| More comments My simple spreadsheet calculations predict a 78% rise in atmospheric CO2 by 2050 CE. I did not allow for deforestation but just based this on industrial and auto emissions of 6.5 billion tons carbon per year and a 2.6% annual increase in energy usage therefore a 2.6% annual rise in emissions. Presently we are emitting 6.5 billion tons of carbon (17.6 billion tons of CO2) from factories, powerplants and vehicles and about 1.5 billion tons of carbon are accumulating in the air due to deforestation according to National Geographic. If we cut the use and growth of fossil fuel use in half with winds, nuclear, biofuels and conservation plus energy efficient technology ( heat pumps, hybrid cars, better building insulation, flourescents, LEDs, natural gas fired powerplants and cogeneration instead of coal, solar roofs, more efficient jet engines, cold water detergents, perhaps thicker lower resistance long distance power cables and superconductors, more mass transit, more efficient industrial processes, etc.) we won't have a 78% CO2 rise until 2100 CE. At this lower rate of carbon emissions perhaps Nature could keep up its carbon removal capacity by an increase in land vegetation and sea plankton populations. A slightly warmer planet will mean longer growing seasons in higher latitudes and perhaps denser boreal forests. It could also mean expansion of the deserts. Perhaps at a slower CO2 rise and warming rate we could keep up with and overcome desert expansion with irrigation systems to feed, clothe and house an impoverished and growing world population. At least by irrigating deserts, sinking carbon, even using CO2 from power plants to recharge old oil wells, and reducing carbon emissions we will have time to develop carbon free technologies and make the shift away from fossil fuels take place more gradually without throwing the economy into upheaval. Scientist say that Nature is absorbing about 4.8 billion tons of carbon a year with two billion going into the ocean. The other 3.2 billion tons of carbon is staying in the air. About 2.8 billion tons of carbon is going into land plants or so they think. The scientists are not sure. Where is the carbon going? Perhaps the seas absorb more than they think. What about all the trees we chop down for wood and paper and all the paper we bury in landfills? What about all the wood that goes into houses and furniture that doesn't return carbon to the air unless a house burns down? It seems to me that we must be sinking lots of carbon into landfills, houses and furniture right now! As we burn fossil fuels it will be better to bury all the paper waste and old wood rather than burn it until we start using more biofuels instead of fossil fuels when the oil, gas and coal supplies decrease and/or become too expensive. Better to bury all the old tires rather than burn them or recycle the rubber, perhaps by grinding up the tires and mixing with asphalt as part of world wide road systems (and aircraft carrier sized ferries across the Strts. of Gibralter and eventually the Berring Strts. instead of enormously expensive bridges or tunnels.) If we clear cut with bulldozers and replant (we are going to need lots of tree nurseries, that would be a nice business for plant lovers) we can sink more carbon since young fast growing forests absorb more carbon than old mature forests and also increase the timber supply, meet world demand, and/or reduce prices for timber and subsequently reduce prices for paper and paper products, homes and furniture. Poor people in the US and abroad need cheap homes and furniture. We must clear cut and replant. Add some hemp and the supply of paper and building materials and cloth (drapes, upholstery, clothing, etc. can't get those from trees) will be high and prices low, if we can sell it all. What do we trade with poorer nations for besides oil and coffee? Is there uranium or thorium in the waste lands of Afganistan? How do we employ Americans? Does creating the supply really create the demand by employing lots of people to create the supply? Could be. We can't make timber companies chop down single trees and haul them out with helicopters and affordably house the world's people! We don't need to chop down unusally old and huge trees either if we are cautious. A slighly warmer planet might mean more productive boreal forests. We could plant hemp to hold the soil after clear cutting until saplings are ready to go in. Will timber companies receive tax incentives to replant or just be forced to replant by law and pass the cost on to the consumer? Or will the U.S. Civilian Conservation Corp. do the replanting? Either way we pay in higher prices or higher taxes. If we don't pay in dollars now we will pay in environmental ruination and our own doom later. However, if we allow clear cutting even in National forests and Alaska, etc. the supply will go up and the price down so replanting won't add much to the cost and it will insure timber in the future and reduce the effects of global warming which will eventually be disastrous. A little global warming might be good. A lot will be bad for well known reasons. If we don't replant the timber industries will fail and what then? What about newspapers, books, furniture and housing industries? They'll fail too. Anyhow, I once heard on Walll Street Week when Rukeiser was still running the show that synthetic fuel from coal won't be competitive until gasoline prices reach $3-$4 a gallon. Well, those prices are here now. In St. Louis gas is $3 a gallon and I hear it's a lot higher on the coasts. The US has plenty of coal. Perhaps it is time to mine coal, use heat from nuclear reactors, and make synthetic fuel for our hybrid vehicles. This might mean a loss of income for OPEC nations, but so what? They can sell their oil to China, India and other rapidly developing nations. We can achieve energy independence, but we will still be paying $3 to $4 a gallon unless someone can figure out how to make that synfuel cheaper. We must wonder what a high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactor could do to generate super hot steam for the production of synthesis gas (H2 + CO) from coal which would then be converted to methane, methanol and octane. Eventually we can eliminate all carbon emissions for autos and trucks with liquid ammonia produced by nuclear NH3 production plants or as yet to be invented super batteries for electric cars, if such batteries are ever invented. The batteries would need to hold enough charge to propel a car about 300 miles between recharges and recharges would have to take just a few minutes. The nice thing about NH3 plus a convertor (also called a "cracker") that breaks NH3 down into nitrogen and hydrogen to power a fuel cell is that it will allow long range and take only a few minutes to gas up. Ammonia is not explosive like hydrogen or nearly impossible to handle in liquid form like LH2. Also, there are already ammonia supply stations throughout farm regions that farmers use for fertilizer, and ammonia is cheaper than LH2, methanol and gasoline. Apollo Energy Systems (http://www.electricauto.com) may be the future beyond hybrid cars, biofuel and synthetic fuel. Beyond 2050 we should have plenty of fusion power to make LNH3 from nitrogen in the air and hydrogen from water. Farmers may be the first people to set up windmills and biogas generators for farm electricty independence and run ammonia in their pick up trucks and cars to save money. If they can grow some hemp for cash and burn it as well, given that hemp can make four times as much alcohol as corn, the American farmer could be better off than ever soon. If a small windmill and some batteries can supply enough electricity, why methane generators? Outdoor and barn gas lights! Maybe to run gas air conditioners also. If anybody deserves tax credits to try this new technology it is the American farmer. Someday we will see sewage processing plants that resemble oil refineries outside of big cities that generate methane from sewage to run gas turbines and generators for electricity. If we scrub the sulfur out by bubbling the sewer gas through some kind of chemical we can regenerate (given that there are millions of organic chemicals there has to be at least one that fits the bill) we might see districts with old fashioned gas lights for aesthetic appeal. Tourists would like that. What's left over after anaerobic fermentation will either be dried and burned for energy or hydrothermally processed into nitrate, phosphate and potassium salts and used for sterile fertilizer instead of just dumped in the river. No longer will the Mississippi be too filthy to swim in south of the Alton locks and dam. The CO2 from methane burning and hydrothermal treatment will return to the crops we eat and atmospheric CO2 levels will not increase from this. Sewer gas to homes for cooking and heating will be psychologically unappealing, so it will be burned in gas turbines for electric power or used as vehicle fuel. It could be cleaned up, scrubbed, and used for heating but I don't want to cook with it. Maybe I'd have a high efficiency gas furnace, a heat pump, a wood/hemp stove and an electric range. Hydrothermal treatment does not require lots of energy. The waste matter actually burns underwater. |
 |