[Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or whatever, you are still desequestrating fossil carbon. If you think this is a good idea then you don't understand the situation. If you don't understand the situation we are in, it is your duty to humanity to shut up!
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
--- Nick Palmer wrote: Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or whatever, you are still desequestrating fossil carbon. That is OK so long as it is net carbon neutral. If you turn biomass into syngas then that solution is carbon neutral. If you turn syngas from coal into electricity for grid power, and then channel the exhaust into algae ponds for biofuel, then that solution is carbon neutral Yes, of course, we all would prefer an alternative to carbon for transportation fuel, but you are missing the point as to *practical* solutions which can be implemented now. It is far better to be carbon neutral and free of OPEC oil than any other possible *practical* alternative. If you think this is a good idea then you don't understand the situation. I would counter that if you think it is a bad idea, then you not only do not understand the situation, but are playing into the hands of the Big-oil-OPEC hegemony who would love to see impractical idealistic solutions go nowhere. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
Jones Beene wrote: --- Nick Palmer wrote: Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or whatever, you are still desequestrating fossil carbon. That is OK so long as it is net carbon neutral. If you turn biomass into syngas then that solution is carbon neutral. If you turn syngas from coal into electricity for grid power, and then channel the exhaust into algae ponds for biofuel, then that solution is carbon neutral Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting biomass is never burned. Ed Yes, of course, we all would prefer an alternative to carbon for transportation fuel, but you are missing the point as to *practical* solutions which can be implemented now. It is far better to be carbon neutral and free of OPEC oil than any other possible *practical* alternative. If you think this is a good idea then you don't understand the situation. I would counter that if you think it is a bad idea, then you not only do not understand the situation, but are playing into the hands of the Big-oil-OPEC hegemony who would love to see impractical idealistic solutions go nowhere. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
--- Edmund Storms wrote: Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting biomass is never burned. Well it does substitute for OPEC oil, if that is the bottom line - but if you want to get extremely precise, then you must admit that if biofuel, made from CO2-fed algae in round one, is then burned in the second round in the same kind of situation where the exhaust is also recycled to make more biofuel, ad infinitum, then long-term neutrality could attach. One could envision a smalled capacity grid-plant situated on a flooded desert, out there in the wilds of New Mexico, where the CO2 is looped over-and-over with algae, for carbon neutrality, or close to it, over time - but - returning to the issue of practical solutions, even if we get only one generation of neutrality - then that is superior to the present state of affairs, no? We need to eliminate carbon as a longer term goal ABSOLUTELY true, no argument there, but we also need practical stopgap measure that can buy time (perhaps time for your LENR breakthrough ;-) ... ...and at the same time eliminate the sword of OPEC hanging over our collective necks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
Jones Beene wrote: --- Edmund Storms wrote: Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting biomass is never burned. Well it does substitute for OPEC oil, if that is the bottom line - but if you want to get extremely precise, then you must admit that if biofuel, made from CO2-fed algae in round one, is then burned in the second round in the same kind of situation where the exhaust is also recycled to make more biofuel, ad infinitum, then long-term neutrality could attach. Yes, but you proposed burning coal to provide the CO2. If the CO2 is simply taken out of the air with no additional coal burned, then you have the situation you correctly noted as your first scenario. One could envision a smalled capacity grid-plant situated on a flooded desert, out there in the wilds of New Mexico, where the CO2 is looped over-and-over with algae, for carbon neutrality, or close to it, over time Yes, this would work. - but - returning to the issue of practical solutions, even if we get only one generation of neutrality - then that is superior to the present state of affairs, no? I look upon the process initially as a learning experience. The first effort will be too inefficient to remove CO2 from the air. Consequently, the higher concentration of CO2 from burning coal would be used. Initially, the process would not be carbon neutral. Hopefully, the process would get sufficiently efficient to take the CO2 directly from the air. However, I doubt this will be more efficient than burning coal to make electricity and growing biofuel from the CO2 to make fuel for cars. This, I agree, would reduce CO2 because less oil would be burned. Instead, we would burn coal, but with the added energy provided by the sun. In the real world, I doubt growing algae can compete with sugar as a source of fuel. Meanwhile, the politicians will push corn in order to gain the votes, until people realize they are being screwed by higher food costs. By then LENR will be operating. We need to eliminate carbon as a longer term goal ABSOLUTELY true, no argument there, but we also need practical stopgap measure that can buy time (perhaps time for your LENR breakthrough ;-) ... So far, nature is cooperating. You never can tell when she will stop. Ed ...and at the same time eliminate the sword of OPEC hanging over our collective necks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
EXACTLY my point of view; buying time for LENR to happen without falling under the curse of OPEC. P. . - Original Message From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:33:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models --- Edmund Storms wrote: Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting biomass is never burned. Well it does substitute for OPEC oil, if that is the bottom line - but if you want to get extremely precise, then you must admit that if biofuel, made from CO2-fed algae in round one, is then burned in the second round in the same kind of situation where the exhaust is also recycled to make more biofuel, ad infinitum, then long-term neutrality could attach. One could envision a smalled capacity grid-plant situated on a flooded desert, out there in the wilds of New Mexico, where the CO2 is looped over-and-over with algae, for carbon neutrality, or close to it, over time - but - returning to the issue of practical solutions, even if we get only one generation of neutrality - then that is superior to the present state of affairs, no? We need to eliminate carbon as a longer term goal ABSOLUTELY true, no argument there, but we also need practical stopgap measure that can buy time (perhaps time for your LENR breakthrough ;-) ... ...and at the same time eliminate the sword of OPEC hanging over our collective necks. Jones
