 |
Dry water a reality that could save world from global warming, say scientists | News.com.au
There may be an answer and you could say it's been under our feet all the time the answer is dry water or as it is better known; sand. Instantly the Sahara takes on some useful properties and great investment potential.
Okay so it's not April 1st, I checked after reading this one but it looks like we have found a reason for business as usual, I knew we could do it.
And what do they really think they are going to do with the stuff after it absorbs the co2's so plants can't breath anymore?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, but no doubt plants will grow in it, perhaps releasing the CO2. I expect there was a reason why the idea didn't go anywhere when the stuff was discovered and we don't have the details on how to get the CO2 into it which might be more expensive than it is worth. I expect it will be used in scrubbers on power stations and given the quantity needed will wind up with a similar use to fly ash.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I just thought it amusing that such a common substance might be a solution when everyone is focused on very expensive solutions. The problems we have with CO2 isn't the naturally occurring plant food but the unnatural release of CO2 locked up in Coal and Oil/gas
There's a difference? One Carbon, two Oxygen. Chem 101 was a while back, but I don't remember molecular isotopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The difference lies in the excesses associated with our industries and lifestyleQuote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
You see Cats... if we were nuckle dragging cavemen we would not be emitting CO2 unnaturally . Our technology is evil.. so sayeth the Luddites .
Well Tom It's nice to know you admit you are knuckle dragging cavemen who are using outmoded technologies such as burning stuff to get energyQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That would imply that there is an effective replacement readily available ?Quote:
outmoded technologies
HEMISPHERIC TIMING SHOWS OCEANS ARE SOURCE OF CO2, BY: DENNIS T. AVERY : Center for Global Food IssuesQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
According to This research:
Quote:
The seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest fossil-fuel-derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted,
Thus far I believe wind produces about 2 percent of our energy needs. How many of those windmills that rich liberals don't want blocking their view will it take to bump that up considerably, how much land will it consume and how many more millions of miles of ugly transmission lines will be required?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So cats you have joined those of us who say CO2 isn't the source of global warming and isn't the pollutant it is made out to be.
The source of ALL warming on this "globe" is about 93 million miles from here. It's a G-0 fusion reaction called Sol.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes Cats, I agree, but we have to consider the implications of that on our political systems. We have been mightly conned so what must we do with those who have fallen for the ploy, Where I came from those who believe as I do have almost succeeded in throwing the believers out of office and interestingly global warming didn't rate a mention in the campaign
It's happening. Cr@p and trade did not make it through the Senate .Those who passed it in the House of Representatives are going to feel the wrath . The enviro-wacko Barbara Hindenburg Boxer is going to lose what was once a safe Democrat Senate seat for her complicity in turning some of the most fertile farm land in the nation into a dust bowl to save a minnow .
The problem is we have to put up with Barack 'Clark Griswold' Obama for another 2 and 1/2 years.
Got to play a theme song here:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
YouTube - Holiday Road - Lindsey Buckingham
'This is no longer a vacation. It's a quest. It's a quest for fun. I'm gonna have fun and you're gonna have fun. We're all gonna have so much .... fun we'll need plastic surgeory to remove our .....smiles"
That's two Senates it didn't make it through Tom could it be that people and perhaps politicians are becoming smarter and we are not going to continue to swallow the compost the green lobby has been burying us in?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The problem is the remaining time the President has. He could do what Clintoon did after 2004 and latch on to the Republican agenda and perhaps salvage a 2nd term.
But POTUS cannot change direction on taxes ,healthcare(even though Waxman is making major changes to the law already passed completely under the radar of the American public.. thanks to the intentional inattention by the cheer leading media) and cap and tax without admitting to major mistakes in the last two years of major legislation passed by all Democratic votes.
What the President does have in his back pocket is the threat of an executive order. SCOTUS gave him the opening by calling CO2 a pollutant. The EPA can be directed by POTUS to regulate this "pollutant" .He has threatened to do so.
Tom I wonder just how fickle the public is in your neck of the woods. We have a pecular development here it appears that the government was thrown out of office for not taking action on climate change (cap n trade) yet those who will take office are mainly those opposed to taking action because they don't believe the science. Now if that trend is mirrored across the pond we could expect your Democrats to lose, couldn't we, because they have failed to take action, whatever the reason
Hello:
Wondering whether burning fossil fuel causes global warming, or NOT, is like wondering whether the hammer will break while you're beating yourself on the head with it...
excon
You see, EX, I don't wonder about such things, evidence I have seen puts the matter in no doubt, it's all smoke and mirrors, and I know the only hammers that break are made in China. I see no point in replacing one "polluting" industry with another and no point in trying to change the weatherQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
The wonder is that there are so many guillible people in the world
Hello again, clete:
You miss my point entirely... Don't worry. You're not alone.
My POINT is, that we're running OUT of oil. So worrying about the damage burning it causes, is ACADEMIC. We're going to have to find another source of energy, whether CO2 pollutes, whether global warming is bad, whether the science is humbug...
ALL of THAT is mental masturbation...
But, if the science isn't humbug, then we're going to solve TWO problems at once. What's the matter with that?
excon
Ex I don't mind solving two problems at once but what we are doing isn't WIN, WIN The Wind technology is very dependent on rare earths and these have to be refined, the Solar technology is dependent on Silicon a very polluting industry. Hybrid motor technology is at least at the moment dependent on oil, the electric car industry is dependent on Lithium both rare and polluting to extract, and still dependent on existing base load power stations, so what we have now is what I said before; smoke and mirrors.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I know that one day we will have to deal with the problem of oil supply but it needs a different approach, not only to power generation but also to transport and growth in transport usage. We are going to have to face it, there are too many people on the Earth
There is a growing hypothesis about oil that questions the premise that oil is an organic substance ,the final byproduct of decay.
There is growing evidence that suggests oil is the byproduct of a renewable natural organic and inorganic process occurring deep between the mantle and the crust of the earth.
Dimitri Mendeleev ,the creator of the modern periodic table ,and Dr. Thomas Gold... founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research and author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere" ,are proponents of this hypothesis.
Dr. J.F. Kenney a geological scientist and 3 Russian co-authors wrote a paper entitled "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." that explains the process.
The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen?carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum ? PNAS
I won't get into the details ;but if this is true ,then the theory that there is a finite supply of oil is wrong. The evidence already suggests that wells everyone thought were exhausted are renewing themselves.
One example is in the Gulf of Mexico near Eugene Island. The well there was pumping 15,000 barrels a day with a reserve of 60 million bb . It slowed down to about 4,000 bb/day and everyone thought it was depleted .But a decade later it was back to 15,000 bb/day and the new estimates of the reserve from that well is 400 million bb.
This was also found to be the case in Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska ,and in Uzbekistan fields . Most Middle East reserves have been recalculated .
I'm not saying that we don't need to find alternatives to petroleum based energy . But the need to switch may not be urgent based on dwindling supply.
Tom I am aware of the hypothesis but I think recent experiences in the Gulf suggest that whatever the resourse our ability to extract it might be limited and so limit the availability if demand continues to grow and in any case the resource may not be limitless whatever the process may be. We don't only have problems with the raw resource we have problems with refining capacity and the ability to transport it safely so the day of the internal combustion engine may be coming to a close. We will go through the cycle of replacing oil with gas and even electric vehicles but inevitably we need some very different thinking to get us away from the oil cycle just as we did to get us away from the horse cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And that will come. No one expected the Edison light bulb would replace whale oil lamps. But it happened ,because it was practical.
I don't believe that public policy said "we need to replace whale oil with the theoretical possibility of electric circuits. Governments cannot force innovation to happen .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I was watching "The Universe" the other day. They were talking about some new planet that was very inhospitable to humans. They said the rivers on this planet were made up of natural gas...
It got me to thinking... If there was NEVER any organic matter on that planet, where did natural gas come from?? Your scientists might be on to something...
Ain't science great?
excon
But that bucks the narrative of the greens so that won't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No one expected to replace the edison bulb so quickly either. And if Edison had his way it wouldn't have. Sometimes push and shove has to happen to make progress. We are at that same turning point now.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The principle component of natural gas is methane and methane is abundent in out universe.
Ref:
Chemical of the Week -- Methane
Quote:
No one expected to replace the edison bulb so quickly either. And if Edison had his way it wouldn't have. Sometimes push and shove has to happen to make progress. We are at that same turning point now.
One thing I know for sure is that nobody is working harder to make a breakthrough in the next generation energies than the energy companies.
I don't believe in subsidies for them for either oil exploration or for alternate energy discovery . I just don't think it a wise use of taxpayer's money whether it is a direct payout ;or some other back door scheme like cap and tax . I remind all that one of the early proponents of cap and trade and carbon trading was the corrupt energy giant Enron Corp.
If I read you correctly we shouldn't do it because someone might make some money out of it. Look methane is a prevelent substance just like hydrogen I suspect where you have hydrogen and oxygen you might have water so maybe it's possible where you have hydrogen and methane you might have oil but how does this help, business as usual isn't going to be the long run outcomeQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 AM. |