Funny how nobody talks about car carbon capture./blockquote> From the article:
If you’re using fossil carbon to drive a car or fly a plane, you just have to pay someone else to bury CO2 for youWhat he’s suggesting here, then, is some sort of “carbon sequestration” credits trading scheme. He’s leaving the details unspecified, which is wise because it’s in the details that the political horse-trading will take place. Of course, it’s also in the details where you find the risk of corruption or incompetence producing an unworkable scheme.
Here’s how I read his proposal: start with a requirement that for every 100 tons of fossil carbon burned, at least one ton must be captured and sequestered. Each time there’ve been another 10 billion tons burned, the fraction goes up by 1%. He doesn’t really specify how the carbon is captured, so there’s a choice of “stack” emissions or air/sea capture. Capture would presumably include agricultural options.
This means operators can buy agricultural waste and sequester it somewhere away from oxygen, getting credits that can be sold to gasoline retailers or factories. A large power plant operator can build one coal (or gas or whatever) plant that captures stack emissions, and use it to offset 99 that don’t. The number will drop to 49 after “we” have burned another 10 billion tons, then 32 1/3, and to on.
These options are implicit in what he said. I would suggest modifying it as follows: first, make the rise exponential rather than linear. Start with 1/10% and double it with every 1 billion tons burned. Second allow operators to burn an equal percentage of fuel made from carbon captured from the air/sea rather than sequestering (or paying for the sequestering of) that amount. Third, allow operators to burn double the percentage of fuel made from carbon captured from stack emissions.
Either way, we’re not talking about a substantial increase in the price of energy. To start with, it’s a minimal cost. Given the expectation that the required percentage will rise, this will incent capitalization of R&D as well as construction of various technologies for carbon capture and/or sequestration.
Personally, I’d focus on capture and leave the sequestration for later, when capture is cheaper. Develop the technology and the markets for captured carbon, and once it’s paying for itself ramp up the sequestration process. But politically, you’ll get enough howls from people who think we need to “punish” energy users by making it artificially expensive. Sequestering will quiet them (a little).
Overall, I think he makes an excellent proposal, specifying what needs to be specified and leaving open what needs to be left open.
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by captdallas 0.8 or less
JimD, Just to provide a different look that your myopic approach,
That is an approximation of Global Absolute Temperature with the contribution by hemisphere and surface, land/ocean. As you are aware, land temperatures are the average of Tmax and Tmin while the SST is just the approximate SST. Subtle difference there which with a small variation can lead to large leaps in conclusions.
Since you and Webster are married to views that suit your agenda, this is probably a waste of time, but teasing out the attribution with “REASONABLE” uncertainty is a bit of a challenge. Your 0.2 C appears to be land related while the 0.6 appears to be longer term SST/OHC changes.
Now I know you have a perfectly good theory and a lot of time invested explaining why things are not quite going according to plan, but occasionally, it doesn’t hurt to take a little different look at the data.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by AK
Sorry. Lets try that again:
Funny how nobody talks about car carbon capture.
From the article:
If you’re using fossil carbon to drive a car or fly a plane, you just have to pay someone else to bury CO2 for you
What he’s suggesting here, then, is some sort of “carbon sequestration” credits trading scheme. He’s leaving the details unspecified, which is wise because it’s in the details that the political horse-trading will take place. Of course, it’s also in the details where you find the risk of corruption or incompetence producing an unworkable scheme.
Here’s how I read his proposal: start with a requirement that for every 100 tons of fossil carbon burned, at least ono ton must be captured and sequestered. Each time there’ve been another 10 billion tons burned, the fraction goes up by 1%. He doesn’t really specify how the carbon is captured, so there’s a choice of “stack” emissions or air/sea capture.
This means operators can buy agricultural waste and sequester it somewhere away from oxygen, getting credits that can be sold to gasoline retailers or factories. A large power plant operator can build one coal (or gas or whatever) plant that captures stack emissions, and use it to offset 99 that don’t. The number will drop to 49 after “we” have burned another 10 billion tons, then 32 1/3, and to on.
These options are implicit in what he said. I would suggest modifying it as follows: first, make the rise exponential rather than linear. Start with 1/10% and double it with every 1 billion tons burned. Second allow operators to burn an equal percentage of fuel made from carbon captured from the air/sea rather than sequestering (or paying for the sequestering of) that amount. Third, allow operators to burn double the percentage of fuel made from carbon captured from stack emissions.
Either way, we’re not talking about a substantial increase in the price of energy. To start with, it’s a minimal cost. Given the expectation that the required percentage will rise, this will incent capitalization of R&D as well as construction of various technologies for carbon capture and/or sequestration.
Personally, I’d focus on capture and leave the sequestration for later, when capture is cheaper. Develop the technology and the markets for captured carbon, and once it’s paying for itself ramp up the sequestration process. But politically, you’ll get enough howls from people who think we need to “punish” energy users by making it artificially expensive. Sequestering will quiet them (a little).
Overall, I think he makes an excellent proposal, specifying what needs to be specified and leaving open what needs to be left open.
↧
Comment on How to humble a wing nut by oneuniverse
willard, you’re confusing me with Maurizio (“omnologos”). We’re different people.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by Edim
The whole theory is wrong. There’s nothing to stop CO2 from ‘flowing’ into the oceans when the atmospheric concentration increases. The annual change follows very closely the global temperature index levels.
↧
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by David Springer
The far larger bait and switch is from alarmism based upon land surface temperature to ocean heat content below 700 meters. That’s a pretty frickin’ big move for the goalposts. It’s not even the same game anymore. At least surface temperature was where we live and breathe and grow crops so that made some sense to worry about. We’re now supposed to ignore the 15-years and counting lack of global warming in the lower troposphere and get our panties in a wad about thousandth’s of a degree C per decade change in ocean temperature below 700 meters and this sequestered global warming of the deep ocean is somehow going to jump out into the atmosphere at some as undetermined time in the future.
Global warming alarmists have become like unto the Keystone Cops only less well organized. You people are ridiculous and it’s a pure joy for people like me to watch you make greater and greater fools of yourselves as your misbegotten physical models of the earth continue to fall further and further out of sync with reality.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by Edim
I mean when CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by oneuniverse
willard, sorry to interject, just <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/21/how-to-humble-a-wing-nut/#comment-326463" rel="nofollow">FYI.</a>
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by David Springer
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 26, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Reply
“I had to figure out what this 11C point is about.”
I thought I smelled bacon frying. It was neurons in your cerebral cortex being called out of retirement and burning off the fat that had accumulated around them since the last time they were used.
Did it hurt?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell
Myrrh, you write “And meanwhile”
I am not concerned with in the meanwhile. I am a Canadian, and I dont feel I should comment on what the US does with the food it produces; any more than a non-Canadian should comment on our various agricultural marketing boards. For all the reason you have mentioned, I agree that food ethanol ought not to have a future.
But by the same token, I believe cellulose ethanol ought to have a future. To date, all attempts to produce cellulose ethanol commercially have been unsuccessul. If cellulose ehtanol becomes financially viable to produce commercially as early as 2014, then it will be because the US embarked on a food ethanol program. I think this is relevant to any discussion of food ethanol.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by David Springer
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
“I always wonder why Manacker has to lie in every sentence he writes. Personally I only want to understand the physics and systems aspects so that I can make reasoned decisions.”
Well I wonder why Dr. Paul Pukite has to lie about his name on this blog and pretend it’s WebHubTelescope. Actually I don’t wonder. I’d want to be anonymous if I were penning the crap that you do too.
What I’m really wondering about is what “decisions” you think you have to make about global warming. Are you deciding what your policy will be when you run for president of Minnesota? What decisions could a non-descript principal engineer at BAE, one of ten thousand such employees at BAE, possibly have to make about global warming that has any measureable import whatsoever?
I seem to recall you blogging here recently from a skiing trip to Switzerland. Perhaps you’re deciding on whether you should be burning more fossil fuel flying halfway around the world and back than some “skeptics” like me use in a decade? Those types of decisions possibly? Please elaborate.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by David Springer
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
“Because of that, I work out the physics and science and I can tell you based on the observational evidence that what Jim D states is correct. The average land temperature will increase at a 50% higher rate than the average global temperature, and about double the SST value”
Pardon me for asking, Dr. Paul Pukite, but don’t people with credentials like yours usually attach their name to their calculations? Why do you refuse to be held accountable for your work if it’s as good as you say it is? Non sequitur is your middle name, Dr. Pukite.
↧
Comment on How to humble a wing nut by willard (@nevaudit)
oneuniverse,
I’m sorry to have confused you with Omnologos. A bit relieved too.
Please replace the tweet with this:
> Maybe there’s a loaded definition of ‘writing team’ used by the IPCC that I’m not aware of – quite possible.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/20/was-phil-jones-an-ipcc-virgin/#comment-252843
This example should provide an illustration of what you mean by “science”.
Thank you for the correction,
w
↧
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by Jack Mclaughlin
David, You haven`t been paying attention. In the USA there are now 10 new coal fired power plants under construction and another 43 in some stage of early development. All will meet EPA specifications. In 2010 there were more coal fired power plants built since 1985. Also after the 2014 mid term elections EPA will lose a lot of their clout. Some old ones will close down which is good because the new ones will be more efficient.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Whether you are intelligent or not does not matter. All you do is link to stuff with absolutely no context and which is absolutely incomprehensible. You may be smart agenda-wise because this is your plan to waste everyone’s time by contributing to the ongoing FUD.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by David Wojick
Jack, in the last decade or so we have added over 200,000 MW of gas fired capacity and almost no coal. This is why coal’s market share is dropping. Ten new plants does not change this massive transition but I am very curious how these new coal plants are meeting the EPA CO2 spec? Can you point to one? I will look into it.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon
The nihilism of the Left’s liberal fascists always has a different ending. We’re progressing along at the stage of bigger and bigger government. History tells us, of course, that the best government is the least: smaller government is more accountable and less wasteful. Bigger government is more corrupt and dictatorial. Lenin’s communism that inspired Stalin, Mao, Castro and Eurocommunism always ends in mass killings.
↧
↧
Comment on Calling out climate change deniers in Congress by willard (@nevaudit)'
Yes, but Denier.
barackobama.com should have used Dittoheads.
Nobody rips off one’s shirt when ‘dittoheads’ get said.
Or Dissenters. Or Contrarians.
Besides, these politicians should be more lukewarm when expressing concerns. Some of them already do that quite well.
Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing.
↧
Comment on Calling out climate change deniers in Congress by willard (@nevaudit)'
Big Dave rips off his shirt.
↧
Comment on Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Cappy shows some nonsense relating to standard deviations.
Again, let me explain to you Cappy Denier. We have historical observations of a ECS of about 3 C and a TCR of about 2 C for doubling of CO2. The ECS shows up as a Land-based warming because there is no place for the heat to sink except as a rise in surface temperature. The TCR shows up in the global temperature because this includes a significant heat sink in the ocean.
Recall that the ocean takes up about 70% of the area of the Earth’s surface while the land takes up about 30% of the area. Taking a sample of the ocean and land surface temperatures, we get a 70/30 proportional mix of the ocean and land temperatures. See how well that fits the HadCru data sets:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tzdkvqisOYY/UYReRRDKKrI/AAAAAAAADec/17ypjYtqcpE/s1600/hadcrut.GIF
As the OHC data tells us that the ocean is retaining about half the excess heat, the ocean temperature should be about half the land temperatures (which has no heat sink to speak of). That also works to explain the data
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/proportional-landsea-global-warming.html
This agrees with what Bart R said but through a different route.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
