Climate Change Thread

[Satchmo]

Just now, StrayDog said:

That sounds like a pretty cool process! And while I get your analogy about the barn door, it's at least better than standing around wondering if you want to go after your cows....

I can only agree.  And I know my imaginary barn door has been open for a long, long time.

[StrayDog]

7 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I can only agree.  And I know my imaginary barn door has been open for a long, long time.

And so we just keep chasing cows for now.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

51 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

A new method of carbon capture has been on my radar since I saw a 60 Minutes episode on a facility built in Iceland.  Now, there is another plant built in California by Heirloom Carbon Technologies, with others to come in Texas and Louisiana.  There is a huge amount of money being put into this idea.

 

As a chemistry nerd I think the whole thing is pretty cool:

 

Heirloom’s technology hinges on a simple bit of chemistry: Limestone, one of the most abundant rocks on the planet, forms when calcium oxide binds with carbon dioxide. In nature, that process takes years. Heirloom speeds it up.

 

At the California plant, workers heat limestone to 1,650 degrees Fahrenheit in a kiln powered by renewable electricity. Carbon dioxide is released from the limestone and pumped into a storage tank.

 

The leftover calcium oxide, which looks like flour, is then doused with water and spread onto large trays, which are carried by robots onto tower-high racks and exposed to open air. Over three days, the white powder absorbs carbon dioxide and turns into limestone again. Then it’s back to the kiln and the cycle repeats.

 

Heirloom will take the carbon dioxide it pulls from the air and have the gas sealed permanently in concrete, where it can’t heat the planet. 

 

For now, it's very expensive but costs should come down, as they have done with solar energy.   It also takes a lot of energy to do the work so there is the question of how clean that energy is.   

 

It's also a bit like like spending a lot of time/effort/money on recapturing your livestock and not putting enough of any of those things into fixing the barn door.

 

The quoted lines above are from the NYT and here's a link to their paywalled article: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/climate/direct-air-capture-carbon.html

 

I found a few more articles with no paywall:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkart/2022/10/25/heirloom-startup-helps-minerals-absorb-co2-in-days-instead-of-years/?sh=3b90c99c4369

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/05/microsoft-backed-start-up-heirloom-uses-limestone-to-capture-co2.html

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/26/1025402/heirloom-stripe-breakthrough-energy-lowercarbon-carbon-removal/

 

 

17 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

That sounds like a pretty cool process! And while I get your analogy about the barn door, it's at least better than standing around wondering if you want to go after your cows....

 

As an engineering graduate, I have to ask: what are they going to do with all that baked-out CO2?  I mean, it's great that they're baking it off the limestone and putting into storage tanks... and then what?

 

There's only so much demand for dry ice/liquid CO2, and there's only so much volume in a container before they run out of containers.

[Satchmo]

25 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

 

As an engineering graduate, I have to ask: what are they going to do with all that baked-out CO2?  I mean, it's great that they're baking it off the limestone and putting into storage tanks... and then what?

 

There's only so much demand for dry ice/liquid CO2, and there's only so much volume in a container before they run out of containers.

They are embedding it in concrete.  It will be a hidden component of future buildings.

 

I have no idea if it can be expected to stay there 'forever' but I do wonder about it.   If it stays there long enough for us to produce hydrogen powered transportation and industry we might be ok.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

4 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

They are embedding it in concrete.  It will be a hidden component of future buildings.

 

I have no idea if it can be expected to stay there 'forever' but I do wonder about it.   If it stays there long enough for us to produce hydrogen powered transportation and industry we might be ok.

 

If they're going to use this process at a scale large enough to be meaningful, I worry that the production of CO2 would still far exceed its potential for usage in concrete production (ie. in the curing process).  But I guess there's time still before something like this would be used on a large scale, since it's still in a proof of concept phase (at least that's what it sounds like).

[Satchmo]

I sense you just don't have enough trust in people to accept that they know what they are doing.  

 

I agree that there are many questions to be asked about this approach.   I hope the right answers come.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 hour ago, Satchmo said:

I sense you just don't have enough trust in people to accept that they know what they are doing.  

 

I agree that there are many questions to be asked about this approach.   I hope the right answers come.

 

I think I've been around long enough to experience (and know) that unintended consequences isn't just a figure of speech.  

[Satchmo]

Saudi Arabia seems to be coming to the conclusion that fossil fuels just may be problematic...

 

In a Report Card on Global Warming, Nations Get a Very Poor Grade

 

Countries are taking “baby steps,” a U.N. official said. In a separate study, Saudi researchers warned of an “existential crisis” for their nation from rising temperatures.

 

Despite the clear human and environmental toll of global warming, countries are taking only “baby steps” to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, a senior United Nations official said, summarizing a new U.N. report card on the promises made by governments so far.

 

The U.N. findings, published Tuesday, are the latest of several assessments that paint a dire picture in which the countries aren’t doing nearly enough to keep global warming within relatively safe levels. “Today’s report shows that governments combined are taking baby steps to avert the climate crisis,” said Simon Stiell, the executive secretary of the U.N. climate change agency. “And it shows why governments must make bold strides forward.”

 

Notably, a separate study from researchers in Saudi Arabia found that the country could face an “existential crisis” — threatening food and water supplies, along with the health of religious pilgrims during the Hajj — if global average temperatures rise by 3 degrees Celsius, or 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with preindustrial times. That’s roughly the level of warming that is projected if every country meets its climate goals.

 

Saudi Arabia is of course one of the world’s biggest oil producers, and it is the burning of oil and other fossil fuels that’s warming the planet by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/climate/united-nations-ndc-report-card.html

[The Arrogant Worms]

It’s the first El Niño winter in 5 years. What will be different?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/4313198-its-the-first-el-nino-winter-in-5-years-what-will-be-different/

[Satchmo]

No real answers in this article, just more questions and possible answers.

 

Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67360929

[Satchmo]

I have long been concerned with microplastics but have never thought of them affecting the weather. 

 

Microplastics could trigger cloud formation and affect the weather, new study suggests

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/weather/microplastic-pollution-weather-study-climate/index.html

[the destroyer of worlds]

This is kinda one of the points I make in this "debate".  We can either work the problem and develop technology, becoming a leader, or do nothing and become reliant on China.   

 

Party of do nothing, or lets pause renewables complaining that China is a leader.  

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/conservative-party-uk-worry-china-solar-power/

 

The latest Tory worry: China’s grip on solar power

Conservative MPs fear Britain is leaving itself overly-reliant on Beijing as it tries to shift to clean power.

[UnkNuk]

Useful article from Politico about the upcoming COP28 conference:

 

Who wants what out of COP28

 

Our scorecard of what the most powerful factions of countries will be fighting over at the climate summit — and the obstacles they face.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/cop28-agenda-global-warming-climate-change-paris-agreement-pledges-united-states-uae-island-nations-china-g77-european-union-sauidi-arabia-russia-india/

 

 

[Rip The Mesh]

For the next best part of a week. I haven't seen this since I was a teen here, and that's gotta be what? 10 years? .............

 

[RupertKBD]

Interesting article on global emissions: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/us/countries-climate-change-emissions-cop28/

 

As expected, it shows China, the USA and India as the three biggest sources of Greenhouse Gas emissions, but if you scroll down to the Per Capita graph, it offers a different perspective.....

 

It shows that we as Canadians, really don't have anything to brag about on this front.

[UnkNuk]

3 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

Interesting article on global emissions: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/us/countries-climate-change-emissions-cop28/

 

As expected, it shows China, the USA and India as the three biggest sources of Greenhouse Gas emissions, but if you scroll down to the Per Capita graph, it offers a different perspective.....

 

It shows that we as Canadians, really don't have anything to brag about on this front.

 

If Canadians want to beat ourselves up about climate change we can always use that per capita statistic.

 

But the overarching, most important statistic remains the total amount of greenhouse gases that each country emits into the atmosphere.

 

Canadians could reduce our emissions to zero - we could stop driving cars, stop using electricity, ground all flights etc - and it's not going to make much of a difference if the Big 3 - China, US and India - don't reduce their total emissions.   

 

This isn't to say we shouldn't do anything about climate change.  Of course we should do our part.  But we shouldn't work ourselves into knots about it because it's not in our power to solve it.

[Satchmo]

 

The good news is that if these costs go up a bit more people might begin to pay attention.   The bad news is that it might be too late by then.

 

Climate change is costing the US $150 billion a year. Here’s what that looks like

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/economy/what-150-billion-climate-change-damage-looks-like/index.html

 

 

[Gurn]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:26 AM, RupertKBD said:

Interesting article on global emissions: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/us/countries-climate-change-emissions-cop28/

 

As expected, it shows China, the USA and India as the three biggest sources of Greenhouse Gas emissions, but if you scroll down to the Per Capita graph, it offers a different perspective.....

 

It shows that we as Canadians, really don't have anything to brag about on this front.

Not surprising, small population, spread over one of the largest countries in the world.

fuel for transportation of people and goods, is the major reason.

[the destroyer of worlds]

On 12/1/2023 at 3:22 PM, UnkNuk said:

 

If Canadians want to beat ourselves up about climate change we can always use that per capita statistic.

 

But the overarching, most important statistic remains the total amount of greenhouse gases that each country emits into the atmosphere.

 

Canadians could reduce our emissions to zero - we could stop driving cars, stop using electricity, ground all flights etc - and it's not going to make much of a difference if the Big 3 - China, US and India - don't reduce their total emissions.   

 

This isn't to say we shouldn't do anything about climate change.  Of course we should do our part.  But we shouldn't work ourselves into knots about it because it's not in our power to solve it.

 

But there are benefits for us to work hard in this area.  Who would you rather be the leader in developing alternative tech??  China or Canada or the USA??   I'm very sure that our CONservative friends would definitely prefer Canada or the USA over China.  Switching also has the benefit of us becoming more in control over energy pricing.  I think I'm not alone in us not being beholden to the whims of despotic leaders in Middle Eastern Petrostates deciding to withhold production to jack up world oil prices or flood the market to tank them.

 

And, to say that China and India are doing nothing is absolutely false.  China is installing insane amounts of wind/solar capacity.  They had just under 400 GW of solar last year and are set to hit 500 GW of solar this year.  They target 1000 GW of solar by 2026.  They represent a third of the worlds installed solar power.  ( https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-solar-capacity-expected-hit-1000-gw-by-2026-rystad-energy-2023-09-12/ ) They have gone nuts building out a high speed rail network.  Yes, they have a coal power problem, but like a lot of things in our world, that cannot be solved overnight.

[Fan Abroad]

 

[UnkNuk]

3 hours ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

But there are benefits for us to work hard in this area.  Who would you rather be the leader in developing alternative tech??  China or Canada or the USA??   I'm very sure that our CONservative friends would definitely prefer Canada or the USA over China.  Switching also has the benefit of us becoming more in control over energy pricing.  I think I'm not alone in us not being beholden to the whims of despotic leaders in Middle Eastern Petrostates deciding to withhold production to jack up world oil prices or flood the market to tank them.

 

I agree.  I think it's a good idea for Canada to be trying to develop alternative energy sources.

 

3 hours ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

And, to say that China and India are doing nothing is absolutely false.  China is installing insane amounts of wind/solar capacity.  They had just under 400 GW of solar last year and are set to hit 500 GW of solar this year.  They target 1000 GW of solar by 2026.  They represent a third of the worlds installed solar power.  ( https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-solar-capacity-expected-hit-1000-gw-by-2026-rystad-energy-2023-09-12/ ) They have gone nuts building out a high speed rail network.  Yes, they have a coal power problem, but like a lot of things in our world, that cannot be solved overnight.

 

I never said China and India are doing nothing.

 

But looking at the website @RupertKBD provided, we can see that in 2022 China emitted 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.  The US emitted 6.3 billion metric tons.  India emitted 3.5 billion metric tons.

 

Canada, meanwhile, emitted .687 billion tons.

 

Again, until China and the US and India dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, it's not going to matter that much what Canada does.  So we shouldn't tie ourselves up in knots about our emissions.

 

What we should be doing is preparing for the consequences that scientists are predicting.  Because I think it's very unlikely that China, the US and India are going to be able to reduce their emissions to needed levels.

[Bob Long]

17 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

 

I agree.  I think it's a good idea for Canada to be trying to develop alternative energy sources.

 

 

I never said China and India are doing nothing.

 

But looking at the website @RupertKBD provided, we can see that in 2022 China emitted 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.  The US emitted 6.3 billion metric tons.  India emitted 3.5 billion metric tons.

 

Canada, meanwhile, emitted .687 billion tons.

 

Again, until China and the US and India dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, it's not going to matter that much what Canada does.  So we shouldn't tie ourselves up in knots about our emissions.

 

What we should be doing is preparing for the consequences that scientists are predicting.  Because I think it's very unlikely that China, the US and India are going to be able to reduce their emissions to needed levels.

 

I think this is a wise idea. We are going to need some pretty smart folks working in civil engineering if we care at all about saving our coastal cities. 

 

We might as well sell as much oil as we can to pay it because none of the big players are going to stop anytime soon and they won't care if we stop.

[The Lock]

6 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

I agree.  I think it's a good idea for Canada to be trying to develop alternative energy sources.

 

 

I never said China and India are doing nothing.

 

But looking at the website @RupertKBD provided, we can see that in 2022 China emitted 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.  The US emitted 6.3 billion metric tons.  India emitted 3.5 billion metric tons.

 

Canada, meanwhile, emitted .687 billion tons.

 

Again, until China and the US and India dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, it's not going to matter that much what Canada does.  So we shouldn't tie ourselves up in knots about our emissions.

 

What we should be doing is preparing for the consequences that scientists are predicting.  Because I think it's very unlikely that China, the US and India are going to be able to reduce their emissions to needed levels.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here; however, we need to also consider the population of each country.

 

If we look at China with a population of 1.4 billion, that's just over 10 metric tons per person. (14.4 billion / 1.4 billion)

If we look at the US with a population of over 330 million, that's just over 19 metric tons per person. (6.3 billion / 0.33 billion)

If we look at Canada with a population of 40 million, that same calculation equals just over 17 metric tons per person. (687 million / 40 million)

 

So per person, both Canada and the US are actually emitting significantly more greenhouse gases than China is. Now obviously, there's probably more context there to be had, but this just goes to show that only looking at it in total amounts doesn't really help us to know the full scenario. It only helps to put the blame on China so that we don't have to do as much.

Edited December 4, 2023 by The Lock

[Boudrias]

15 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

I think this is a wise idea. We are going to need some pretty smart folks working in civil engineering if we care at all about saving our coastal cities. 

 

We might as well sell as much oil as we can to pay it because none of the big players are going to stop anytime soon and they won't care if we stop.

I am confident that the 70,000 dedicated environmentalists who flew into COP 28 in Dubai will provide the solutions we are looking for. 

[RupertKBD]

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here; however, we need to also consider the population of each country.

 

If we look at China with a population of 1.4 billion, that's just over 10 metric tons per person. (14.4 billion / 1.4 billion)

If we look at the US with a population of over 330 million, that's just over 19 metric tons per person. (6.3 billion / 0.33 billion)

If we look at Canada with a population of 40 million, that same calculation equals just over 17 metric tons per person. (687 million / 40 million)

 

So per person, both Canada and the US are actually emitting significantly more greenhouse gases than China is. Now obviously, there's probably more context there to be had, but this just goes to show that only looking at it in total amounts doesn't really help us to know the full scenario. It only helps to put the blame on China so that we don't have to do as much.

 

This was more or less my point, however it goes a bit further than that....The big difference is, China is actually doing something about it:

 

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/

 

Quote

Wondering how the world’s largest carbon emitter can also be a leader in renewable energy? It may seem counter-intuitive, but China is the global renewable energy leader hosting nearly half of the world’s total operating wind and solar capacity. China is on track to double its utility-scale solar and wind power capacity, shattering the central government’s ambitious 2030 target of 1,200 GW five years ahead of schedule.  They’re also the biggest investor in renewable energy worldwide, where nearly half of the world’s low-carbon spending took place in China in 2022 (US$546 billion). Now they just need to get those emissions down! 

 

The biggest problem with China is that they're still burning a lot of coal for electricity, but unlike some countries, they aren't just kicking the can down the road, or even worse, flirting with the idea of going backwards as some of these right wing politicians would have us do....