
— Amory Lovins, noted environmentalist and author, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last
— from the Whole Earth Catalog.

quote:
Capitalism is destroying the earth.
- Dr. Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.

quote:
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S
— Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.


RE: crazy kids
By wrekd on 9/12/2008 8:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nice list. It would be nice to reach some sort of Star Trekian coexistence between the modern age and our animal roots.

I realize I may be in the minority in this belief, but humans are no more special than any other species on this planet. To believe otherwise is a throwback to the times when the Earth was the center of the Universe.

Capitalism is not the problem; it’s when the government tweaks the market that the system breaks. Otherwise the system mimics natural selection found elsewhere on the planet.

But you can't force people to not over use, over consume...to be responsible. You can only teach good practices and hope that the majority of the population will find equilibrium.


RE: crazy kids
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2008 9:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but humans are no more special than any other species on this planet.


Humans are the only species on this planet with the ability to question its existence. We are self aware, animals are not. Animals accept the realities which they are presented without question.

I don't know if that makes us more " special " or not, but we sure as hell are the most unique.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 10:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
I can not agree with most statements, but there is truth in what they are saying that there are to many people on the world, a reduction of 50% would properly solf 95% of current problems.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 10:31:56 PM , Rating: 3
> "there are to many people on the world, a reduction of 50% would properly solf 95% of current problems. "

You're frightening. Whom do you suggest we start with?


RE: crazy kids
By johnsonx on 9/12/2008 10:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whom do you suggest we start with?

The environmentalist and animal-rights whack-jobs who advocate that sort of thing, of course. If they think it's so important, they should be the first to 'take one for the team'.

Once they're all gone, there'll be more peace and quiet for the rest of us.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 3:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah only God fearing peaceful people like Bush are left over then. ;-0


RE: crazy kids
By Jim28 on 9/16/2008 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
what does that have to do with it?

If you think 50% of the people need to be gone, then volunteer yourself first.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 4:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I never said I have a viable solution, I just state the acknowledgement that er are to many people on this world for it to sustain it in a healthy way, not that one live is more precious than a other.

On the other hand imho a lot of Americans think about in a different way, as they state that war in Iraq ect. is so bad because "American lives are lost" and don't really give a rats ass about what happens to local population.

It shows in the philosophy the current US army has to create as many machine controlled weapon systems as possible, so the war at the US side is as clean as possible, how cares a bout the enemy?
I think war should be a dirty business so people try to avoid it, and remember that it is not a clean business at all.

But i have discussed US/UK/EU middle east/world history whit you before and you don't seam to see any problem whit it, so its pointless to discuss it, as we totally can't agree with each others point of view on history

But real world solutions would be.

1. A long term solution would be real education of the poor people in the world, as educated people tens to have less of a need of having many children.
(not likely to happen as we from the wealthy side of the world, understandably don't wane share our wealth)

2. Short/mid term solution that would give some relieve, sexual education and birth control options for free ore real cheap.
As current Bush administration is just imho borderline criminal whit the policy of "stop condom & birth control programs ore you don't get any US governmental aid"
(could happen depending on the new US government and acknowledgement that these things are internal problems of those 3th world country's)

3. Other short/long term solution would be the draconian solution the Chinese use 1 ore max 2 children per parent till population rates are at sustainable levels.
(not likely going to happen as most country's don't have a strong centralized powerful atheist government as Chinese, properly also undesirable as it would result in lost of civilian unrest)


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 11:31:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "Hey I never said I have a viable solution"

And that's the real problem with environmentalists. No solution is perfect; anyone can point out problems. But if you don't have a better idea, you're simply spitballing.

> "As current Bush administration is just imho borderline criminal whit the policy of "stop condom & birth control programs ore you don't get any US governmental aid"

Are you trying to embarrass yourself? The Bush Administration spends billions on such programs around the world, including several hundred million condoms a year. The US government is, in fact, the largest supplier of condoms in the entire world by far. I quote:
quote:
By the end of December, US officials project that they will have shipped more than 612 million condoms this year to Africa, Asia, and Latin America
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2...

You've probably confused yourself over some 5-year old story on the "Mexico Policy" of denying aid to groups which advocate abortion. I don't personally agree with that policy, but the only thing "borderline criminal" here is your fictional account.

> "It shows in the philosophy the current US army has to create as many machine controlled weapon systems as possible, so the war at the US side is as clean as possible"

If a war must be fought, I prefer it be done with as little loss of life as possible. That includes the lives of our own troops. I suppose you'd prefer they all die?

In history past, wars often meant as meany as 100X or more civilian deaths as actual combatants. Today, unless a nation intentionally uses civilians as shields, such deaths are a small fraction of the total. If the wars of the future are fought entirely by machines, that will likely be a positive thing. Whoever has the better machines wins... and there's no need to actually shed any real blood.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 8:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're simply spitballing

The first part in finding a solution to a problem is identifying the problem and what needs to be done, a complex and still not fully understand global ecosystem is not something you fix over night, you can how ever try to do everything that prevents the problem from getting worse, if you later find out that what you bin doing was unnecessary, great you wasted lots of money, still better to be safe then sorry.

On the other hand putting your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" doesn't help whit solving any problem.

quote:
You've probably confused yourself over some 5-year old story on the "Mexico Policy" of denying aid to groups which advocate abortion.

http://www.tamilstar.com/news/health/article_8391....
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/poli...
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_...
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/070918.shtml
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mcca...
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms120...
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article....

The lack of your knowledge what your government is doing and how it influences the world is really typical of US FOXnews educated Republican American society.

Michael your a great debater, being good at it docent make you right do.

quote:
I suppose you'd prefer they all die?

No, but as you maybe aware of most people (including me) in the world see the US (not all its citizens do) as having a aggressive foreign policy, that is sometimes only tempered by the dead-toll its citizens can stomach, turning war in to a video game dose the opposite.

War should be horrible, (otherwise there is no reason not to have them) as i think everything possible should be tried to prevent them.

quote:
If the wars of the future are fought entirely by machines, that will likely be a positive thing. Whoever has the better machines wins... and there's no need to actually shed any real blood.

I always had respect for your thinking even do i don't agree whit you often, but this is just a brain fart your having if you really think this reality.

If any enemies even would have weapons like these, once depleted they would start using "human" soldiers if you have in the end noting to defend your self and your home/country whit anymore, you pick up a rock and trow at the machine, if ware becomes a game it would be very easy to push a button and kill person, because he is not there, on the other hand having a M16 in your hand and pull the trigger is imho something completely different.

Hence my aversetie to that type of automated weapon systems, a specially in the hand of Bush like government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0japj2XWNwc


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 11:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "The lack of your knowledge what your government is doing and how it influences the world is really typical of US FOXnews educated Republican American society"

That's quite amusing since it is your own knowledge here that is flawed. You compiled an impressive list of links, unfortunately none of them support your claim. Most are simply blogs/editorials whining because the Bush administration has chosen to emphasize abstinence. But that emphatically does not mean they have "banned" spending on condoms. The US government is still the largest purchaser of condoms in the world. By far. It still distributes hundreds of millions of condoms annually to poor nations.

In short, you were wrong. Time to admit it, and move on.

By the way, I don't watch Fox News. In fact, the only broadcast news I ever watch is the BBC.


RE: crazy kids
By NarcoticHobo on 9/13/2008 5:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think the point is not to go around and kill off 50% of the world's population, but rather to implement population control measures so that this number reduces over time. No sane person would back killing off 3 billion people.

Do you know why our population has increased so dramatically in the last one hundred years or so?

The easy answer is industrialization, but the core of the answer lies in the way we produce and use energy. For the vast part of human history we produced energy at a current rate or near current rate. What that means is that the energy we used was roughly equal to the amount of energy we were receiving from the sun. We ate plants, burned trees, etc etc. All of these things got their energy from the sun within about a human lifespan.

This allowed us a certain amount of productivity, a certain amount of food, and thus a certain population. And indeed if you look at human population trends you will find that population has stayed relatively stable in our past when compared to the industrialized era.

So what changed? We started using non-current energy, or energy that was previously trapped and stored, IE fossil fuels. Now this ancient energy basically allows us to increase our productivity and available food, and thus we have a dramatic population increase.

The obvious problem here is that those sources will run out. Like it or not fossil fuels are finite. Now if we don't switch our energy production from these sooner rather than later what you have is a large problem. Energy systems fail, people starve. We can all agree that mass human starvation is a bad thing can we not?

In order to support a large population and large productivity (which seems to be of higher value to our friend masher) we must make a switch to sustainable energy sources, be it wind, solar, nuclear (preferably fusion, we are talking long term here), or hydroelectric.

In summation:

1) Current population is inflated based on unsustainable energy pulls.

2) Eco-friendly choices are not only best for the environment but best for the economy and humanity in the long run.

3) Thus, any argument supporting conventional energy sources over the higher start-up cost enviro-friendly option is one that only looks to the short term, and therefore is not really in the interest of human civilization.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 6:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
Very good post, do unless there is a scientific break-true the reality will properly be that there will be a WOIII.
(just not in the same way previous 2 WO, and it will be poor against rich and end up in wars of economic blocks like the old country wars between the Dutch, UK, Spain and France, only whit more horrific weapons)
Because i don't see any leaders ore citizens that are willing to commit or have the vision to suds a long term commitment.

I am hopeful that long term projects like the EU Sahara solar farm would start as those are the only available guaranteed viable solutions, and i am hopeful fusion will work, even do its still not certain it will work a economical scale.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/13/2008 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know why our population has increased so dramatically in the last one hundred years or so?

The easy answer is industrialization, but the core of the answer lies in the way we produce and use energy. For the vast part of human history we produced energy at a current rate or near current rate. [...]

This allowed us a certain amount of productivity, a certain amount of food, and thus a certain population. And indeed if you look at human population trends you will find that population has stayed relatively stable in our past when compared to the industrialized era.

So what changed? We started using non-current energy, or energy that was previously trapped and stored, IE fossil fuels. Now this ancient energy basically allows us to increase our productivity and available food, and thus we have a dramatic population increase.

That's a rather elaborate theory but the numbers just don't support it. The countries with the highest birthrates are undeveloped. The countries with the lowest birthrates are all industrialized and highly developed. If anything, industrialization and modernization has slowed global population growth. Europe and Japan even have negative population growth (they are declining in population).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

I won't go into a full explanation here (it would span many pages). But to summarize, it has to do with labor. When your core economic activities (food, shelter, clothing production) are very labor-intensive, the most important asset is having lots of people to do these labor-intensive jobs. So in poorer undeveloped nations, there's great incentive for people to have large families. They help harvest the fields, they help alleviate risk (so one person falling ill does not adversely impact the family's survival chances).

OTOH, when your core economic needs can be fulfilled with relatively little labor (industrialized, automated, mechanized), this pressure disappears. Families then shift away from producing as many laborers as they can, towards producing as much knowledge as they can (education, research, business development).

The key to slowing or stopping population growth is to modernize the poorer countries, not to revert the modernized countries to a pre-industrial level.

The "relatively stable" population level you see in the past is an illusion created by the exponential growth curve. You need to plot it on a logarithmic scale to properly measure it. Same thing for numbers affected by inflation (Dow Jones Industrial Average), doubly so for things affected by both inflation and population growth (national debt, movie box office sales). Once you plot population growth on a log scale, you can see that the rate of growth has been slowing since the middle of the last century. At least it's been slowing in developed countries. The undeveloped regions of Africa and the Middle East are still flying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Rate...


RE: crazy kids
By NarcoticHobo on 9/13/2008 10:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
1) I was talking about before the 20th century, every statistic you gave me referred to birth rates and population rates within the 20th century. If your point is birth rates are declining over the 20th century I have no argument with you.

2) I said nothing about birth rates, its about actual population that this theory concerns. While very much interrelated you still need to draw the connection.

3) It's not a terribly elaborate theory and is one put forward by several noted scientists.

4) You fail to read the first paragraph of the wiki page you linked me to:

As of September 2008, the world's population is estimated to be just over 6.721 billion. In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century, although the rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. The world's population, on its current growth trajectory, is expected to reach nearly 9 billion by the year 2042.

If you had read that, and noted that I was talking about historical population rates vs. the last 100 years or so, or after the 20th century, you would see that the link you have provided wholeheartedly agrees with my point.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 11:46:43 PM , Rating: 1
> "In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century"

Barring immigration, most European nations have birth rates below levels to sustain themselves. Some are so far below replacement values that the Germans, Japanese, Swiss, and Austrians will effectively be extinct within a couple of centuries. Barring Africa and South America, world population is sinking at an alarming pace.

Your theory about energy sources is, though interesting, incorrect. Cheap abundant energy is responsible for our standard of living, but the population expansion of the 19th-20th century is due almost entirely to the agricultural (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the medical) revolution. In earlier times, starvation, famine, and disease placed sharp limits on human population. During the Roman Empire, the average farmer only produced about enough food to feed less than two familes. Result? More than half the people in the world needed to farm. . . and a single bad harvest meant death. The agricultural revolution didn't begin with diesel-powered tractors-- it started with simpler things like crop rotation, steel plows, and high-yield crops and food animals, generated through intelligent breeding programs.

If food was sufficient, population increased-- but then epidemics swept through on a regular basis. The simple basics of how to control infectious diseases and (even more importantly) septic systems that don't kill millions by pouring raw sewage into our water supplies.

There's a bit of synergy and overlap in the 20th century, as modern fertilizers and harvesting depend utterly on oil. But this is a secondary and latent effect to the two much larger factors detailed above.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 6:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Barring immigration, most European nations have birth rates below levels to sustain themselves.

This is true, and native dutch people has even the highest Nr of negative population growed in the world.

Research on this topic has shown that there are 3 main factors that are responsible for this in Holland
1. the higher the living standard is the less there is a need for having many children
60 years ago families had about 5~20 children this Nr dropped to a bout 1.4 child per familie
2. the amount of children's is also relative to intelligence.
The higher the IQ the lower the amount of children.
(the down side of this is the smart gene isn't spread around, ware the gene for stupidity is spread in abundances, hence all the trouble we are facing now a days, humanity is devolving)
3. religion, the level of active Christians (no explanation needed here ;-)

quote:
world population is sinking at an alarming pace.

I find noting alarming about it, only thing that will be problematic is how is going to pay the TAX when people retire and there is no replacement work force, but in the long run this will only be a good thing, because there will be less strain on scarce resources, because developed societies put the biggest strain on natural resources.
(EU and US consume 60% of natural resources, but only being 10% of the world population)

quote:
There's a bit of synergy and overlap in the 20th century

No his statement still holds true, yes you are right that improvements was allowing for higher growed rate, but by far not as big as modern power systems allowed.

yes epidemics reduced population but as soon it was over population grow fast back to the maximum sustainable level.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 10:55:16 PM , Rating: 1
> "I find noting alarming about it, only thing that will be problematic is how is going to pay the TAX when people retire and there is no replacement work force, but in the long run this will only be a good thing"

Spoken like a true misanthrope. This trend-- if not eventually reversed-- means the end of human civilization, possibly the end of humanity itself. Do you actually hate mankind so much?

Modern society is very complex; it demands a certain degree of specialization. Simply put, the world **requires** a population of several hundred million people. Any less, and too many needed professions will vanish entirely. A shrinking population will eventually lead to the collapse of modern society. . . and that will lead to the deaths of countless more. Many environmentalists would applaud such an end. I do not.

Having more people in the world is a very good thing. Not less. A higher population means more scientists creating new knowledge, more artists generating art, more novelists writing more books, more engineers solving more problems.

For anyone concerned about mankind, a shrinking population is incredibly bad news. Do not wish for it, lest it one day come true.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/14/2008 6:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4) You fail to read the first paragraph of the wiki page you linked me to:

As of September 2008, the world's population is estimated to be just over 6.721 billion. In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century, although the rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963.

Like I explained, the vast majority of that population growth was due to undeveloped countries, which contradicts your claim that industrialization is to blame.
quote:
If you had read that, and noted that I was talking about historical population rates vs. the last 100 years or so, or after the 20th century, you would see that the link you have provided wholeheartedly agrees with my point.

If we compare historical population growth rates with growth rates in current modernized countries, it disproves your point even further. Europe and Japan used to have positive population growth rates in the 19th century and most of the 20th century. They are now declining in population. The U.S. has also experienced a drop in population growth (though it's still positive).

So if I do as you suggest and compare population growth in the last 100 years to pre-20th century history, the conclusion would (again) be that modernization and increased energy use correlates to slower or negative population growth.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 10:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The key to slowing or stopping population growth is to modernize the poorer countries, not to revert the modernized countries to a pre-industrial level.

you bring your argument good do there is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

We the west(EU/US/Australia/japan) are 10% of the world population do we consume about 60% of all it resources.
If they also would modernize to the same level as we have, there would then not be anouge resource to sustain our level of lifestyle.
It would mean we would only have anouge to sustain a population level of about 1b people, unless we change drastically the way we live.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 11:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "We the west(EU/US/Australia/japan) are 10% of the world population do we consume about 60% of all it resources"

We consume more because we produce more. Nothing unfair about it at all. The best possibly option for humanity would be to give the remaining 90% of the world's population access to the same resources we enjoy in the west, raising their lifestyles and standards of living immeasurably in the process.

Unfortunately, some backwards-thinking individuals don't want to raise those people up out of the mud. Instead, they want to sink the rest of us back into it. A disgustingly morally bankrupt philosophy...but such it is.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The key to slowing or stopping population growth is to modernize the poorer countries, not to revert the modernized countries to a pre-industrial level.

you bring your argument good do there is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

We the west(EU/US/Australia/japan) are 10% of the world population do we consume about 60% of all it resources.
If they also would modernize to the same level as we have, there would then not be anouge resource to sustain our level of lifestyle.
It would mean we would only have anouge to sustain a population level of about 1b people, unless we change drastically the way we live.


RE: crazy kids
By Solandri on 9/14/2008 1:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
So you're giving up the argument that population growth is the problem, and are now stating that consumption is the problem? Well why didn't you say so from the beginning instead of scaring us with talk about killing off 3 billion people?

Consumption follows basic economic principles of supply and demand. If there are insufficient resources to support modernizing all of the globe, their prices will rise in response. People will consume less of what's considered "luxury" goods, and concentrate instead more on necessities. Modernization will still happen. You can't simply extrapolate out using a straight line and proclaim that something is impossible.

Furthermore the price increases will drive efficiency gains - people will be able to get the same thing done while consuming fewer resources. We've gone from candles, which convert about 0.04% of the available energy into light (the rest becomes heat), to incandescent light bulbs which convert 2.5% of the electricity to light, to CFLs at 10%, and are switching to LEDs at 15%-20%. Would you really prefer that we were still using candles for light as we did pre-industrialization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Exa...


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/14/2008 2:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Keep praying for a super-virus, then.

Or get the party started by offing yourself.


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/14/2008 2:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's quite an eye-opening list of quotes. Scary.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Could have fooled me. I don't think he literally means a military hierarchy, but there are people at the forefront of the movement though. Many of them pushing it are using fear tactics and lies to try to get what they want (who hasn't seen this before?). If you think there aren't followers and leaders of environmentalism, like many other movements, you are oblivious.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 4
I am a offshore piping Foreman, and i agree that the environmentalists go overboard lots of the time.

But without them there would be still open-well drilling and production platforms would still dump all there waste in the see.

Pollution is something that doesn't stop after our generation dies out it can be there for ever.

example:
In the Belgium Ardene there is a hole Vally that is marked as uninhabitable because of copper mining in 1600s.
They only found out in the 60s because statistics showed a higher rate of copper-positions related diseases and shorter life span of the people living there.
And 25% of all copper that streams true the Maas/Meuse river to the North-see is coming from that single mine

The people in the 1600s didend now about all these things, so we cant blame them, on the other hand we have warnings that, what we do "can" have a global impact.

I radder be on the careful side then that my (great)grandchildren blame me and my generation for polluting there hole earth.

I also blame the journalist (including this site) for taking very often Waring's that researchers make out of contacts

when i scientific article get published and there is a warning that there is maybe some evidence that xxxx can cause global warming,
The mainstream media go's and makes a screaming headline
"XXXX is causing global warming"

Its very often journalist that screaming wolf, and not the scientist them self!
By doing this real scientist are seen as the guys that cry wolf every time, hence the scepticism of what lots people are now thinking about all the doom headlines.

And the saying is true "change the world begin with your self" if not me how will.

And yeah i am selling my big Lexus prity soon and buy a Prius ore some other hybrid soon, then polluting my little part of the world.
Because do i (ore you) realy need that big car, i love him but dont realy need him!


RE: crazy kids
By onelittleindian on 9/12/2008 12:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the Belgium Ardene there is a hole Vally that is marked as uninhabitable because of copper mining in 1600s.
They only found out in the 60s because statistics showed a higher rate of copper-positions related diseases and shorter life span of the people living there.
If people are living there, how is it "uninhabitable"? I don't know the details but I bet anything any problems there are from natural copper deposits, and not because 400 years ago, someone decided to dig a few of them up.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ok English is not my main

But i think i was writing that er ware people living there till the 60s.
AFTER they found out about the pollution they marked the town uninhabitable due to the pollution.

It would be even criminal of the gov. to let people live there after they found out

like i said English is not my main but think i was pritty clear the first time ;-)


RE: crazy kids
By onelittleindian on 9/12/2008 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
English or not, I still don't believe mining from the 1600s is affecting anything today. If there's some village marked uninhabitable, its from the copper (or something else) that was there naturally.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 2:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Of course the copper was there naturally, there was a natural accruing fain in the mountain!

They dug it out crushed the rocks and trow then the leftovers that still had lost of copper in them around the side.
Remember mining in the 1600 century was not as efficient as now a days and environment rules didn't exist even then.
And all the crushed rocks ware later use for construction purposes like for example road fill.

What then a days was seen as no problem at all had later proven huge environmental effects.

The same can be said about the problems of to day, maybe the effects are minimal, but on the other hand maybe they are huge.

Why do people take a fire insurance?, the risk that your house burns down is less then 1%

I think the change on what we are doing to the environment to be castropically is something like 25~50%

I don't want explain that to my grandchildren (if i get them) that i had taken suds a risk whit there world!
Do you?


RE: crazy kids
By onelittleindian on 9/12/2008 2:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What then a days was seen as no problem at all had later proven huge environmental effects.
The problem was the "naturally accruing fain", not the mining. The copper was already there, in the ground and water. And I doubt it was anywhere near as bad a problem as you're making it out. After all, people lived there for another 400 years. A diet rich in Big Macs probably causes more health problems than what they were getting from that copper.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 3:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and those people mining gold white mercury in S-America also still live at the bottom of those mountains and have kids ect.
Doesn't mean they will get very old ore have no birth defects.

As long as the copper was in the mountain there ware no problems for people living there.
Once they had taken out the ore out of its natural sealed fain state and spread it around the hole Vally things change a bid.

And if you cant see that i think you have to go back to school and talk to you chemistry teacher and ask for you money back


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 5:18:21 AM , Rating: 3
To make it even more simple, if you would swallow a copper coin it would not kill you and it would more ore less come out at the other end.

On the other hand if would grind down the same amount of copper till very fine dust and give it to you it would properly end in your dead by copper poisoning, as it would be all absorbed by you body and properly kill your kidneys and/ore liver.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 11:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "if would grind down the same amount of copper till very fine dust and give it to you it would properly end in your dead by copper poisoning"

No. Your body is extremely poor at absorbing copper. An inorganic salt of copper, on the other hand, can be fatal in a dose as small as a few grams.

Copper is, in fact, an essential nutrient: your body requires a small amount for proper functioning. People cook in copper pans, and copper pipes have been used for centuries to carry our water.

I'm with the previous poster. I seriously doubt a centuries-old mine is causing problems. It's much more likely the area is simply high in some copper salts, and plants grown there absorb it naturally. I could be wrong, but unless you have a link or more information, I'm going to discount this one.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 9:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. Your body is extremely poor at absorbing copper. An inorganic salt of copper, on the other hand, can be fatal in a dose as small as a few grams.

Not if you let it oxidize first then your body will will absorb unhealthy amounts of it that will cost problems over time, a specially if you are exposed to high levels your hole live it will accumulate, as even your body is poor at of absorbing them its also very poor of getting writ of them.
quote:
Copper is, in fact, an essential nutrient:

Yes true but like lots of these nutrients if they in to great of amount present in your body they become toxic.

Example: oxygen is only component we use out of the air we bread, still 100% of it is very toxic and will kill you pretty fast.
So that a non-argument

quote:
but unless you have a link or more information

No as i saw the documentary years a go.

But point i was making is still valid, because the fact is still that there are places all over Europe that are still uninhabitable to date, that ware polluted by pollutions that ware in those day not understand going back till the time of the Romans, ware we now do know how those pollutions work.

There are all over the world 100 year old sites ware chemicals ware used that will never be usable again without a major cleanup of the ground

People in those days dint see any danger in what they ware doing ore the long term effects it would have

agent orange/DDT, asbestos, ect. ect.

What we have learned from asbestos is that nanotubes are potentially dangerous as they have the same size as asbestos particles.

On the other hand there is NO prove that they are, so should we ignore the potentially dangerous of it and don't build air filter systems because there is no prove that they are dangerous, and don't give workers filter masks, because "Hey there is no proof!"


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why do people take a fire insurance?, the risk that your house burns down is less then 1%"

The problem with AGW is that the "insurance" (Kyoto-like policies that will eventually cost hundred of trillions of dollars and ultimately make energy much more costly) are more costly than the total risk. No one buys a $30K insurance policy on a $15K Civic.

A temperature rise of 2-3C isn't a catastrophe; it's a *good* thing, both for mankind and the environment. The mean temperature of the globe is around 54F now, whereas man (and most of the plants and animals we depend on) prefer something closer to 70F.

Even better, global warming (if the theory is correct) has little effect on the tropics. The regions that warm the most will be the ones that will most benefit -- cold areas of Siberia, Northern Europe, and the Arctic circle.

Recent research has already pretty much discounted the idea that AGW will cause stronger storms. Sea level rise is minimal..a few extra inches per century. As for "droughts and floods", a few areas will receive a little more rain, a few will receive a little less. Exactly half of those areas will benefit from the change. In no case will it be a catastrophe.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 3:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A temperature rise of 2-3C isn't a catastrophe; it's a *good* thing, both for mankind and the environment. The mean temperature of the globe is around 54F now, whereas man (and most of the plants and animals we depend on) prefer something closer to 70F.

Those 2~3c have a huge impact i don't know if you noticed but ALL glaciers are getting smaller and Siberia permafrost is melting relacing huge amounts of methane gas.

Long history environmental research of the earth has shown that the global environment can suddenly change when a certain threshold is crossed. (in one decade time)

quote:
No one buys a $30K insurance policy on a $15K Civic.

True but i wont go bankrupt on wreaking my $15k car, i will however if my country (Norway) comes laying under a 100m snow layer


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
> " i don't know if you noticed but ALL glaciers are getting smaller "

Sure. They've been doing that since the end of the last ice age.

> " i will however if my country (Norway) comes laying under a 100m snow layer "

The only way Norway will wind up over snowpack is if global cooling comes about. The evidence for a thermohaline circulatory shutdown (ala 'The Day After Tomorrow') causing cooling in northern latitudes has been entirely discredited -- it was never on strong ground to begin with.

The evidence for feedback effects such as the methane clathrate gun hypothesis are a bit more plausible. But if in fact they do exist, its clear they're going to take effect at some point anyway, with or without human emissions. Far better for us to research mitigation strategies (if we even need them) than wasting all our resources on a "solution" that won't solve the problem.

That's the real key here. Rich societies have the resources to survive climate change. Poor societies do not...and if we quadruple the costs of energy, that's exactly what all of us will be.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 4:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure. They've been doing that since the end of the last ice age.

Not at speeds as they are doing the last 20 years, some of those thousands of years old ones are all ready gone ore shrunk by up to 80% ore so
quote:
The evidence for a thermohaline circulatory shutdown

That theory false more in the category of a brain fart then as a real theory

On the other hand all that melting fresh water coming from up north dose have a effect on the golf-stream that go's past the cost of Norway and keeps it in the tempered climate zone.
As fresh water is lighter then saltwater it slows the speed of the water sinking near the north pole above Norway

The water speed of the golf-stream in front of the cost has slowed down by 4% over the last 15 years, it doesn't sound like mouths till you take in to account how mouths mass is slowing down and what cine force is needed to slow it down.
And scientist here in Norway are calculating the change of the golf-stream changing direction because of it, between 10 and 60% in this century, depending whits model is used, and the higher Nr's are coming from the most modern models.

So yeah i am worried a bid.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 4:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "Not at speeds as they are doing the last 20 years"

Stuff and nonsense. Paleoclimatic history records several cases of climate changes far faster than what we're experiencing today. Take Meltwater Pulse 1A, for instance, in which sea levels rose by 25 meters in just a few hundred years. Compared to that, sea levels today are barely moving at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Se...


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 5:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
I will not say that the melting is not a natural accruing event, but there is for shore some arguable evidence that we are responsible.
quote:
Compared to that, sea levels today are barely moving at all:

True but they could suddenly in the near future.

Evidence from ice samples suggest that climate change can go very rapid and a new ice age can start in just a Poirot of one decade

And there are sings that we are all ready at a tipping point of that happening
I truly hope that those sings are miss interpreted, but for shore if they are not i don't want help them getting true.

If one ting history learns us is that humanity have a great power of ignoring problems till they are to late.

Saying that there is no problem doesn't make it go away.

The BBC docu. "Global dimming" shows that after the EU cleaned up there pollution that it had dramatic impact on the countries in Africa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 7:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "but there is for shore some arguable evidence that we are responsible."

Yes, that's the key word here: arguable. The evidence was fairly strong in the late 80s/early 90s, before paleoclimatic research proved many natural climate changes proceeded at the same or higher rates, before we understand that past CO2 increases lagged so far behind temperature rises, demonstrating that its clearly an effect, not a cause, before we had any idea that solar variations not based on TSI (total irradiance) could potentially generate positive feedbacks, and, most importantly, when the planet hadn't been experiencing eight years of global cooling, despite rising CO2 levels.

Today, the evidence is "arguable" at best.

> "If one ting history learns us is that humanity have a great power of ignoring problems till they are to late."

History teaches us even clearly that humans have a long and glorious history of preaching disaster at every turn. Every culture for every period known to man has had a widespread belief of immiment doom. It's part of human nature to believe the sky is falling, apparently.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 9:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Lets say that whit all evidence to date, the chance on a global weather change be it a new (small) ice age ore heating up is only 10% (personally i think the risk is higher)

Can you consciously make the decision to ignore it and chance we screw up the legacy we are leaving behind for future generations ?
That is the real question, I at least can't till its proven that we have no ore minimal impact.
Yes ore No ?


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 10:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
The legacy I want to leave for future generations is a civilization strong and wealthy enough to be able to adapt to whatever climate nature throws at us. Not to stand and whimper in the corner because the temperature rises or falls a couple of degrees.

In any case, you're still dodging the real issue here. CO2 emissions have been rising since before the year 1900. If man truly is the culprit, then we can only halt further increases by returning to an emissions level prior to that. Do you honestly think hybrids, wind mills and CFC bulbs are going to get us there? Not even close. Even were we to demolish every power plant on the planet, give up electricity entirely, and all ride bicycles to work, we'd still have the emissions from land use changes, livestock production (a huge one there, larger than all cars, planes, trucks, and buses combined), municipal solid waste, concrete production, iron and steel smelting, and many other sources.

Face facts. The only way to stop human emissions is to halt industrial civilization itself. Some may desire it... but any rational person does not.


RE: crazy kids
By sigilscience on 9/12/2008 11:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even were we to demolish every power plant on the planet, give up electricity entirely, and all ride bicycles to work, we'd still have the emissions from land use changes, livestock production (a huge one there, larger than all cars, planes, trucks, and buses combined), municipal solid waste, concrete production, iron and steel smelting, and many other sources.
You forgot fertilizer production. That produces more CO2 than SUVs. If we stop making fertilizer, food production dives and three billion of us all starve to death.

Happy days for the enviros!


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 4:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Face facts. The only way to stop human emissions is to halt industrial civilization itself. Some may desire it... but any rational person does not.

Hey i like my car, house, warm water, and computers so i can discuss these things whit a misguided soul like yours ;-)

But I believe that we should do everything that is possible to reduce the strain we put on the eco system, whit some efforts that hurt us but doesn't kill every western economy we could reduce that strain by a lot.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
I think your intentions are truly sincere, I just think that you want is not possible while maintaining an economy for everyone. Trying to go with all these zany power options would bankrupt us rather quickly. Nuclear, no one shows viable reasons why this shouldn't be used EXTENSIVELY for our power. I don't think we should use coal, not because of the silly CO2 GW fiasco, but because it is not as good as nuclear.

Solar would be a fine supplement once they get the technology more efficient and cheap. Wind is ridiculous as it stands, and the only viable idea for this has been the M.A.R.S turbine. Ground wind mills are silly, as wind barely blows at 200 feet, and stops often. The turbines I spoke of fly at around 1000 feet, where the wind will be more consistent, but not enough to power the entire country, so lets not go there for that. The resources involved in ground windmills are insane, the maintenance, steel, weight of the blades all add to the inefficiency of the power source. Solar clearly isn't there yet, give it time, and maybe it will be worth while for something other than traffic signs, or other small items.

Geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and supplement for the rest, this would solve the power problem and satisfy everyone on both sides of the argument. All 3 are clean forms of energy, efficient, and have a good return on investment.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 1:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "But without them there would be still open-well drilling ..."

The idea we should forgive the sins of today because of what the movement was like 40 years is a bit off base. What matters is what they're doing *now*.

Even one of the founders of Greenpeace itself, Patrick Moore, has long since left the group, saying the environment is secondary to them now, with their true goal being a political platform of anti-capitalist neo-socialism.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 1:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
What your say is that, just because coming from one corner they have automatically a false argument.
Its like saying all rep. are gun ho neocon idiots like Bush so we should just ignore all what all the members of the rep. party are saying.

Disagreeing with a organisation/party filosofie, doesn't make the point they are trying to make false.

I think that the 44% versus 34% argument has some merit ore at least it is a point of consideration.

And yeah i agree whit you that politics has noting to do whit Greenpeace like organizations other then environmental agenda's


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 2:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
I can't quite parse your response, but there's a significant difference between the two situations. It's not just a loose cannon or two in the environmentalist movement, it's literally *every* person in a position of leadership, authority, or influence. Everyone.

When the Dutch Communist Party disbanded last decade, they merged into the GreenLeft Party, a radical environmental group. Why? Their publicly-stated rationale was that they could "better achieve their goals" by working through the environmental movement, rather than as a separate organization.

> "I think that the 44% versus 34% argument has some merit "

How so? Of course pumping CO2 underground is going to take energy. The point is that the coal plant is **still* substantially cheaper to operate than enormously costly solar.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 4:43:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
When the Dutch Communist Party disbanded last decade, they merged into the GreenLeft Party, a radical environmental group. Why? Their publicly-stated rationale was that they could "better achieve their goals" by working through the environmental movement, rather than as a separate organization.

Groen links (green left) has only 7 of the 150 seats in dutch parliament on the moment, and they ware creating after 3 left wing parties joined, "Dutch Communist Party" had only 1 ore max 2 seats in parliament as long as i can remember.
And Groen links had never any real political power however e phew idealist in the parliament is not necessary a bad thing they keep all center party's in check for not screwing over the little people and the weak in society

quote:
How so? Of course pumping CO2 underground is going to take energy. The point is that the coal plant is **still* substantially cheaper to operate than enormously costly solar.

Hey as someone in the industry its all work for me but if you look a little further in to it the argument has for shure merit

1. it means there are 30% more ore bigger power plants needed
2. it means there is also about +30% more steel needed
3. making this steel cost also huge amounts of energy
4. this same extra steel will drive up steel prizes even higher then they are all ready today
5. for all power plants we need extra CO2 scrubbers and also injection systems
6. transporting all this CO2 will cost also money there most power plant are not located at a old gas field ware it can be injected in to the ground.


RE: crazy kids
By Ringold on 9/12/2008 8:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. it means there is also about +30% more steel needed 3. making this steel cost also huge amounts of energy 4. this same extra steel will drive up steel prizes even higher then they are all ready today


Those points, at least, are invalid. Wind power in particular already has consumed large quantities of such materials, and of course would in the future. Due to winds variable nature, it's assured that wind would, per unit of installed capacity, consume more raw material than coal (or nuclear). If you're attempting to contrast this technology with "renewable" ones available, then it'd be wise to avoid resource utilization issues, at least as far as construction material goes.

Besides whatever arguments for or against, given the backdrop of Europe's cap and trade program that puts a price on CO2 emissions, the free market has already spoke. This technology works. They see it as a profitable venture when mated to a decently sized powerplant, and want to move ahead. If the goal is truly to reduce emissions, government should just stand back now and let market forces work, but I'm not so sure that is the real goal.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 10:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have to calculate these points for shore, but of course also balance them against environmental considerations.
Wind mills only cost one time a environmental impact ware coal power plant keep doing over the rest of there life span

And the 30% more full that's needed makes it properly not a viable solution idler white environmental impact and full prizes going up and up.

Taxing emissions and subsidise incremental improvement is a system what forces companies to work greener.
Ideal its not, but i don't see a better solution.


RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 10:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "Wind mills only cost one time "

Eh? Windmills have a fixed lifespan, about 25-30 years, then they must be replaced. You pay that cost over and over. To power just the US alone with wind would require the entire world output of steel for several years. Then a generation later, you have to pay that cost all over again. . . including the prodigious emissions and mining destruction associated with that production.

This is why wind power is far less clean than an energy source like nuclear. Per KWh generated, nuclear uses about 1/10 the steel and 1/5 the concrete as wind turbines. . . and the reactors last over twice as long.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/13/2008 5:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
including the prodigious emissions and mining destruction associated with that production.

Not true as you can recycle the old materials again, also the cost of recycle steel is less then 1/10th of what it cost to create steal out of raw ore.
But i agree with you that windmills are not the real solution, on some windy places they can be a local option do.

nuclear power is for shore a option but also not a endless one, as bin reading op on it it would only be 20~40 year solution before we run out of nuclear full on earth.

Solutions like the suggestion to put solar farms in desert like the EU proposed plan to place a huge one in the Shara desert, would be a long term but very costly solution if it was possible to build one.


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 11:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear elements can be made. I don't see where you get the idea we would run out of nuclear fuel, as it is quite abundant.

Solar farms in the desert would be fine, if we:

A) Don't rely on them to produce extensive power, sun goes down.
B) They aren't cheap enough for this to produce a reasonable return in power based on how much money we throw at it.


RE: crazy kids
By michael67 on 9/14/2008 10:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Solar farms in the desert would be fine, if we:

A) of course not as the only power source still most power is used during the day, believe that is also the moment the sun shines ;-)
B) don't now if it is ore not, some think it could work do if we would build it in the Sahara for example http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12480...


RE: crazy kids
By Bonesdad on 9/12/2008 2:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
somehow I knew the first post on this article would be about how horrible "eco freaks" are. Every damn thing is politicized red v blue. This place is going down the toilet...can't have a real conversation about anything anymore without people trying to insult each other personally. What a waste.


RE: crazy kids
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 4:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to defend the original post - it was childish and does not benefit the discussion.

However it is clear that environmentalists want it both ways - no carbon emissions, but nothing "unnatural" to eliminate the "problem."

You can't have it both ways. If you want to reduce carbon emissions, this technology should be embraced (assuming it proves to be safe.) If the goal is to redistribute wealth or to de-industrialize the human race then they should stop hiding behind false goals and admit their true purpose. If the goal is truly noble then it will stand on its own merits.

Many environmental goals are not truly noble; they are commonly self-righteous pseudo-religious beliefs that are designed to benefit one group of people at the expense of all others.


RE: crazy kids
By Omega215D on 9/12/2008 6:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
You can't have a real debate with many "environmentalists" because they tend to dismiss what you have to say and remain ignorant instead of being open minded. Unfortunately I encountered one in a speech class.


RE: crazy kids
By headbox on 9/14/2008 4:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's too bad that someone would call someone else an "eco freak" because they care about the planet they live on.


Overlooked revenue source
By Fnoob on 9/12/2008 9:08:51 AM , Rating: 5
Ummm, why don't they just pump this into small pressurized tanks and SELL the stuff? There is an industry that does just this - it keeps my kegerator bubbly, it keeps Coke(tm) bubbly at McDonald's(tm), etc.

Why not?




RE: Overlooked revenue source
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 9:11:35 AM , Rating: 3
Cause that would make sense, and wouldn't be as flashy for the nut jobs. They are trying to appease the ignorant masses on this, and of course, it seems they even failed on that front.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By achintya on 9/12/2008 10:04:58 AM , Rating: 3
I suppose that the CO2 captured by burning coal is not pure and contains a lot of particulate matter which is not suitable for other industrial purposes, especially in the Food & Beverage industry.


By murphyslabrat on 9/12/2008 11:56:01 AM , Rating: 5
So you use it to make a new type of soda:

Industrial Dew. Taste the Capitalism!


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By Ryanman on 9/12/2008 10:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
I dunno if I wanna taste coal in my soda anytime soon tbh. I bet "cleaning" the CO2 in this case would cost more than buying it new for these soda companies.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 10:13:39 AM , Rating: 1
Well, they inject CO2 into water to make the carbonated water. They have to filter the water anyway, I would think they could just inject, then filter to clear out particulate and whatnot. I might be crazy, cause I don't carbonate water or anything, but I would think this could save the extra steps.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By Fnoob on 9/12/2008 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
OK - then how about compressing it and calling it "dry ice". It doesn't have to be totally clean to use as a refrigerant.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By TheDoc9 on 9/12/2008 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is the safest, best idea I've read here.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 5:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
and you properly have no idea how mouths energy it will cost to get it at -109.3°F or -78.5°C

Imho some just let go of a brain fart :D


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 4:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
...but when the ice melts the CO2 ends up back in the atmosphere.

D'oh!


By AnnihilatorX on 9/12/2008 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Chances are Coca Cola has already signed contracts with existing suppliers and have the necessary infrastructures. I do also think the supply outstrip the need for CO2. Also, doing that would release CO2 back into the atmosphere, hardly what you want to do in even a publicity stunt.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By JustTom on 9/12/2008 11:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
Becauase putting it in your coke would not sequester it. Unless you never plan on drinking it.


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By Fnoob on 9/12/2008 4:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, no it doesn't sequester it, but what if this offsets the need to manufacture CO2 via traditional methods. Rather than produce more, we just capture what we are releasing and reuse it somewhere else?


RE: Overlooked revenue source
By JustTom on 9/12/2008 8:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
That would work if CO2 manufacturing doesn't use atmospheric CO2. I admit I have no idea one way or the other.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/12/2008 6:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon, really? They'd make it illegal to belch after drinking because you'd be releasing all that sequestered CO2.


making a new disaster?
By kattanna on 9/12/2008 10:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Estimates vary, but it is expected to be trapped there anywhere from 1,000 and 10,000 years.


and then what? does it then release back out, violently?

so basically, with this, we are making time bombs for the future, WOOT!




RE: making a new disaster?
By carroll on 9/12/2008 10:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
exactly what i was gonna point out just now.

i'm german and i damn hate how this 'technology' is put forth by media and politics alike. they make people believe that this would be a solution to CO2 pollution.

"Out of sight, out of mind" it seems - and sadly it seems to work in the public eye.


RE: making a new disaster?
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't call CO2 "pollution", it gives the wrong message to people. It isn't a pollutant. But yes, the plan is psychotic in every sense of the word.


RE: making a new disaster?
By carroll on 9/13/2008 2:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
read again - i said "CO2 pollution" that's not implying that CO2 iteslf is a pollutant, it says there's just too much of it released to cause an off-balance. ... at least that was what i wanted to say.

you guys parse comments and search for keywords, only to bash someone. that's not how i think a conversion/debate should go!


RE: making a new disaster?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2008 11:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
How is this not a solution? In the entire global warming debate, the one statement heard most often from environmentalists is that we "don't have time" to find out if man is really causing it. This would give us that time.

10,000 years is twice the length of recorded human history. Do you really believe we won't have the answers about GW by then? As well as a far greater level of technology for energy productions as well as mitigation of consequences?


RE: making a new disaster?
By carroll on 9/13/2008 2:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
obviousely you are going for the 10k years straight away, because that supports your cause. fine, i'll play along with that and take the 1k years up for argument. not very long i'm afraid.

going a bit further: "Estimates vary ..." - now what does that imply? to me it says that they don't really know, and what's more: they don't say that there is a chance that something might happen that releases the stored CO2 in an uncontrolled and unplannded for manner. no, they don't talk about that. sure, the site and geological structure/stability is well researched for and so on, but to 'predict' what will (or what will not) happen in such a region for periods of thousands of years is like making an accurate weather prediction for a given place in, say, one or two weeks. hell yeah, quite accurate that...

i do think that because they put it 'out of sight', nobody (public eye) will think about it anymore - and that is a dangerous constellation. there also is the problem of the storage sites maybe becoming 'unwanted' by the public (think about atomic "endlager" [i'm sorry, don't know the english term there] - people don't want one in their vicinity, because they're afraid that something might happen - and damn rightfully afraid they are, imo!). what would happen if somehow an accident takes place at one of the CO2 underground storage sites - i don't know ... leakage from underground, CO2 concentrates in the site's vicinity, cows drop dead or something - nobody would want such a site in their vicinity anymore.

oh and your statement about 'greater level of technology' and so on. nice dream that someone will dust-off the history-books in 10k years and find out about all the CO2 storage that has been going on in his ancestors time. of course that helpful individual will suddenly invest all his energy, skill and knowledge into adressing this 'problem'.
no, i don't see that happen.


RE: making a new disaster?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2008 12:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
> "i'll play along with that and take the 1k years up for argument. not very long i'm afraid"

A thousand years is "not very long"? Good god, do you hear what you're saying? A hundred years ago we were in the horse and buggy era. Do you have any sort of idea what our technology will be like in a thousand years?

After all, the entire premise of the environmentalists here is that "well we don't know for sure about global warming, but we can't afford to wait". Well, this lets us do just that. Wait. If it turns out (as it very likely will) that AGW isn't a problem, then it doesn't matter if and when these reservoirs will ever leak out. If it turns out you all were right, then in a thousand years, we'll surely have the means to handle the problem in a much more satisfactory manner.

> going a bit further: "Estimates vary ..." - now what does that imply?'

It's really not that difficult to understand. It means that there are a range of assumptions for various factors. Taking the low value of all those factors results in a value of 1000 years. Taking the high value results in one ten times longer.

> "to 'predict' what will (or what will not) happen in such a region for periods of thousands of years is like making an accurate weather prediction for a given place in, say, one or two weeks'

It's considerably simpler than predicting what climate will be like in 100 years...yet you have enough faith in those models to blow tens of trillions of dollars on Kyoto-like cap-and-trade schemes?


RE: making a new disaster?
By carroll on 9/15/2008 2:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
hold on there, i didn't say anything about Kyoto! in fact i do not think good about it.

and yes, i think a thousand years is not very long.
don't just look at us wonderful humans - climatically and geologically those one thousand years are not much more than an eyeblink. and that's the whole problem about AGW (i know you don't like that term, and i am not one to promote whether it's an acclaimed theory or not). sure, earth has had dramatic climatic changes in the past, maybe even more profound than what even the agressive scientists propose for the future. but, those changes have been occuring over much longer timeframes, say thousands or tens of thousands of years. yet there is, even among the very conservative, no doubt that our contribution of CO2, Methane and whatever else contributing to the greenhouse effect since around 200 years is on a wholly different scale, compared to past events.

i am not one to promote our 'doom', no speaking strictly on a 'survival' basis, we could probably go on living on an autarkic basis. think bleak futuristic visions a'la Gibson, Sterling and the like. i do think however that saying 'we will have much more knowledge by then to take care of those 'relics'' is putting a bit much faith into it.


Wait, I'm confused
By novacthall on 9/12/2008 9:40:14 AM , Rating: 3
So we're taking all this CO2 out of the air, and putting it underground. But don't plants and trees rely on CO2 as a driving force of photosynthesis, the final product of which is additional oxygen? Does the rate of photosynthesis scale with increasing CO2 concentration, thereby increasing the rate of vegetation growth? Would burying the fuel for photosynthesis would stunt an otherwise accelerating process?




RE: Wait, I'm confused
By mattclary on 9/12/2008 10:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
Duhhhhh!!! We have to get RID of the stuff plants eat in order to be more "green"! What, have you been living under a rock?!?

Sarcasm, by the way ;)


RE: Wait, I'm confused
By TheDoc9 on 9/12/2008 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
yes, this whole thing really is THAT dumb.


RE: Wait, I'm confused
By carroll on 9/13/2008 3:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's not taken out of the air. The CO2 is delivered from a nearby coal power plant that separates the CO2 from out of its emmissions. (i read something form 350 km or so in the article - i don't know any details, but i have been near that site and there's a big coal power plant not far away, that will be 100% CO2 emission free when they pass test phase - of course they don't talk about where all that CO2 goes ... as i said in another post: "Out of sight, out of mind!"

Still your thesis about CO2 <--> plant life doesn't hold true for very long. plants can only tolerate so much of it, too much and they won't be good anymore.
Oh and where do you want all that plant life to go? Forests are getting leveled - there's work being done there to alleviate the reduction by planting new ones, but still the area is shrinking year to year. in most areas of our world nature in form of plantlife is on a retreat. take china for example - people spread out there, and as they do so is area with plantlife lost.


So...
By BansheeX on 9/12/2008 8:49:46 AM , Rating: 4
Giant trucks burning fossil fuel themselves are transporting CO2 to these expensive taxpayer funded stations to bury it in the ground even though CO2 is prevalent in the atmosphere and is used by plants to produce oxygen? Would this constitute as "blowback" for the radical environmentalist movement? Crazy science begets crazy solutions.




RE: So...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 8:58:20 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed. I have yet to see anything that shows that CO2 is a cause, and not an effect of "Global Warming". Actually, I have many open questions about this supposed "fact". What a waste of time.

"Hippies, hippies, they want to save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad" - Eric Cartmen.


efficiency
By mattclary on 9/12/2008 9:01:54 AM , Rating: 4
How much energy is wasted by doing this? Between shipping the CO2 in TRUCKS to the energy expended forcing the gas into a pressurized space?

IF you want to do this, seems to make a lot more sense to build the technology right into the power plant so their is no need for transport.




RE: efficiency
By michael67 on 9/12/2008 6:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not all energy plant are ore can be nicely located, on top of a old gas field


A simpler recipe
By BernardP on 9/12/2008 10:24:05 AM , Rating: 5
1: Take truckloads of money
2: Shred money to taste
3: Find suitable hole in the ground
4: Put money into hole
5: Build podium and get politicians to take the credit
6: Plug hole




LOL
By therealnickdanger on 9/12/2008 8:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
See subject.




RE: LOL
By Fnoob on 9/12/2008 9:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
ROTFLMAO!

This is indeed laughable. I bet there is a little voice in the back of that guy's head that is saying "This is retarded, WTF are we doing?"


might be a good idea
By slawless on 9/12/2008 12:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
This could possibly be a good idea. In a few years when it becomes undeniable the earth is cooling. we can release the CO2 and warm the place up.




RE: might be a good idea
By lightfoot on 9/12/2008 1:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
Won't work - CO2 isn't a very effective greenhouse gas.

It would be better to use water vapor, methane or ozone. All of which are fairly abundant and have a far more potent greenhouse effect.


Attending the chruch of environmentalism?
By shin0bi272 on 9/12/2008 5:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
The bulk of the pollutants in the atmosphere were put there by volcanoes and fermenting sea creatures like plankton. We couldnt increase the temperature of the planet if we tried to. The greenies are just trying to screw you all out of money for their church or environmentalism.

I say church because you cant question them without getting crucified and the belief in their dogma is spreading over the globe person to person just like religion does. Giving in to their pompous claims and buying their products is how you attend the church and donate to it.

Fact is the ice sheet on Greenland is growing not shrinking, its growing over the north sea and over Antarctica in some places while shrinking in others... Oh hey also ... the vikings named it greenland because it was a big green land... soo the glacier thats on it now hasnt always been there.

I live in NC and our capital has been ocean front property several times over the past few million years. Global warming and cooling are as natural as sunspots and we cant do anything about either of them so just forget the whole issue and disband the church.




By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 12:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
I really like the way you put this, cause it is true. I guess I never equated them to the religious folk before, but they seem one in the same in their actions. Question their god, they will claim it is true (usually violently), without proof. Question global warming, they will claim it is true (usually violently), without proof.


Stupid idea.
By mxnerd on 9/12/2008 6:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Though I support all kinds of methods that can reduce CO2 emission, this is absolutely not one of them. This is plain stupid and cost a lot.

If you don't see it, then it does not exist, huh?




RE: Stupid idea.
By MrBowmore on 9/12/2008 8:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
OK, this is to all of you that clearly missed the higher level high school chemistry:
CO2 is 10 times more effective than N2 at absorbing heat through the infrared spectrum, why do you think scientists have yelled about this for 20 years, lack of attention?

I really had bigger thoughts of you techies at anand/daily but clearly I was mistaken. The "news" you hear about CO2 being a non green house gas is probably being forced to the public by some obscure reason like: National economy.

There are so many, and so large economic interests in fossil type of fuels that I don´t know where to begin with.

Have you ever heard of scientists arguing about cancer caused by GSM-microwaves at close quarters? The same goes for the sweetener aspartame, now replaced by "sucraloose" by amongst others, coca cola.. I would bet a dollar that 99% of the molecule is the same though..

To be OT: Are there only republicans or "weed heads" in America nowadays? Can´t there be a little more nuanced dialog about this matter? I just don´t get you people that bash at states ´n countries that offers tax money to environmentally friendly proposals and then don´t mind you´r government to spend a PRETTY large share on, lets say, nuclear warheads?


This concept confuses me.....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2008 9:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or does this idea seem to be lacking common sense ?

We know nature ( well some of us know ) is very efficient in storing and processing CO2. We know that trees, which can live for 100+ years, can continuously store co2 and convert it into oxygen. As well as other smaller planets of course.

Storing carbon in underground man made caverns is more costly, less efficient, and less reliable than good old mother nature. This idea just sucks and I can't see the benefit to it.

CO2 is not a deadly poison gas that needs to be locked away from the world.




By piroroadkill on 9/16/2008 4:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well yeah, of course this is the truth, but because of the current environmental issues climate, people can make money from selling guilt-alleviating carbon credits - marketing over any real progress.


Look on the bright side...
By chrisld on 9/12/2008 9:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
Let's look on the bright side.

There is no evidence of Global Warming and yet we can afford to spend billions on research and lobby groups.

There is no evidence that CO2 is in any way connected to anything and yet we can afford to worry about carbon footprint and silly schemes like this.

LCA shows that recycling glass is bad for the environment and yet we do it to make ourselves feel better.

So the good news is that we have plenty of time and money free in the world to waste it on all this nonsense. If things were really bad, we couldn't afford all this wasted effort, so things must be relatively good.




Whew
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 9:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
Lucky they figured out CO2 was the cause of "global warming" without any research, cause we used to think it was holes in the o-zone, caused by CFCs, and that was crazy. What were we thinking? Good thing they didn't put any money into the actual research of the cause this time, I mean, who wants to learn from their mistakes? Not me. I'm giving this crazy theory about 5 more years, before they realize it was a farce, and move onto the next research budget booster.




UN BE FREAKIN LIEVABLE!
By porkpie on 9/12/2008 10:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
The environuts say they're against fossil fuels because they release carbon. Then they go out and protest a carbon-free power plant?

It's obvious they won't be happy till we're all munching granola in caves.




All for it!
By fishbits on 9/12/2008 10:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
"Carbon sequestration technology aims to store carbon, regardless of its source"
There's carbon in the brain-dead hippies that are trying to force their ignorant doomsday cult on the rest of us. Can we throw them down the well too? Please?

Actually, some of them aren't ignorant, they're hardcore watermellons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This article is one more example of how they're about stopping energy production in Western nations. Build the windmills they screamed for? "They kill birds!" Build hydro power "It disrupts natural currents!" Sequester the carbon they claim to base coal opposition on? "You don't get it yet? You can't please us! We're trying to wreck your economy!"

I do remember the Dilbert where he noticed the janitor collecting Dilbert's regular and recycleable trash into the same big trash can. Would be funny if the coal company is just running a big air hose into a 40-foot deep hole to shut up these religious nutjobs. "Yeah kid, we're uh, sequestering the radioactive, evil CO2 way, way down in this hole. Umm, this is dangerous stuff, can you move back? And downwind? Thanks."




Not thought through
By Flunk on 9/12/2008 10:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
Wait a second, they are pumping CO2 into naturally formed caves underground? Didn't anyone think about leakage? And it's less than 40% efficient?

This whole plan sounds like it was thought up by Wile E. Coyote.




Why aren't we using algae?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/13/2008 5:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Algae-filled tubules you run exhaust through reduces thermal emissions, CO2, NOx, and SOx emissions. It can be retrofitted to existing facilities, and the algae produced can be turned into biofuels.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki