| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Carbon Dioxide Levels Rising Faster Than Predicted (and Kyoto is the cause) |
| 2007-10-23 |
| You can go read the article if you like, but I can summarize the issue far more honestly than even Bloomberg. I read the Guardian version and its far worse. Since 2000, when Kyoto kicked in, the rate of increase in CO2 emissions has been 200%. More importantly, Kyoto has managed to break the long-standing trend of an annual decrease in energy and hence CO2 emissions per unit in GDP. Historically, energy input per unit of GDP has decreased by 0.6% per annum. This trend has been remarkably stable for a long time. Astonishly, Kyoto has managed to break this fundamental economic trend and energy per unit of GDP is no longer declining and may even be increasing. The Times article is a bit better in that it does confuse CO2 emissions with declines in CO2 sinks. But it still doesn't draw the obvious conclusion that Kyoto is driving the rise in CO2 levels by shifting energy intensive industries to much less energy efficient locations like China and India. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #15 NEWSCIENTIST > RETURN OF PANGEA? World Tectonic analysis/studies indics Perts to believe that Earth is going back to the future - Adam-and-Eve's Garden, Atlantis-Lemuria. See also FREEREPUBLIC and how HIMALAYA's was created as per INDIA collision. D ***NG IT, MADONNA FANS MUST ASK HOW DOES THIS STOP KAMALEN, OR A LARGE COMET/SPACE ROCK(S) FROM KNOCKING EARTH OFF ITS ORBIT, OR PLANET X, OR MERCURY, OR SUN, OR ................................@ EVENTS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-10-23 20:18 |
| #14 TOPIX/REDDIT/LUCIANNE > GLOBAL OCEANS TURNING MORE ACIDIC/INTO PLASTIC. Time again to destroy the Sun in order to save humanity + Earth. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-10-23 18:49 |
| #13 the California Air Resources Board has been notified. "All cars must be shut down for 2 years as a carbon-credit...and NO SMOKING, DAMMIT" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-10-23 17:25 |
| #12 How much Co2 has been added to the air because of the Southern California fires vs Co2 from cars, etc? I think the numbers might be interesting. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-10-23 17:10 |
| #11 ed: algae reproduction rates in closed sunlight systems are enormous when enhanced with CO2 and nitrous oxides. Anywhere below the Mason/Dixon line full scale production and harvest could be ongoing for 10 months of the year. While there still might be a large amount of waste CO2, it would be a heck of a lot less. And remember that by producing biodiesel, instead of waste it becomes profit. It is not unreasonable to imagine gigantic algae farms in rural America. If they can produce a big chunk of our diesel fuel needs, it is not only worth it, but will pay for itself. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-23 16:56 |
| #10 I think almost everybody realizes we need to get off of the oil tit. If only to remove the money source to the Middle East. And to do that we are going to have to make some decisions at a will piss off some segments of society. If we want to do large scale solar we will have to set aside large areas of desert for solar plants whether they are solar cell or mirror colectors. And if the environmentalists don't like it tough titties. Wind farms where parctical even if Otis* doesn't like the view. Nuclear plants to fill the gaps. Hydroelectric although all of the good sites are already in use. Plus we need to put more money into fusion research IMO. The test reactor to be built in France will provide useful data but it is only part of the way to a commercial reactor. put some research money into some of the more off beat ideas. Such as ElectroStatic Confinement reactors. If they work fine. If they don't well we piss away money on lots of other stuff why not piss away on something that might have a chance of paying back. * Otis as in Otis from the Andy Griffith Show AKA Ted Kennedy |
| Posted by: Chedderhead 2007-10-23 15:11 |
| #9 wxjames, it doesn't matter how one uses the uses the biomass. I calculated only to equalize the carbon of the coal and resultant biomass. In reality, to get the most value from the algae, first you extract the oils, optionally produce ethanol from the carbohydrates, and then finally burn or sell for feed the leftovers. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-10-23 13:05 |
| #8 ed, correct for the old technology, but the new technology converts all feed stock into gas. It's out there waiting for the dollars to build it. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-10-23 12:58 |
| #7 While I support using waste gasses to produce fuel, the problem is scale. People just don't realize how much energy we produce and how low yield renewables really are. A large 1200 MW powerplant uses 20,000 tons lignite coal/day. To soak up the equivalent CO2 requires 20,000 tons of biomass/day. Assuming one could produce (no one done it on a large scale) 100 tons of algae/acre/year. It would require 73,000 acres or a square of land 10.7 miles on a side. That's just to grow the algae under enhanced CO2 conditions for one power plant. It's a huge outlay of capital and labor. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-10-23 12:08 |
| #6 Gorelioni. Heh. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-10-23 12:04 |
| #5 Alaska Paul is close. Ther are no Government Subsidies for that kind of engineering. Only corn produced ethanol. Take away the subsidies for corn-based ethanol and this could be a viable option. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-10-23 11:50 |
| #4 This is serious, people. If this rate of increase continues, our atmosphere will be composed entirely of CO2. Think about it: 100% of our air will be carbon dioxide - a deadly poison! Gotta go. Mom's yelling. Something about extrapolating curves or something. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-10-23 11:49 |
| #3 Actual atmospheric numbers are at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Also for Moose, the Rentech company which hopes to switch from natural gas to coal as their feedstock for production of ammonia at a plant near E. Dubuque, IL, is examining various was to use or sequester carbon dioxide. The company will have a concentrated stream of CO2 since the new system is to be fully closed. However there is a lot of it. If they were to use the algea system the tank would probably require more than a hundred acres. see: http://www.rentechinc.com/rentech-projects.htm |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-23 11:44 |
| #2 'Moose---the problem with this scheme is there is no cut for Al Gorelioni. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-10-23 10:36 |
| #1 A truly frustrating aspect of all of this is that if industrial CO2 is a problem, then there is an easy, profitable way of addressing it. Pump the industrial CO2 and nitrous oxides through algae tanks. First of all, if all it would do would be to trap the CO2 and nitrous oxides, that would be enough, because it would fix those gases into solids. However, if you use the right kind of algae, it would also produce copious amounts of biodiesel and some amount of ethanol. In a form that is pretty easy to process into usable fuel. So not only would you recycle your CO2, but you would make a *profit* from what amounts to waste, *and* maybe make useful, or even large quantities of fuel in the process. What's not to like? As a bonus, it is so incredibly low-tech, that any country could do it. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-23 09:38 |