Global Warming and Evolution

[thaumaturgy]

Would economic pressures and subsequent investment of capital be adequate to replace fossil fuels as a primary energy source? That's what I want to know before we worry about carrying capacity. Otherwise we won't get to a point to challenge that capacity.

Sbvera,
I think the key is that the technology is probably out there somewhere, and maybe even the type of thing that TrueBlue is working on. The real problem is that it is a race. We are racing the depletion of the current energy sources and the potential damage these fossil fuels are known to be able to do to the environment.

As a research scientist I know that oftentimes the "ideal" solution is just one more experiment away...always. Even the ones that are most reasonable take significant development and work, sometimes they never come to fruition.

What True has mentioned here is also the fact that less desirable solutions become more desirable as costs increase. Which is a known aspect to any resource utilization curve. As the price of a resource goes up it becomes more economical to use more expensive means of gaining that resource.

In the case of energy we have the problem that if we wait too long we will have to adapt too quickly (make unworkable technologies work on a short time) or we run the risk of having destroyed our environment.

Any rational person would treat these issues as worthy of serious concern and not say that it is nothing to worry about. You'll note that clearly TrueBlue's company is in the business to address this need, so at least on an economic level they appreciate that these are important enough issues to address.

 

[sbvera13]

Sbvera,
What True has mentioned here is also the fact that less desirable solutions become more desirable as costs increase. Which is a known aspect to any resource utilization curve. As the price of a resource goes up it becomes more economical to use more expensive means of gaining that resource.

In the case of energy we have the problem that if we wait too long we will have to adapt too quickly (make unworkable technologies work on a short time) or we run the risk of having destroyed our environment.

Oil worries me twice, once because if it runs out we die, and once because if we keep using we die. Or most of us die anyway. New technologies like growing biodiesel from algae give me hope that we may not be totally doomed, but then policies like Bush's seem to show that we'll never change fast enough.

From what I understand though the damage of carbon emissions is done to a point we can't reverse it or even significantly mitigate it. The issue then become adapting to the changes. While not completely hopeless I think it's rather likely that the near future will involve a total economic upheaval (this is on the we can change things before we die side of the coin) and that's never a pleasant thing to go through. I hope I'm wrong of course, but the market better catch on soon. That's one reason I don't complain about gas prices going up on our side of the pond, stick people in their wallets and they might actually start acting.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

My company shares many things in common (corporate structure and business approach) with Amyris Biotechnologies. http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/news.html. We're complimentary with Amyris, not competitors, and either my company and its investors will buy Amyris, or Amyris and its investors will buy us.

I find current research in bioengineering to be fascinating although it will put substantial pressure on old school organic chemists like myself. But ultimately it is definitely the future and I hope to get more involved with it at some point.

 

[True_Blue]

Sbvera,
I think the key is that the technology is probably out there somewhere, and maybe even the type of thing that TrueBlue is working on. The real problem is that it is a race. We are racing the depletion of the current energy sources and the potential damage these fossil fuels are known to be able to do to the environment.

As a research scientist I know that oftentimes the "ideal" solution is just one more experiment away...always. Even the ones that are most reasonable take significant development and work, sometimes they never come to fruition.

What True has mentioned here is also the fact that less desirable solutions become more desirable as costs increase. Which is a known aspect to any resource utilization curve. As the price of a resource goes up it becomes more economical to use more expensive means of gaining that resource.

In the case of energy we have the problem that if we wait too long we will have to adapt too quickly (make unworkable technologies work on a short time) or we run the risk of having destroyed our environment.

Any rational person would treat these issues as worthy of serious concern and not say that it is nothing to worry about. You'll note that clearly TrueBlue's company is in the business to address this need, so at least on an economic level they appreciate that these are important enough issues to address.

It's also somewhat more complex than a simple cost utilization curve. For example, costs have to reach a certain threshold before investors take huge risks to develop new technology. The barrier is usually the high upfront capital costs and the high risk. But once the technology is widely commercialized, the recurring costs are often much lower. That's why real commodity prices, including food and energy, have actually been FALLING over the last 200 years even though human populations at one point rose exponentially.

The same is true for energy--even with high oil prices now, fuel prices are actually much cheaper than they used to be, when people had to spend many hours going out and collecting firewood to burn. That time spent was very costly (time = money), and now no one puts that large amount of time into energy production--we hyper-efficiently outsource energy collection to large energy companies. So the long term price of energy has been in decline as well. I expect that trend will continue forever, especially given the flattening of the population curve when the earth's population reaches 10 billion or so.

Thaumaturgy's concern is more centered on concerns over global warming than over prices. For my part, I am concerned neither about price nor about global warming.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It's also somewhat more complex than a simple cost utilization curve. For example, costs have to reach a certain threshold before investors take huge risks to develop new technology. The barrier is usually the high upfront capital costs and the high risk.

And of course if one downplays the risks to the current energy source (or resource), like its eventual depletion or dangers inherent in said resource utilization, then what possible reason would anyone invest in high upfront costs?

That's my point. This is serious stuff, serious threat, serious problems, and when people act like it isn't, then investment is curtailed at the point when it most needs to be encouraged.

It sounds to me like your company is leveraging the seriousness of these issues to come up with an answer. Why do you go to work in the morning if there's no issue around environmental impact?

But once the technology is widely commercialized, the recurring costs are often much lower.

That is true, however in technology development cycles, the technology has to become efficient enough and workable enough to actually use.

Sometimes no amount of "cost" will overcome an inherently massively inefficient system to make it "desirable". But, indeed, we will find a point where costs are so horrendous for our current systems that we will use much less efficient systems or systems that have a higher EROI than we are used to.

The same is true for energy--even with high oil prices now, fuel prices are actually much cheaper than they used to be,

And with that efficiency in fuel access and utilization comes a massive increase in global impact by the combustion of those fuels. And we are right back at the beginning of this debate.

. So the long term price of energy has been in decline as well. I expect that trend will continue forever,

And no economist has ever said that kind of thing before!

People have never thought that that this market is somehow different from others!

But don't let it concern you. Bubbles are for tech stocks, not homes.

...
All of this helps explain why people like Stephanie Riggs, 31, of Dallas are following the money. She just switched from working in ad sales to becoming a residential-loan officer. "This is the only section of the economy that's been doing well," she says. "It's gravy days right now in my industry." Yes, it is. And if you're looking for a pin and trouble, don't bother. There's no bubble.
(Monday, Aug. 26, 2002 By DANIEL KADLEC Time Magazine 2002, SOURCE)

And in the case of "energy" well, we know fossil fuels are finite in extent at least on the scale of time that we are utilizing them.

especially given the flattening of the population curve

I think you are missing a subtlety here, the population isn't "flattening out", the growth rate is flattening out or has shown a recent decrease. It is still growing.

The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 87 million per annum in the late 1980s, to a low of 75 million per annum in 2002, at which it stabilised and has started to slowly rise again to 77 million per annum in 2007.(SOURCE)

when the earth's population reaches 10 billion or so.

So do we wait until then to start thinking about these issues? Do you think there's going to be any consequences?

Thaumaturgy's concern is more centered on concerns over global warming than over prices.

Ahh, then you misread me. I have an appreciation of the costs. Remember, I have experience with energy resources having been trained as a coal geologist and who worked for Peabody Coal briefly in "reserve estimations", and I understand that there will be costs. The difference between you I is that I am equally cognizant of the possible negative outcomes of profligate overutilization of the resources as well as the need for serious consideration of these in order to spur future development.

I find that fascinating about you, TrueBlue. You run a company leveraging real environmental issues but you personally don't take them seriously? Did I get this right? So for you, you are just seeing a truck load of suckers who will give you money to exploit this issue which you don't think is serious?

For my part, I am concerned neither about price nor about global warming.

OK. I hope I'm wrong and I have assessed your motives incorrectly. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

Please help me understand. Why do you go into work on Monday mornings? Money -or- care in what you do?

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has been said before.

I watched a doc the other night (hosted by Click and Clack) and I was stunned to learn just how ineffecient internal combustion engines are. If memory serves, only 3-4% of the energy actually moves the car. An electric car (again, if memory serves) is around 85% effecient. It would seem to me that we should be moving swiftly towards more effecient electric cars as soon as we can, even if this requires more coal plants (which are around 20% effecient).

But above all, energy conservation is by far the easiest step. Most experts I have listened to claim that we (that is, Americans) could reduce our energy consumption by 25% without really noticing a difference in our day to day lives.

As for future techs, fusion seems to be the loftiest and best solution. If fusion power is not a viable option then we need to figure that out and look elsewhere, but right now it is by far the best option.

 

[True_Blue]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has been said before.

I watched a doc the other night (hosted by Click and Clack) and I was stunned to learn just how ineffecient internal combustion engines are. If memory serves, only 3-4% of the energy actually moves the car. An electric car (again, if memory serves) is around 85% effecient. It would seem to me that we should be moving swiftly towards more effecient electric cars as soon as we can, even if this requires more coal plants (which are around 20% effecient).
.

Converting raw energy into the form of electricity and storing it in the battery of an electric car entails a large loss of efficiency. If the electricity was generated from fossil fuel combustion, then battery-powered cars are much less efficient than combustion engines. If the electricity were generated from a hydroelectric dam, and the electricity made its way into a battery without being sent across inefficient transmission lines, then the electric cars are more efficient. The best way to consider the "average" efficiency of different types of fuel or power sources is to look at overall cost rather than engineering metrics. If the total ownership cost of an electric car is $100,000 and the total ownership cost of a gas-powered car is $90,000, the gas-powered car is probably going to be more energy-efficient (energy = time & effort = $).

 

[True_Blue]

I find that fascinating about you, TrueBlue. You run a company leveraging real environmental issues but you personally don't take them seriously? Did I get this right? So for you, you are just seeing a truck load of suckers who will give you money to exploit this issue which you don't think is serious?

OK. I hope I'm wrong and I have assessed your motives incorrectly. I don't want to mischaracterize you.

Please help me understand. Why do you go into work on Monday mornings? Money -or- care in what you do?

No, you ask a great question. At first glance, I'm primarily interested in making lots of money. Money is a claim against other people's time and effort, and the more money a person makes, the more value the rest of society gets out of that person's efforts. I hope to serve the community to a greater extent by bringing the cost of energy and food down than by sorting through mundane legal documents and prosecuting petting crimes. Likewise, I can serve the community more by providing legal services than by serving drinks at a restaurant.

You're right--my company's value increases as global warming becomes more of an issue for society. The current $/tonne of CO2 is $40.95, and global warming-related regulation drives that price. Clearly European society places a high value on carbon-negative companies. Likewise, society places a high value on Tiger Woods' ability to hit tiny white balls. I don't understand either of those value priorities. Since I think that the global warming paradigm is false, and don't think that government subsidies of carbon-neutral companies will last forever, I am assuming $0 per tonne of CO2, and plan on making money by selling portable energy molecules instead. Companies that accept government grants and subsidies, as well as individuals that accept welfare checks, are ultimately doing themselves a great disservice. This is a subtle point, but the executives in my company understand this, and that's why we will succeed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, you ask a great question. At first glance, I'm primarily interested in making lots of money.

Thanks for answering this.

Money is a claim against other people's time and effort, and the more money a person makes, the more value the rest of society gets out of that person's efforts.

That's why CEO's like Lee Raymond who retired from Exxon with a $400 million nest egg despite not being responsible for increasing oil prices which boosted Exxon's bottom line. Or maybe Robert Nardelli who waddled away from Home Depot with a $210 million golden parachute after overseeing a tenure of declining customer service, lackluster investment returns and a slight downturn in the stock value (while competitor's Lowes tripled.)

So I can see where $$ = value to everyone else.

Since I think that the global warming paradigm is false,

It's not a "paradigm", it's a well-established model. There's a difference. Paradigm is usually used by post modernists who don't understand science and want to denigrate scientific studies they don't understand. A model is a robust analysis of data and trends, often with the ability to extrapolate forwards to make useful predictions.

and don't think that government subsidies of carbon-neutral companies will last forever, I am assuming $0 per tonne of CO2, and plan on making money by selling portable energy molecules instead.

Good for you! Honestly. I hope your company succeeds.

Companies that accept government grants and subsidies, as well as individuals that accept welfare checks, are ultimately doing themselves a great disservice.

So you receive no government funding whatsoever? No NSF? None of the research you utilize comes from government-funded science? None of the literature your scientists read comes from organizations that were either government funded or were part of the government? Must be hard to do.

This is a subtle point, but the executives in my company understand this, and that's why we will succeed.

And again, success is measured in terms of "lots of money", right? Would you be happy if your company made lots of money but never quite got a working commercial scale unit out the door?

Oh well, can't really complain, at least your doing good work even if it is for the other "master".

 

[Loudmouth]

Converting raw energy into the form of electricity and storing it in the battery of an electric car entails a large loss of efficiency. If the electricity was generated from fossil fuel combustion, then battery-powered cars are much less efficient than combustion engines.

How ineffecient are batteries? 10%? 30? The math might not work, but it is much easier to clean out the emissions from a large coal smoke stack than it is to capture emissions from a million cars at once. Just a thought.

I was under the impression that coal and natural gas power plants were around 20% effecient. Is this number wrong?

The best way to consider the "average" efficiency of different types of fuel or power sources is to look at overall cost rather than engineering metrics. If the total ownership cost of an electric car is $100,000 and the total ownership cost of a gas-powered car is $90,000, the gas-powered car is probably going to be more energy-efficient (energy = time & effort = $).

I am more concerned about running out of oil. We will not run out of human power any time soon, hopefully. The US coal reserves are in much, much better shape than our oil reserves or world wide oil reserves. Even if it is a wash to switch from oil to coal/electric cars it is something we should probably do, IMHO. This would allow for a much easier transition from coal fired plants to alternative sources of energy because the infrastructure is already in place. Hydrogen cars would be cool but this would require a brand new infrastructure.

 

[True_Blue]

So you receive no government funding whatsoever? No NSF? None of the research you utilize comes from government-funded science? None of the literature your scientists read comes from organizations that were either government funded or were part of the government? Must be hard to do.

And again, success is measured in terms of "lots of money", right? Would you be happy if your company made lots of money but never quite got a working commercial scale unit out the door?

Oh well, can't really complain, at least your doing good work even if it is for the other "master".

No, none of our funding comes from a governmental source, even though we qualify for the grants of perhaps 8-12 government departments, including NSF. Just by happenstance, none of our concepts come from a government-funded source (it wouldn't be patentable otherwise). Companies that live from hand-to-mouth trying to compete for the next government grant to stay afloat are not out there trying to develop really sweat technology and getting huge licensing deals to commercialize said technology. This is a subtle concept.

None of the founders would not be happy with anything that does not achieve full commercial scale. We all have successful careers outside the business, and the easy money that would flow from cashing out after a single round of investment doesn't interest us in the slightest. The only money that would interest us is the money that comes from actual commercial success.

When it comes to money, just as with energy production, it is important that people be conduits of money rather than stockpilers of money. If God gives you $1000 and you stick it in the ground, why would he give you $10,000. But if he gives you $100,000, and you invest it in the Kingdom of God, and perhaps also grow the money through effective commercial investments, he's going to have no objection to giving you $100 million if he has confidence that you'll treat his large amount of money the same way.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Just by happenstance, none of our concepts come from a government-funded source, save sources that are extremely attenuated.

Could we see a list of these "concepts"?

 

[True_Blue]

How ineffecient are batteries? 10%? 30? The math might not work, but it is much easier to clean out the emissions from a large coal smoke stack than it is to capture emissions from a million cars at once. Just a thought.

I was under the impression that coal and natural gas power plants were around 20% effecient. Is this number wrong?

I am more concerned about running out of oil. We will not run out of human power any time soon, hopefully. The US coal reserves are in much, much better shape than our oil reserves or world wide oil reserves. Even if it is a wash to switch from oil to coal/electric cars it is something we should probably do, IMHO. This would allow for a much easier transition from coal fired plants to alternative sources of energy because the infrastructure is already in place. Hydrogen cars would be cool but this would require a brand new infrastructure.

I support capturing CO2 emissions because of the economic value of the CO2 itself, not because I think CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment. I am actually convinced CO2 emissions are helpful because CO2 is plant food.

Efficiency can be measured in different ways. The numbers I'm used to seeing are 20% for the most efficient single-celled photosynthetic organism, and 1-5% for combustion engines. I may be wrong.

There are some processes under development to convert coal into oil. Maybe they will work, but the steps needed to convert are thermodynamically uphill and therefore costly. If anyone asks you to invest in hydrogen-powered vehicles, I would decline for the following reason.

"Diesel fuel has an energy density of 1,058 kBtu/cu.ft. Biodiesel has an energy density of 950 kBtu/cu.ft, and hydrogen stored at 3,626 psi (250 times atmospheric pressure) only has an energy density of 68 kBtu/cu.ft. So, highly pressurized to 250 atmospheres, hydrogen's volumetric energy density is only 7.2% of that of biodiesel. The result being that with similar efficiencies of converting that stored chemical energy into motion (as diesel engines and fuel cells have), a hydrogen vehicle would need a fuel tank roughly 14 times as large to yield the same driving range as a biodiesel powered vehicle."

 

[True_Blue]

Could we see a list of these "concepts"?

The concepts are proprietary.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I am actually convinced CO2 emissions are helpful because CO2 is plant food.

Like many things, CO2 is necesary for survival at certain levels. Too much of it, however, is harmful. Plants will, infact, die in an over rich CO2 atmosphereSimilar to NaCl for humans. Without any, we die. With two much, we die. So just assuming that "some is good, so more must be better" doesn't always work.

The concepts are proprietary.

So... you have a bunch of scientific theories, but you won't tell us what it is or what it relates to? Thats useful.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Like many things, CO2 is necesary for survival at certain levels. Too much of it, however, is harmful. Plants will, infact, die in an over rich CO2 atmosphereSimilar to NaCl for humans. Without any, we die. With two much, we die. So just assuming that "some is good, so more must be better" doesn't always work.

Yep and besides plant growth is more reliant on the nitrogen (in the form of nitrates) in the soil than CO2 conc. Not enough nitrogen being fixed in the soil and CO2 conc is irrelevant.

EDIT - as your link suggests... that will teach me to read all posts before posting.

 

[Loudmouth]

I support capturing CO2 emissions because of the economic value of the CO2 itself, not because I think CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment. I am actually convinced CO2 emissions are helpful because CO2 is plant food.

Plants also thrive on sunlight, but I really doubt that anyone could grow plants on Mercury.

Efficiency can be measured in different ways. The numbers I'm used to seeing are 20% for the most efficient single-celled photosynthetic organism, and 1-5% for combustion engines. I may be wrong.

Ecologically, the dogma is that 10% of the available energy is converted to usable energy at each level. This means that 1% of the energy makes into herbivores, and 0.1% makes it into predators of those herbivores. This is why eating lower on the food chain makes sense as far as conservation goes. Dont' get me wrong, I am a die hard meat eater, but we should at least understand the tab we are running up.

So the drawback for biologically driven energy sources is that 10% of the 10% is made into fuel. If we are able to produce cellulosic alcohol it would be great, but the research has been tough going so far. Unfortunately, some critics compare cellulosic alcohol to cold fusion. I think that comparison is very unfair, but the proponents of cellulosic alcohol are just as guilty of hyping the state of modern research.

If anyone asks you to invest in hydrogen-powered vehicles, I would decline for the following reason.

"Diesel fuel has an energy density of 1,058 kBtu/cu.ft. Biodiesel has an energy density of 950 kBtu/cu.ft, and hydrogen stored at 3,626 psi (250 times atmospheric pressure) only has an energy density of 68 kBtu/cu.ft. So, highly pressurized to 250 atmospheres, hydrogen's volumetric energy density is only 7.2% of that of biodiesel. The result being that with similar efficiencies of converting that stored chemical energy into motion (as diesel engines and fuel cells have), a hydrogen vehicle would need a fuel tank roughly 14 times as large to yield the same driving range as a biodiesel powered vehicle."

"The Sequel's biggest single advance, Burns said, is a compressed-hydrogen storage tank that can hold enough fuel to give the car a range of 300 miles. That is twice as far as the range of older versions of fuel-cell cars, and is considered the threshold distance to be marketable. With liquid hydrogen, the range could extend to 450 miles, Burns said. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59890-2005Jan8?language=printer

300 miles ain't bad. It's definitely enough for a car to get to and from work. I don't see range as a problem for passenger cars. The problem I see is infrastructure. How do we move all of this hydrogen around to the consumer? Perhaps modern oil pipelines would work, but we still have to refit all of the filling stations. This is why I like electricity. The infrastructure is already there, and the research into building new plants and power lines is already done for future projects if more electricity is needed. I am definitely not an expert in this field, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[SimpleDon]

Of course the biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is not an energy source. It is more like a battery, an energy storage means. The energy has to come from somewhere else. Most hydrogen used now is 'cracked' from natural gas (releasing carbon). However, it takes more energy to produce it than you get back when you consume it. Better to use the natural gas directly.

Also you cannot put hydrogen into existing natural gas pipelines. It makes the steel brittle and causes cracks. You have to use stainless steel. There probably is not enough chromium in the world to make the stainless steel needed for converting pipelines to hydrogen delivery through the US.

Hydrogen as a motive fuel was selected by George W. Bush as the most promising technology available. Considering his track record this alone should convince you it has no future.

If that doesn't convince you, realize that the two groups pushing hydrogen are the solar power people (avoids that night darkness problem) and the nuclear power lobby (there is a type of nuclear reactor that cools itself by cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen). Anything these two agree on has to be suspect.

 

[Joykins]

This has what to do with evolution again?

The change in environment will cause evolutionary changes in which Fire Ants will be our new insect overlords?

Maybe?