Re: Climate camp news.


"Doug" <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d81a1a0f-bef4-467e-b7f3-3f087efb1da2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 30 Aug, 16:18, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

.....
I answered the question of how much energy it takes to produce a litre of
diesel. What you are now asking is how efficiently can the energy in that
litre be converted into useful output, which is a different and much more
complex question. It depends greatly upon whaat sort of engine you use
and
what sort of duty cycle that engine runs at. The theoretical maximum
efficiency of the diesel cycle engine is 56%, but the maximum attained in
practical engines is 52%. That is for a modern marine diesel engine,
which
spends long periods running at a steady speed. Diesel generators achieve
simlar efficiencies. Work in progress on dual fuel petrol / diesel
engines
suggest they could achieve up to 20% better efficiency than a pure diesel
engine. If you burn the diesel oil to run a gas turbine, efficiencies of
up
to 65% are possible. With waste heat recovery, gas turbines can reach 80%
efficiency.

Trust you to cherry pick the highest possible efficiency. If you
remember this was about wind generators and I drew a comparison with
the manufacturer of fossil fuels.

That is why I chose the efficiency approriate to electricity generation.

Your source is notably lacking in
detail and does not state if it covers exploration-to-use which is
probably woefully energy intensive.

It clearly states it is comparing life-cycle figures, which means it covers
every stage.

Now estimate the energy needed to manufacturer a wind generator and
the efficiency of its free energy use by comparison, to, say, an
electric motor.

I wish I could. It is something I have tried to compile on a number of
occasions, but the manufacturers, understandably, make it very difficult to
get the necessary data.

.....
I'm talking about cost and an effective campaign to change attitudes
takes a
lot of money. However, the real waste is in building things like wind
farms,
when a nuclear power station to produce the same amount of power would be
half the cost.

Maybe but there is no way of safely getting rid of the waste.

There is. They are called fast consumer reactors, because they run on the
nuclear waste from other reactors and consume it.

....
Just this morning quote:

"German anti-nuclear protests heat up ahead of 21 September election

About one thousand Castor caskets full of nuclear waste are produced
by just one atomic power station during its operative life without
there being a final repository for it anywhere."

That is only because they don't have a fast consumer reactor.



As it can be
shown that protective measures will work, while it cannot be shown
that
reducing CO2 will have any effect whatsoever, the money should go to
what
we
know will work.

It is known that people and their cattle are emitting a great deal of
greenhouse gases.That is well documented and greenhouse gases are
causing global warming which in turn is causing climate change.

According to this study, 95% of all global warming is caused by water
vapour, of which 99.999% is of natural origin. If you take that into
account, all human activity contributes just 0.28% to the greenhouse
effect.
As I have said before, human activity is not a significant driver of
climate
change, when compared to what nature is doing.

So if there is global warming there will be more water vapour
evaporating from the seas which in turn will contribute to more global
warming? ...

More water vapour means more clouds, which increases the world's albdeo,
reflecting more heat back into space. The net effect could be global
cooling.

And we are tipping the
balance?

The whole point of the article is that our contribution is so small as to be
unimportant. In other words, we didn't cause the problem and nothing we do
will change what is going to happen.

Your study does not agree with the detailed findings of the IPCC.

Not surprising, given that the whole point of the article is to point out
the shortcomings of studies that do not consider the effects of water
vapour, like the IPCC study.

....
We would also have to stop eating rice, which produces 75% as much
methane
as domestic cattle digestive systems,

Let me see rice + cattle = 175% according to you.

Maths never has been your strong point has it? All my figures mean is that
for every four units of methane produced by domestic ruminants, there are
another three produced by growing rice. It does not provide any information
about the total amount of methane produced globally..

Of course, rice also
absorbs CO2 unlike cattle.

The methane it producse is a much stronger greenhouse gas.

destroy every termite on the planet
(25% as much) and destroy all wetlands (38% more).

No your problem here is that without human intervention they are in
balance with the system. It is the human addition that is tipping the
balance.

If there is an argument for reducing one source of methane, then the same
argument applies to all sources.

Actually, we would have
to give up eating all together, as agriculture is a primary source of CO2
and the biggest single source of nitrous oxide.

No it is estimated that giving up meat and dairy would ease the
methane problem considerably.

Draining all wetlands would ease it more and, as has been pointed out to you
on several occasions before, animals are the only way to gain useful food
output from the poorest land.

....
Just to cheer you up though, even if we manage to to stop contributing
to global warming there is much more work still to do. For instance,
infinite economic growth threatens to destroy the planet's resources

I see you don't understand economics either. Economic growth can never be
infinite. It is self-limiting if resources become scarce.

and us with it and the massive wastage of food. About 40% of food is
wasted by supermarkets and 33% by households, probably enough to feed
the starving millions from whom we obtain some of the food we waste.

I can believe the waste from supermarkets, as they have to abide by sell by
dates, although Sainsburys has plans to compost it, convert it to methane
and burn the methane to produce electricity. I am less convinced that the
figure for households is accurate. I never throw food away - it either gets
composted or fed to the cats - and I don't know anyone who wastes anything
like 1/3 of what they buy.

Don't you agree this whole thing looks like a rollercoaster ride to
human oblivion?

I have greater faith in the ability of humans to solve problems than you
appear to have.

Colin Bignell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: manure->methane -> power
    ... >> systems can run 70-80% energy efficiency converting to electricity ... I wrote a report on methane digestion systems in college. ... South Africa, I believe it was, and perfected the continuous feed digester. ... push it into the underground tank. ...
    (misc.rural)
  • Re: Deconstructing the right wing lies
    ... by cutting waste and increasing efficiency. ... fucking rock somewhere. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: 71% Say Finding New Energy Sources More Important than Conservation
    ... BTW I expect that there is some additional efficiency between methanol and methane. ... The only advantage you face is the heat of vaporization, offset by the extra compression needed to get enough fuel into the cumbustion chamber to go with the air. ... Your big losses are the Carnot cycle minimums, high rejection temperature and the lack of complete burning in the cylinders. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Energy alternatives for the UK.
    ... emptied into a standard 10tone payload waste waggon and delivered to a private operator where it is combined with other woody waste and composted. ... Engines seem to be Jenbacher. ... no throttling losses to poor volumetric efficiency at part load, ... of the waste heat to coolant prior to the boiler. ...
    (uk.environment)
  • Re: Hastert the Bastert
    ... > with the waste that will remain HOT for, oh say, another 500,000 years. ... > that of his average employee the concept of efficiency is ... 3)You have no faith in private enterprise..fine..Not ALL private ... 4)Many people are over-paid including rock stars, sports stars, and ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading