The problem with methane is that it does not neatly confine itself to our containers. Once those sandstone layers are fractured methane starts leaking. From wells to power plants is a long, very leaky journey.

How much benefit are we getting from methane burning if only half of it makes it to the boiler, and the other half goes into the atmosphere? Don't dismiss this possibility out of hand. Every new study, by anyone but the producers, reveals that much more is leaking than was previously thought.

[QUOTE=kladner;467162]The problem with methane is that it does not neatly confine itself to our containers. Once those sandstone layers are fractured methane starts leaking. From wells to power plants is a long, very leaky journey.

How much benefit are we getting from methane burning if only half of it makes it to the boiler, and the other half goes into the atmosphere? Don't dismiss this possibility out of hand. Every new study, by anyone but the producers, reveals that much more is leaking than was previously thought.[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

I'd add that if it were true that plankton in the ocean were actually taking up man-made carbon dioxide, we wouldn't see the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 that just happens to start with industrialization.

I was curious how much CO2 volcanoes contribute, especially as compared to people, and I found this article: [URL="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/"]https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/[/URL]

The TL;DR:
[QUOTE=Forbes]When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2 per year – and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year – compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750.

In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.[/QUOTE]

So it looks like humans produce far more CO2 (at least in recent times) than volcanic activity is responsible for.

[QUOTE=wombatman;467167]:goodposting:

I'd add that if it were true that plankton in the ocean were actually taking up man-made carbon dioxide, we wouldn't see the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 that just happens to start with industrialization.

I was curious how much CO2 volcanoes contribute, especially as compared to people, and I found this article: [URL="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/"]https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/[/URL]

The TL;DR:


So it looks like humans produce far more CO2 (at least in recent times) than volcanic activity is responsible for.[/QUOTE]Aww, geez, there you go inserting facts into the discussion. :wink:

Nuclear! Nuclear! Newclear! Newclair!

I'm no expert, but I'm of the opinion that nuclear in some variety will replace coal plants as the "backbone" electrical source with a smattering of wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and other renewables as dictated by region optimization.

[QUOTE=wombatman;467178]I'm no expert, but I'm of the opinion that nuclear in some variety will replace coal plants as the "backbone" electrical source with a smattering of wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and other renewables as dictated by region optimization.[/QUOTE]

I will agree with you that coal is effectually dead. But even the traditional nuclear solutions are falling out of favour. Please see for example [URL="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/news/a28025/duke-energy-abandons-nuclear-plant-for-solar-farm/"]this recent article[/URL].

The issue in my mind is that uranium based power generation is incredibly dangerous; so many things can go wrong ***really*** quickly. And we still don't have a place to safely store the waste. In most economic analyses the cost of REALLY long term storage isn't factored in, nor the cost of safely decommissioning plants which have had a major accident (there have been three so far; Fukushima is now estimated to cost ~$188 billion USD).

The thorium cycle makes a lot of sense in many ways. It is worth noting that China is currently on the forefront of research in this space.

[QUOTE=chalsall;467185]I will agree with you that coal is effectually dead. But even the traditional nuclear solutions are falling out of favour. Please see for example [URL="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/news/a28025/duke-energy-abandons-nuclear-plant-for-solar-farm/"]this recent article[/URL].

The issue in my mind is that uranium based power generation is incredibly dangerous; so many things can go wrong ***really*** quickly. And we still don't have a place to safely store the waste. In most economic analyses the cost of REALLY long term storage isn't factored in, nor the cost of safely decommissioning plants which have had a major accident (there have been three so far; Fukushima is now estimated to cost ~$188 billion USD).

The thorium cycle makes a lot of sense in many ways. It is worth noting that China is currently on the forefront of research in this space.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I'd be stunned if uranium-based wins out (at least longer term). I'm honestly excited to see what technologies are developed over the next few decades.

[QUOTE=LaurV;467152]Fill in a gasoline tank and you go 600 kilometers. A lot of autonomy. If you ask me to refuel my tank every 50 km, you lost me, I would not buy your car.[/QUOTE]

I have a lot of respect for you. But I fundamentally disagree with you on this point.

Modern electric cars have distance capacity in the 300 to 400 km range. Very *very* few people travel that far in a week.

Also, in a few years most people won't even bother to own cars; they will simply rent a vehicle or hire a ride (often without having to pay a human to drive). Similar to today where many organizations (and some indivuals) are moving to the "compute cloud" -- let someone else deal with the "kit", and rent when and only when you need it.

[QUOTE=chalsall;467195]Also, in a few years most people won't even bother to own cars; they will simply rent a vehicle or hire a ride (often without having to pay a human to drive). Similar to today where many organizations (and some indivuals) are moving to the "compute cloud" -- let someone else deal with the "kit", and rent when and only when you need it.[/QUOTE]Society as a Service.

But why bother with all the roads and cars and stuff when we can use the fibre cables to give us Reality as a Service. Reminds me of the movie "Surrogates", Experiences as a Service.

Life as a Service, if you forget to pay your bill you lose the service.

[QUOTE=retina;467200]But why bother with all the roads and cars and stuff when we can use the fibre cables to give us Reality as a Service.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes we still need to move atoms to do work, rather than simply moving bits to entertain.

I understand that your post was mostly a joke, but it still surprises me how few people consider walking, or riding a bike, to buy their groceries or to go and from their work.

And then I watch all the ads on the US of A channels offering a two-top pizza for something like 8 bucks (delivered), and an "all you can eat buffet" for something like 10 bucks.

And then we wonder why 1/3 of American adults, and 1/4 of American children, are obese -- not just overweight, but obese!

[QUOTE=chalsall;467205]... but it still surprises me how few people consider walking, or riding a bike, to buy their groceries or to go and from their work.[/QUOTE]It doesn't surprise me anymore. I've heard all the excuses imaginable. It's too hot. It's too cold. It might rain. It'd too dark. There might be an unexpected eclipse. I might get a puncture. I don't have time. I might get sunburn. Someone might rob me. Someone might steal my bike. The groceries are too heavy to carry. The extra travel time will melt all the cold things. I'll arrive all sweaty. etc. etc. etc. People looking for a way out will find one. Even the weakest of weak excuses is enough if they are determined enough.

I have often made the slightly less than a mile to my job on foot, and arrived at about the same time as the bus I would have waited for.

Then, too, I just now came up with a very conservative estimate of how much I walk at work. Assume that I walk 3 MPH, and that I spend 2 hours of my 7 hour shift walking, so I walk at least 6 miles. However, I walk faster than that, and I am probably walking for 4 or 5 of those hours.

One caveat about hot days and waiting for the bus. I am always sweaty at work. It is discouraging to arrive heated up and already soaked. :max: