14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-31 20:49:28

For SpaceNut re #25

Thank you for the link to pnas.org .... the article you linked is about production of methanol ...

I'm definitely interested in finding out how it compares to propanol, which is the output of the copper catalyst process posted earlier.

It is worth remembering that the claim of the copper catalyst process is that it (reportedly) requires less energy than earlier methods of synthesizing fuel from CO2 and water.

Bruce D. Patterson, Frode Mo, View ORCID ProfileAndreas Borgschulte, Magne Hillestad, View ORCID ProfileFortunat Joos, Trygve Kristiansen, Svein Sunde, and Jeroen A. van Bokhoven
See all authors and affiliations
PNAS June 18, 2019 116 (25) 12212-12219; first published June 3, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902335116
Edited by Alexis T. Bell, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved May 3, 2019 (received for review February 22, 2019)
Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF
Significance
Humankind must cease CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. However, liquid carbon-based energy carriers are often without practical alternatives for vital mobility applications. The recycling of atmospheric CO2 into synthetic fuels, using renewable energy, offers an energy concept with no net CO2 emission. We propose to implement, on a large scale, marine-based artificial islands, on which solar or wind energy powers the production of hydrogen and the extraction of CO2 from seawater and where these gases are catalytically reacted to yield liquid methanol fuel. The present work proposes specifications for such facilities and highlights essential challenges in physics, chemistry, and engineering which must be met to realize this ambitious proposal.

It should be possible to compare the properties of liquid methanol on one hand, and liquid propanol on the other.

The comparison should yield a set of compare points, including (but not limited to) ..

1) Relative ease or difficulty of production
2) Energy required for production
3) Energy content per unit volume
4) Energy content per unit weight
5) Unpleasant features (ie, poisonous fumes, if present)
6) Unsatisfactory behaviors (ie, destruction of seals, etc)
7) Satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance in various applications (kbd512 has shown the way with propane, above)

No doubt others ...

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-07-31 22:05:11

tahanson43206,

Propanol has around 20% greater energy density than Ethanol, but as a replacement for gasoline, about the only thing it has going for it is an octane rating of 108. Propanol is very expensive to produce in terms of energy input, which is why it’s not typically used outside of fuel cell applications. Some consideration of Propanol was given for small drone aircraft, but overall Butanol is a better substitute for gasoline. So yeah, that’s why petrochemical engineers really don’t consider Propanol a practical replacement for gasoline. Once you get into most Alcohol-based fuels, you're no longer talking about a practical substitute for gasoline.

Methane: 23.612MJ/l (cryogenic liquid) 50-55MJ/kg; AKI: 120
Propane: 25.3MJ/l (liquid at 123.3psi at room temperature) and 50MJ/kg; AKI: 104
Gasoline: 33MJ/l and 46MJ/kg; AKI: 85-96
Butanol: 30MJ/l and 36.1MJ/kg; AKI: 97
Propanol: 24MJ/l and 33.4MJ/kg; AKI: 108
Ethanol: 20MJ/l and 24.5MJ/kg; AKI: 99.5
Methanol: 16MJ/l and 21MJ/kg; AKI: 98.65

123.3psi is very similar to the tire inflation pressure of a semi-truck's steer tires, which are typically inflated to between 100psi and 120psi in order to support the 12,000 to 13,000 pound load on that axle. Basically, that front axle is at or near its load limit at all times. As those tires heat up, they run 130psi to 140psi. The point is, that kind of pressure is doable. There is no pressure at which Hydrogen or Methane will remain liquid at room temperature.

Maybe you should browse through this table for good candidates (it might give you some ideas):

Engineering Toolbox - Fossil and Alternative Fuels Energy Content

Calliban · 2021-08-01 02:44:05

Methanol is the most practical alternative fuel on the list, because it can be produced from synthesis gas with high efficiency and is storable as a liquid at 1atm.
https://www.lookchem.com/Chempedia/Chem … /3054.html

The same process will produce smaller but still significant quantities of dimethylether, which is a substitute for diesel. There is a lot of experience with the use of methanol as an alternative fuel. There are also direct methanol fuel cells as well, which may compare well to batteries for portable power applications. Compressed methane, in the form of CNG or biogas, has also seen niche applications in the transportation sector.

Whole system energy efficiency is as important a consideration as fuel boiling point, specific gravity and energy density. Biomass is an abundant feedstock that can be gasified to produce the synthesis gas needed for methanol manufacture.

One of the great innovations of our age is the hybrid vehicle. Compared to a fully battery-electric vehicle it is an elegant solution, because a much smaller and more affordable energy store is able to power the vehicle for short trips, which represent most car journeys, with an IC engine or fuel cell providing power as the energy store is emptied. A pure BEV is an inefficient solution, because a large and high power density battery is needed to provide range of hundreds of miles, which for most applications, will be used only rarely. The battery also has much poorer energy density compared to liquid fuels.

That energy store in a hybrid may be a battery of some kind, it may be a compressed air tank, a flywheel or hydraulic accumulator. There are a lot of technological options there, that can be selected to provide minimum system cost. Methanol is a sustainable fuel able to raise power in an engine or fuel cell to recharge the hybrid energy store. But it is doubtful that it can be produced in the quantities needed to fully replace gasoline at present levels of consumption. Enter the hybrid. Long live the methanol-hybrid.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-01 03:15:48)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 07:40:49

For Calliban re #28

SearchTerm:Methanol - proposed as optimum solution for nuclear power derived alternative fuels for transportation

Todo item: Compare - report method of synthesis of methanol from CO2 and water.

Synthesis from fossil fuel derived sources does not count, but at this point, it is not clear (to me for sure) what "synthesis gas" might be.

SearchTerm:Hybrid vehicle - strong support for with emphasis on suitability of methanol as an energy carrier for

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-08-01 07:48:40

SpaceNut,

Methanol is pretty nasty stuff, so it's not something I'd want to accidentally dump millions of gallons of into the ocean. Windshield washer fluid is mostly Methanol diluted in water. The one thing all of these alternative fuels have in common is that absolutely none of them are like-kind substitutes for gasoline, which is why all cars run on gasoline or diesel, with a smattering that run on Propane or Methane. Some alternatives are like-kind substitutes for kerosene and diesel, though. Propanol and Butanol are much less toxic than Methanol, though still nothing to trifle with. Methanol is less toxic to fish than humans, but it will kill pretty much anything if concentrated. Gasoline is also toxic to humans, but it'd take quite a bit more gasoline than Methanol to kill someone.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 08:10:17

For Calliban re production of energy carriers in general ....

Because you have been an advocate of thinking about efficiency, I'd like to offer a thought or two for your review and correction as needed ...

To set the stage ... I am focused intently on the possibility that nuclear fission, properly harnessed and supervised, can meet the energy needs of the people of Earth, and more importantly, open the door to spreading out through the solar system.

I have proposed as a conceptual target a level of production of power from nuclear fission devices of 1 Megawatt per person.

To make the proposition more interesting to the population, and thus more likely to win political support, I am proposing that each person (human being) born into the mix on Earth should automatically receive a birthright of one megawatt of power. While this asset could be managed by the individual, for many having the asset managed by a suitable agency would be best.

The idea I am pursuing is to eliminate the acquisition of power over others that is characteristic of the human race.

Efficiency:

In my view, energy has to be invested to create useful hydrocarbon (or other) molecules as repositories of energy.

There is a fixed, knowable amount of energy required to make the transition from raw material to finished product.

Efficiency comes into the picture as a measure of how much energy is wasted in creating the final product.

Because you (among several members of the forum) are a domain expert (the full extent of your domain of confidence is unknown to me), I am hoping you will keep my definition of efficiency in mind going forward.

We are (as a group) approaching this as a systems problem.

Solutions to deliver energy effectively where it is needed by differing customers will necessarily involve different approaches, but just as gasoline and diesel fuels have evolved over time to pre-eminence in global energy flows today, there may be other combinations of molecules that will prove optimum for the majority of use cases.

It might even turn out that the long chains found in gasoline can be assembled by a process yet to be discovered. Nanotechnology would certainly appear to show the way toward that capability.

I've recorded discovering how methanol might be synthesized from CO2 and water as a todo item. If someone is interested in addressing that question, and is willing to post a solution before I get to it, I will not be disappointed.

If there is a reader of the forum who would like to contribute and is not currently a member, read Post #2 of Recruiting.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 09:14:18

Here is a first installment in an attempt to follow up on the suggestion that methanol may be produced directly from CO2 and water ...

Per Google:

All
ImagesVideosNewsShoppingMore
Tools
About 17,700,000 results (0.60 seconds)
Scholarly articles for synthesis of methanol from co2
Synthesis of methanol from a mixture of H2 and CO2 … - Rasmussen - Cited by 174
… /ZrO2 catalysts in the synthesis of methanol from CO2 … - Słoczyński - Cited by 248
… Cu–ZnO system in the synthesis of methanol via CO2 … - Arena - Cited by 178
Image result for synthesis of methanol from co2
Image result for synthesis of methanol from co2
Image result for synthesis of methanol from co2
View all
Alternative to syngas, methanol can be produced by directly hydrogenating pure CO2 with H2 with high selectivity on conventional Cu/ZnO-based catalysts. ... In addition to the thermodynamic limitation, methanol synthesis from pure CO2 is complicated because of the increased water formation.Jul 1, 2019
CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol by a Liquid-Phase ... - MDPI

I'll also attempt to find out what syngas is ...

Per Google via Wikipedia ...

Syngas
Syngas, or synthesis gas, is a fuel gas mixture consisting primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and very often some carbon dioxide. The name comes from its use as intermediates in creating synthetic natural gas and for producing ammonia or methanol. Wikipedia

OK ... it appears that syngas can be produced directly from CO2 and water, and that it does not (apparently) require fossil fuel input.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2021-08-01 09:17:07)

Calliban · 2021-08-01 09:50:58

Tom, I would recommend: 'Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy' (by the late George Olah).

When synthesising methanol from syn gas, quantities of dimethylether and heavier alcohols will be formed in the product stream. You could fractionate it to extract the ethanol, propanol, butanol, etc.

Regarding the toxicity of methanol. LD50 is 143mg/kg. So, 14.3g (18ml) for an average adult. It forms formaldehyde in the liver. Drink enough and it kills you and preserves you for posterity :-)
https://www.nwmissouri.edu/naturalscien … thanol.pdf

The solution as with so many toxic things, is not to eat it. Simple really.

As for the idea of democratising nuclear power at 1MWe power levels, there are opportunities and risks. On the downside, one would assume that the existence of many hundreds of thousands of nuclear reactors in the hands of individuals, would make a nuclear accident more likely. This is partly true. But is should be remembered that a 1MWe fast reactor, would carry only 0.1% of the fission products of a large 1000MWe power reactor. So radioactive consequences of an accident would be 1000 times smaller. Theft of nuclear materials that are then used to make weapons, is a more threatening prospect.

On the safety side of things, reactors that small can be engineered such that in the event of loss of all cooling, enough heat is lost to the environment by conduction and thermal radiation to prevent fuel damage. For a 1MWe liquid metal cooled fast reactor, this could be the case even if the reactor fails to trip. If the reactor vessel is deliberately punctured and coolant leaks out, the core will radiate enough decay heat by thermal radiation to avoid meltdown. These safety benefits are only possible for small reactors, because they depend upon a high ratio of surface area to volume. This builds a lot of inherent safety into the concept that does not rely upon any human action. If your farm hick fails to provide enough cooling water and decides to go on holiday for a month, the system will protect itself. I think we need that sort of assurance if we intend to produce nuclear reactors by the hundreds of thousands and loan them out to Cleatus and Wendel.

That sort of passive cooling arrangement also allows design simplicity, which is important for system reliability and low cost. Heat transfer between the fuel and heat exchangers would rely upon natural circulation. No pumps would be needed. The power generation unit would either be a steam turbine of some kind or S-CO2 power generation unit. The reactor may be used for other things, like providing heat for a biomass upgrading plant, which generates liquid fuels from crop wastes or district heat for a small town. In dry places, it may be used for water desalination as well. At end of life, the reactor vendor would arrive on site and remove the entire reactor unit onto a flatbed truck.

Cost would be a key issue for these sorts of passive system. Most people cannot afford to pay $1 billion for a powerplant. But they may be able to get a sizable loan if the powerplant generates enough value to cover its costs. A 1MWe system would generate 8766MWh per year. That could be sold to the grid for $900,000. For a 30 year core life, a loan of $10 million could be supportable. Renting the reactor from a central authority is also an option. The authority could keep oversight of how the reactor was being used to achieve some level of safety assurance.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-01 10:24:07)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 10:14:40

For Calliban re #33

Thanks for the tip! I'll let you know when the book arrives. I'll also pass along the suggestion to FrendOfQuark1, who may already have it, but I'd like be sure.

This forum is similar in some ways to a pick up basket ball game ... the neighborhood has a mix of talents and interests. There are a few super stars, and of those, some are in their golden years. We (members of this forum) have an opportunity to help to shape the future through the magic of disciplined thought, well leavened by undisciplined creative thinking.

While Void is clearly the resident superstar of creative thinking, we have several members who occasionally drop 3 pointers into the bucket of archived forum messages. I am unable to keep track of all the three pointers, and wish there were others interested in documenting the productivity of this group. In ** real ** life that role is filled by professional librarians. I've attempted to interest ** real ** librarians in this project, but so far have not achieved success.

***
While we wait for the book, your part of the project remains pretty much open for your development. There isn't likely to be much standing in your way in this environment, except for limitations on your time and energy, and both of those are quite properly directed towards family and clients/customers.

My offer of the 1 MW per person target is intended to lift our collective thought above the immediate concerns of poverty, which SpaceNut is so carefully documenting. Poverty is a human invention. It is created by a deliberate withholding of abundance from others.

I am interested in doing an end run around poverty thinking.

Order Placed: August 1, 2021
Amazon.com order number:
Order Total: $43.06
Supporting: One Giant Leap Foundation <<== Foundation supporting The Space Show
Not Yet Shipped
Items Ordered Price
1 of: Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Olah, George A.
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Condition: New
$40.06

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2021-08-01 10:16:41)

kbd512 · 2021-08-01 10:29:53

Calliban,

That last bit about the reduction in accumulated fission products after a reactor's useful service life ends is a point worth remembering, because it affects the expenses associated with disposal.

Regarding toxicity, of course nearly all of these hydrocarbon fuels are toxic if ingested, but my point was about remembering that "it's only alcohol" doesn't make it any less toxic. The vapor pressure of methanol is much lower than pure gasoline or even gasoline blended with ethanol. And no, just as I don't expect anyone to drink gasoline, I don't expect anyone to drink methanol, either. However, inhalation of methanol fumes will be more problematic. Alcohols are also very hygroscopic, so a pure alcohol-based fuel will require a sealing fuel system, same as Propane, but without the pressurization.

Methanol has less than half of the energy density of gasoline to boot, so it either requires a much more efficient engine, such as a fuel cell, or much more fuel, which doesn't help with CO2 emissions. If a combustion engine is 30% efficient, then a fuel cell powered by methanol needs to be more than 60% efficient merely to produce the same power for the same fuel burn as a standard internal combustion engine running on gasoline. Put another way, if a combustion engine takes a car 30 miles using 1 gallon of gasoline, then at least 2.19 gallons of methanol are required or reacting it in a fuel cell that is more than twice as efficient, merely to produce the same fuel consumption rate. That's why a lot of current research focuses on Butanol, which is most similar to existing gasoline-based fuels.

There's a company named "Synhelion" that produces gasoline and diesel and kerosene from sunlight and captured CO2, because they've come to the conclusion that no other fuels are suitable replacements. Once again, CO2 recycling is the lynch pin technology. If you can efficiently capture and recycle CO2, then the rest of the chemistry is only a matter of energy input and selecting the right catalyst for best yield from the lowest energy input. Unless methanol requires less than half the energy input of Butanol or gasoline synthesis, it's not an energy-efficient solution.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 11:14:00

For kbd512 re #35

Thanks for that ** very ** interesting (to me for sure!) tip:

SearchTerm:gasoline synthesis of
Searchterm:synthesis gasoline, diesel and kerosent "Synhelion"

(th)

Calliban · 2021-08-01 11:59:35

kbd512 wrote:

Methanol has less than half of the energy density of gasoline to boot, so it either requires a much more efficient engine, such as a fuel cell, or much more fuel, which doesn't help with CO2 emissions. If a combustion engine is 30% efficient, then a fuel cell powered by methanol needs to be more than 60% efficient merely to produce the same power for the same fuel burn as a standard internal combustion engine running on gasoline. Put another way, if a combustion engine takes a car 30 miles using 1 gallon of gasoline, then at least 2.19 gallons of methanol are required or reacting it in a fuel cell that is more than twice as efficient, merely to produce the same fuel consumption rate. That's why a lot of current research focuses on Butanol, which is most similar to existing gasoline-based fuels.

You would need over twice the volume of fuel tank to get the same range between refuels using methanol compared to gasoline, all else being equal. That doesn't mean that methanol synthesis needs to be twice as efficient as gasoline synthesis to break even. Average volume of an automobile fuel tank is 40-70 litres. If that needs to increase to accommodate a fuel with half the energy density, it certainly isn't ideal and the slightly greater mass will marginally reduce mpg of the vehicle. But not by much, as fuel will still be <10% of total vehicle mass.

I don't think any alternative fuel gives us quite as good performance as diesel or gasoline. Methanol has volumetric energy density of 15.6MJ/litre (19.7MJ/kg). But a lithium-ion battery is 0.34-0.87MJ/kg. Even if combustion only exploits 30% of the energy in methanol, it still has ten times the mass energy density of a lithium ion battery. Not as good as gasoline, admittedly.

The problem with trying to synthesise longer chain molecules like butanol, is that more complex reaction steps are needed as you zip simple carbon based molecules into longer chains, which tend to introduce more inefficiencies into the synthesis process. If the difference was only slight, then the denser fuel would still be preferable, because a more energy dense fuel will be cheaper to store and less energy would be consumed in distribution. If methanol could be synthesised with 60% efficiency and butanol with 50% efficiency, then we would probably still opt for butanol for these reasons. But if the disparity were much greater, or if methanol could be burned more efficiently than butanol, then that would cease to be the case. Much depends on the answers to these questions.

Dimethyl ether is another promising synthetic fuel. This fuel is produced when two methanol molecules react in a condensation reaction, to produce DME and water. The formula is CH3OCH3. The simplest of ethers. HHV 21.24MJ/kg. About 2/3rds that of gasoline.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-01 12:26:43)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 13:59:37

This is a follow up on the conversation between kbd512 and Calliban in recent posts...

Because it is preferable to create longer chains of hydrocarbons because they provide for greater density of energy storage, I am interested in two aspects of your conversation ...

It appears that it ** is ** possible to create gasoline (or equivalent) with today's technology, but there is inefficiency in the process.

First, how is that inefficiency expressed? Is the energy applied lost as heat? Or is the loss experienced some other way?

If there is waste produced (which is one way inefficiency might show up) then what is the nature of that waste? Is it recoverable waste?

If I have a 1 Megawatt reactor at my disposal, how could I direct it's energy to produce the most stored energy for my (hypothetical) customer?

What product I could create would be most appealing to my (hypothetical) customer?

My guess is that since various chemicals appear to be useful in various product creation chains, there might be a customer for every part of the production sequence, since energy is being invested at each stage.

If you had a bank of 100 of these reactors, and you are able to direct their operators to apply them in complementary ways, what mix of products would you specify to achieve the greatest return on the investment of your partners?

Edit: I failed to specify input of CO2 and water. That is a prerequisite for any of this to make sense, in the context of replacing fossil fuels.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2021-08-01 14:01:22)

louis · 2021-08-01 15:00:03

Very well researched kbd. Of one thing we can be sure...Mr Heisler will address none of the facts you lay out, just has he has declined to to respond to my invitation that he give an example of an island that has disappeared below the ocean waves as a consequence of recent anthropogenic climate change.

kbd512 wrote:

EdwardHeisler,
EdwardHeisler wrote:
14,000 scientists warn of "untold suffering" if we fail to act on climate change
https://www.mic.com/p/14000-scientists- … e-82642062

World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/adv … 79/6325731
Even if you refuse to acknowledge it, there's an actual difference between climate science and climate activism.
FACT 1
The article from the first link you provided below was written by a man who spent 1 year at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. No major or minor area of study was listed in his Linked-In profile. No other educational or professional qualifications for writing about climate science were provided in either his Linked-In profile or on MIC's website.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajdellinger
FACT 2
AJ Dellinger's interpretation of what actual scientists have written is every bit as meaningless as yours is, even if the 14,000 scientists have personally contacted him, unless he recorded and then reproduced the content of their conversations or written exchanges, verbatim. No evidence of a personal interaction (such as a Q&A session) with an actual climate scientist backing his claims was provided, so I will assume there is none, until evidence for the same is provided by AJ Dellinger.
FACT 3
AJ Dellinger has utterly failed to provide sources for his wild assertions, likely because he's not a scientist and doesn't know how. He's a staff writer for MIC. What he's doing is not reporting on climate science at all, it's reporting on the activism initiated by other activists, who happen to be scientists, but not climatologists.
In the same way that I don't ask a cardiologist for his opinion on a brain tumor, because they're not qualified to render informed opinions, I don't ask ecologists for their opinions about climatology, because they're ecologists, not climatologists (people who study climate) or meteorologists (people who study weather) or oceanographers (people who study oceans) or astronomers (people who study stars and other space-based phenomenon that can and does affect climate and weather and oceans). Expertise in cardiology doesn't translate into expertise in neurosurgery, nor vice versa.
The article he provides a link to, his version of citing sources without detailing what, specifically, he has cited, was written by people who are not climate scientists at all, but ecologists, who then make another series of activist claims and assertions with no source material backing up their claims. In short, they're statements of dogmatic belief, no different than religious dogma, not statements backed by evidence, which is what actual science consists of.
FACT 4
From the first linked article, here is where climate activism very clearly overrides any actual climate science:
The paper published this week is an update on similar research conducted in 2019, which amassed signatures from more than 11,000 scientists. In the time since that paper was initially published, the world has suffered significantly from extreme weather events caused or made worse by climate change. In 2020, an estimated $63 billion in damage and $268 billion in economic loss was caused by natural disasters. Those events, along with the declining state of health for some of the planet's most important indicators, encouraged more than 3,000 scientists to join onto the latest iteration of warning letter. Now it's up to governments, industry, and the rest of us to actually heed these warnings — or suffer through what comes next.
There's zero science presented here, one useless trivia factoid with no context or explanation given, buried somewhere under a literal mountain of activist BS.
In the time since that paper was initially published, the world has suffered significantly from extreme weather events caused or made worse by climate change.
This is dogmatic religion, not science. To begin with, "the world" cannot suffer anything whatsoever from any change in climate or lack thereof, because "the world" is an inanimate object. Maybe he meant "people living on Earth", but that's not what he actually said. If AJ Dellinger can't distinguish between inanimate objects that can't be physically harmed, and living breathing animals, then there's nothing I trust about his assertions or conclusions about what climate scientists have stated.
In 2020, an estimated $63 billion in damage and $268 billion in economic loss was caused by natural disasters."
Useless trivia alert! This is largely the end result of people who falsely claim to believe in science who are, to this very day, continuing to build ever greater numbers of very expensive structures in cities along coastlines and river basins that are subjected to repeated periodic flooding events through time, since long before humans existed.
The fires caused by a total lack of forestry management and human activities are the other major "natural disaster", but humans setting off fireworks at "gender reveal" parties in the middle of California's forests, or power lines arcing and sparking and igniting forest fires, don't count as "climate disasters" in my book. Those fires accounted for over $12B of the $95B in economic losses in 2020 that NOAA claims were climate-associated "natural disasters". Your guess is as good as mine, regarding what's "natural", i.e. "not man-made", about setting off fireworks in a forest or running high voltage power lines through forests.
Those events, along with the declining state of health for some of the planet's most important indicators, encouraged more than 3,000 scientists to join onto the latest iteration of warning letter.
More personification of inanimate objects. The world is not now and can never be "healthy" or "unhealthy". Whether or not humans or other species of plants and animals can live here is another matter, but the distinction is very important and very real. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Now it's up to governments, industry, and the rest of us to actually heed these warnings — or suffer through what comes next.
Wildly wrong.
1. Governments are collections of people with competing personal interests and some shared interests, all vying for political power.
2. Industry is the reduction of scientific principle to repeatable engineering practices.
3. His quip about "the rest of us heeding fair warning given" is only partially correct. Now it's up to everyone else to evaluate what activists masquerading as scientists are telling them through assertions about data they're not qualified to interpret, or assertions in the absence of data, but without the benefit of knowing much of anything at all about science, and without the benefit of large numbers of actual climate scientists telling people what to make of the data they've collected.
4. Up to this point, all of these climate activists have been little different than "Bill Nye The Science Guy"- someone with no actual science education and experience, but I guess being an engineer is better than having no education regarding scientific principles whatsoever. As long as it agrees with dogmatic religious beliefs, who cares, right?
FACT 5
In the paper / "warning letter" that AJ Dellinger cites, the "Conclusions" section from the "concerned scientists" is every bit as fact-free as AJ Dellinger's writing, so I can forgive him for not knowing the difference between science and activism.
This is from the second link you provided to "BioScience" (the source of the "warning letter", that was published and signed by a bunch of people who are not climatologists):
Mitigating and adapting to climate change while honoring the diversity of humans entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding.
As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.
There seems to be a complete lack of science embodied in their conclusions.
...honoring human diversity...
Whatever the hell that means, it has nothing to do with science.
Schoolchildren are striking.
That's a sure sign of poor parenting. I guess they're "protesting" having everything handed to them on a silver platter? I've taught my own children to show a little more gratitude for what they've been given.
Ecocide lawsuits
More meaningless word salad to me. It sure as hell isn't about science.
Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change
Who is demanding that everyone lives the way the Amish do? All the Democrats can decide to live like the Amish any time they choose. I promise you that none of my fellow Republicans will lift a finger to stop them. Nobody is forcing any of these hoity-toity kale latte sipping coastie liberals to fly in their private jets or to go to work in their private limousines.
As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future.
Equity has nothing to do with climate science or science in general or science at all whatsoever in the real objective universe that real scientists can measure using real tools. The natural world has never been fair or equitable to different forms of life, nor will it ever be. Fairness and equity is a human brain construct, completely subjective in nature, and not measurable using any scientific instrument devised by human beings.
We urge widespread use of vital signs...
Someone needs to tell these fruitcakes posing as ecologists that the Earth doesn't have any vital signs. It's a giant space rock with an atmosphere and oceans of liquid water. It's an inanimate object. The rock will be fine, with or without humanity on it. I promise. If the Earth has fewer people on it who personify rocks, the world would be a better place for those who remain.
The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual.
There's no such thing as "social and economic justice for all". This is ecologist activists pandering to "social justice" activists, some of whom pretend to care about environmental issues to further their own cause. Justice is an individualistic concept. There is no "group justice". If a crook steals something from some one person in a village, then the rest of the village is not automatically harmed, nor is the rest of the village responsible for the anti-social activities of that criminal, unless they helped him commit the crime. Giving birth to someone who later behaves in a criminal manner is not "creating more criminals", either. Personal behavior is an individual choice. You can either be cooperative / collaborative with your fellow humans, sometimes referred to as being "social", or exhibit behaviors that fall within the anti-social spectrum of behaviors. Unfortunately for everyone else, people who advocate for "group justice" frequently tend to be profoundly anti-social in nature.
We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.
And there it finally is- the statement of religious belief that all dogmatic deity worshippers make. Using energy to improve our lives is sustaining life. Whether it's use is agreeable to all or not is a political question, not a scientific one.
If these ecologists want everyone to live like the Amish do, then they can lead by example, by refusing to use jets and cars and computers and the internet. You, Mr Heisler, are welcome to join them in their quest to regress back to before industrialization human civilization. The rest of us are likewise free to carry on with our industrialization activities.
All of that ink was required to properly respond to that pithy "I follow the science" comment. That is why nobody listens to scientists. It's so cheap and easy to go sloganeering the way our activists do, yet so complicated and long-winded and boring as hell to fully explain why bad ideas with vague explanations or tenuous connection to reality are bad.

Calliban · 2021-08-01 15:03:27

If you are starting with carbon dioxide in the air, then the first trick is to concentrate it sufficiently for subsequent reaction steps. The easiest way to do that is to grow biomass, something like miscanthus. If you want to capture it in a more compact space and don't mind a little extra energy cost, then I would suggest ponds containing magnesium hydroxide. As the magnesium hydroxide absorbs CO2 from the air, it would form magnesium carbonate as a slurry at the bottom of the pond. Allow the slurry to drain by gravity into a sump at the edge of the pond. Use a jet pump to transfer it into a settling tank. Allow it to settle and then pump excess water back into the pond. Seal the settling tank. Seal the tank. Open a valve to the heating jacket around the tank. Liquid lead will begin heating the magnesium carbonate. Keep temperature constant at 350°C until all water vapour is driven off. Next, heat the carbonate steadily up to 500°C. It will dissociate into MgO and CO2, the latter being released as gas which can be vented from the top of the vessel. Flood the vessel and stir it. The MgO will immediately be converted into mixed Mg(OH)2 and MgCO3. This will be pumped back into the atmospheric pond.

The CO2 gas will be cooled, compressed and then reheated to 300°C. It will then be reacted with hydrogen over a nickel catalyst bed to produce CO and water vapour (gas shift reaction). The remaining CO, H2 and H2O gas are removed from the chamber and cooled after several passes over the catalyst bed. The mixture is cooled, allowing the water to be removed. What remains is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The products yielded from this synthesis gas will depend upon the ratio of H2 to CO and the temperature and catalyst present. You can add more H2 depending upon what you are interested in producing.

Simultaneously with this process, use nuclear electricity to carry out electrolysis of water. Pipe the hydrogen into the gas shift reactor to convert CO2 into CO and then add extra hydrogen to the emerging synthesis gas to blend it to the right proportions.

This process requires both electricity and high grade heat. Your liquid metal cooled reactors can provide both, but it makes sense to specialise individual units to one task or the other.

Alternatively, you could start with biomass. Use nuclear heat to carry out destructive pyrolysis at 500°C. You will get charcoal, liquid tars (with you can crack using steam and hydrogen) and a mixture of gases, which can be burned for additional heat. You can find ways of using the charcoal as a direct product or partially oxidise it to CO and mix it with hydrogen to produce synthesis gas.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-01 15:15:31)

louis · 2021-08-01 15:18:53

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
louis wrote:
Your starting point with nuclear power will be something like 10 cents per KwHe. Your starting point for surplus wind or solar will be close to 0 cents because nobody else’s wants to buy it. That’s a huge difference.
We’ve been over your argument before. Your math doesn’t work out. It never will, either, because simple energy physics will never be negated using any form of existing wind and solar energy technology. That’s why all of the wind and solar in the world, combined, still doesn’t equal the output of the handful of nuclear reactors in operation. This is basic math (addition and multiplication) and economics problem. Nobody on this planet can turn the Sun and wind on or off, at-will. That’s why the Germans spent 10 times more than they otherwise would have if they’d simply purchased some nuclear reactors from the French and called it a day. That’s why Germany’s CO2 emissions today are exactly what they were before they started this “renewable energy” nonsense. It was always a pipe dream initiated by religious zealots with lots of dogma and no ability to count, let alone do more complex calculations.

Your problem is that you think the success of our energy systems reflects and is to be judged by EROI, whereas it is the amount of labour power required to sustain a unit of energy that is key - and that labour power is reflected in price. Price is a key factor because it is a way of assessing how efficient in terms of overall labour input a given system is. This is why nuclear power which appears to have such a good EROI always ends up disappointing because of high labour input and the consequent high price. Meanwhile solar power and wind turbines in manufacture and operation require less and less labour input as time goes on.

From US EIA:
The average energy capacity cost of utility-scale battery storage in the United States has rapidly decreased from $2,152 per kilowatthour (kWh) in 2015 to $625/kWh in 2018.
Well, gee whiz, battery storage only needs to decrease by another $624.90 to be on par with generation from reliable nuclear power (and then it's still more expensive since something has to charge that battery). That means Lithium-ion batteries, per unit weight, literally need to become cheaper than dirt. That will never happen in our lifetimes, and if you don't know that by now, then you never will. Power generation beats power storage every day of the week, in terms of energy consumed versus energy produced, basic economics, and all other metrics that actually matter for producing a viable energy supply that is both reliable and durable. 25 years from now, someone (your children) will have to foot the bill to replace a substantial portion of the existing wind turbines and solar panels. You’re simply “hoping” that they’ll be cheaper or we’ll all be a lot richer 25 years from now. Electricity is currently 3 TIMES more expensive in Germany than it is in the US, specifically because THE SUN DOESN’T SHINE IN GERMANY! There's no magic wand we can waive to make the Sun appear whenever and wherever we want it to.
None of what you’re proposing is aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. It’s just throwing money at any random idea that feeds into your pet technology and the ideology backing it. Worse still, it’s not actually solving the problem that our climate change religious fanatics claim they want to solve, which means we still have to deal with the undesirable societal effects associated with the insufferable idiocy of their religion (humans bad, space rock good).

I think you'll find that $624 90 per KwH is the capital cost of creating a storage capacity of 1 KwH, not the price of 1 KwHe from a battery. The iron-air battery folk, Form Energy, claim they can get the capital cost down to 20 cents per KwH. That will of course drive down the operational cost hugely.

As the proportion of electricity generated from green energy increases, of course the proportion of green energy incorporated in PV panels and wind turbines increases, and so carbon emissions decline, all else being equal. We'll probably see a lot of large industrial facilities using hydrogen made by electrolysis, with the process being powered by green energy.

Last edited by louis (2021-08-01 15:40:17)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-01 15:53:56

Why we need energy has little to do with EROI or of its price but more to do with the things which require it to be able use them in our homes and vehicles we use to travel farther faster.
Earth's energy imbalance removes almost all doubt from human-made climate change

As for the iron air battery; Iron is the worst power conductor of all metals from what I remember...

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-01 16:25:08

For SpaceNut re #42

Silver, Copper, Gold, Aluminum, Zinc and Platinum. Those are the names I remember from a long ago course on electronics. That is the order of conductivity.

Iron is not on the list, for sure.

The purpose of the tiny particles of iron is to engage with oxygen molecules to hold or to release energy. In that context, I would invite you to show how conductivity is significant.

It may be ....

It would help everyone to understand the battery if you can find a discussion of the physics of this battery type.

Thanks for the energy imbalance link!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-02 12:10:56

This is a follow up to Post #35 by kbd512

I asked Google for help and it found a number of citations to study:

Synhelion | Solar fuels move the world toward net zero.https://synhelion.com
Synhelion uses concentrated solar energy to turn CO2 and water into syngas. The end product is solar kerosene, diesel, gasoline, or hydrogen.
Sun-to-Liquid Technology.
Synhelion uses solar heat to convert CO2 into synthetic fuels ...
News about synthetic fuels ...
Read all the latest news on solar fuels, decarbonizing the ...
Team
Meet the team. Dr. Gianluca Ambrosetti Chief Executive ...
Solar fuels
Solar fuels are synthetic fuels produced from solar energy ...
About
Synhelion develops cutting-edge solar technology to reduce ...
Partners
Together with our partners, we are ready to tackle that challenge ...
More results from synhelion.com »
Synhelion Solar Fuels - Solar Impulse Efficient Solutionhttps://solarimpulse.com › efficient-solutions › synhelio...
A cutting-edge technology that offers a truly sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Synhelion is on a mission to replace fossil fuels by economically viable ...
Synhelion SA | LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com › company › synhelion
Synhelion is a global pioneer in the field of sustainable solar fuels. The company evolved from ETH Zurich in 2016. Synhelion is on a mission to replace ...
Synhelion ☀️ solar fuels (@Synhelion) | Twitterhttps://twitter.com › synhelion
The latest Tweets from Synhelion ☀️⛽ solar fuels (@Synhelion). We turn CO2 and sunlight into fuel. Our solar fuels are climate-friendly, renewable, ...
At Synhelion, Solar Jet Fuels Get Ready for Take-off ...https://www.solarpaces.org › at-synhelion-solar-jet-fuels...
Mar 30, 2020 — Goal; jet fuel from air by 2030. Synhelion's long-term 100% solar fuel technology developed out of solar fuels research at ETH Zurich in ...
Synhelion and Top Hydrogen Firm Advance Solar Hydrogen ...https://www.solarpaces.org › synhelion-and-top-hydrog...
Jun 24, 2021 — By concentrating thousands of “suns” – of mirrors reflecting sunlight – onto a solar receiver to create high temperatures of up to 1500°C, ...

One feature of the descriptions i'm picking up on is the use of concentration of sunlight to achieve desirable outcomes.

I am interested in the downstream technology, and less in the source of energy, at this point ...

Manufacture of long chain hydrocarbons is (apparently) possible but appears to be quite inefficient at this point.

On the other hand, if the "waste" from the process is re-usable, and the energy "wasted" can be harvested, then overall efficiency of the system may increase.

Edit at 14:15 local time ...

https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solu … lar-fuels#

I am intrigued to see the (apparent) connection between the Solar Impulse flight around the wor4ld, and the Synhelion initiative.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2021-08-02 12:14:21)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-02 12:16:34

I'll set this up as a separate post for future development as news arrives ...

SearchTerm:Nanotechnology make long chain hydrocarbons
SearchTerm:Synthesize gasoline using nanotechnology
SearchTerm:Gasoline synthesize

If anyone has a copy of "Engines of Creation" or has seen it, you'll know what I have in mind.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-03 19:06:41

Another sign is the Annual Gulf of Mexico dead zone increases to three times larger than Delaware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

kbd512 · 2021-08-03 19:48:52

Louis,

If they “get the cost down to 20 cents per kWh”, then the cost of their battery storage is still double that of a nuclear power plant. On top of that, we must add wind and solar and gas energy. It’s not hard to understand why power in Germany is three times as expensive as it is here in America. If this, if that, if the other, if if if... If you simply implement a technology that’s already half the cost of notional futuristic technologies that runs 24/7/365 for 2 to 3 times as long as any battery or wind turbine or photovoltaic panel in existence, requires 1 to 3 orders of magnitude less material and therefore energy input, and is a million times more energy dense than fossil fuels, but without the CO2 emissions, then you pay less money, no ifs or ands or buts about it.

louis · 2021-08-04 05:15:03

Apologies, that was an error on my part. I meant to write $20, not cents, per KwH (storage, not output). Form Energy claim they can get the storage cost down to $20 per KwH - in other words a small fraction of existing battery storage costs. I haven't seen any estimates for output cost, but in another post I guesstimated on the basis of cheapest current battery storage output cost (around 10 cents per KwHe), they might be able to have an output price around 2.5 cents per KwHe.

I would like to see some detailed calculations on output price. As yet, no one I know of has attempted that but the capital cost of battery storage appears to be the main cost element in battery storage output price.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
If they “get the cost down to 20 cents per kWh”, then the cost of their battery storage is still double that of a nuclear power plant. On top of that, we must add wind and solar and gas energy. It’s not hard to understand why power in Germany is three times as expensive as it is here in America. If this, if that, if the other, if if if... If you simply implement a technology that’s already half the cost of notional futuristic technologies that runs 24/7/365 for 2 to 3 times as long as any battery or wind turbine or photovoltaic panel in existence, requires 1 to 3 orders of magnitude less material and therefore energy input, and is a million times more energy dense than fossil fuels, but without the CO2 emissions, then you pay less money, no ifs or ands or buts about it.

Last edited by louis (2021-08-04 05:16:44)

Calliban · 2021-08-04 09:14:53

Louis, cost per kWh stored depends upon load factor - the number of kWh the battery absorbs and discharges per unit time. Think about it, you could keep a 1kWh battery fully charged for its entire life. If it is only called upon once a year, then the storage cost per kWh will be enormous. If you use it many times a day, it will be cheap. How expensive would it be, if we had to size a battery for 1 week of energy storage and then use it only a few times per year? This is the uphill struggle you face with battery economics as the work horse of grid energy storage. It is why in the real world, we do use batteries for grid frequency control. But gas turbines are used for backup.

kbd512 · 2021-08-04 09:59:39

Calliban,

Any battery backup for photovoltaics and wind turbines will be discharged at least once per day, out of necessity. The people behind battery tech have been talking a blue streak, but have yet to demonstrate any technology at the scale required. A single 16GWh battery would be sufficient for me. Human civilization operates on the scale of terawatts. Anything less than a gigawatt of output for 16 hours is meaningless for commercial electric power. Batteries have been around since internal combustion engines existed. It's time to stand and deliver. If they can't deliver, reason unimportant, then we default back to using nuclear power until they can, because fission is the "in-hand" power generating technology that delivers gigawatts of power, CO2-free. We're not running short of Uranium or Thorium, whereas we are rapidly depleting our fossil fuel reserves. We need a viable solution within the next 5 years, not the next 50. The auto makers have stepped up with more efficient combustion engines and battery or fuel cell powered vehicles. If the commercial electric power generating industry can't do the same, then we default back to what works that also doesn't contribute to global warming.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2021-07-31 20:49:28

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#27 2021-07-31 22:05:11

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#28 2021-08-01 02:44:05

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#29 2021-08-01 07:40:49

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#30 2021-08-01 07:48:40

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#31 2021-08-01 08:10:17

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#32 2021-08-01 09:14:18

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#33 2021-08-01 09:50:58

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#34 2021-08-01 10:14:40

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#35 2021-08-01 10:29:53

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#36 2021-08-01 11:14:00

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#37 2021-08-01 11:59:35

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#38 2021-08-01 13:59:37

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#39 2021-08-01 15:00:03

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#40 2021-08-01 15:03:27

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#41 2021-08-01 15:18:53

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#42 2021-08-01 15:53:56

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#43 2021-08-01 16:25:08

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#44 2021-08-02 12:10:56

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#45 2021-08-02 12:16:34

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#46 2021-08-03 19:06:41

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#47 2021-08-03 19:48:52

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#48 2021-08-04 05:15:03

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#49 2021-08-04 09:14:53

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

#50 2021-08-04 09:59:39

Re: 14,000 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021[

Board footer