[Digestion] Digestion Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16

[David]

Robin,

On 7/22/2011 9:32 AM, Jones, Robin (TWP) wrote:
> Something I have been thinking about for quite some time now.
>
> I understand that the whole argument surrounding global warming is that temperatures etc. have changed proportionately to CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere. The hypothesis is that CO2 forms a thermal blanket through which the transmission of heat waves to outer space is retarded.

Actually what changes is not always temperature, but rather the amount 
of energy in various systems. Since weather is an engine powered by 
that energy, what one gets with increases in greenhouse gases is more 
weather extremes. You might expect more hurricanes, for example, or an 
increase in both droughts and flooding (although obviously not likely 
in the same area).

When, over suitable time ranges, the record of temperatures is 
averaged, what has been found is that indeed things have gotten 
warmer. (This is pretty well-settled science, and the effort has been 
undertaken by a number of different and independent groups.) What 
happens today is weather; what happens over a decade is climate.


> For most heat to be created the primary starting point is combustion which in most cases produce CO2. Therefore the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is proportional to the heat generated by the primary energy source (i.e. Combustion). If this is the case, can't we conclude that global warming is also proportionate to the thermal energy produced worldwide.

Here's the thing, returning to biogas, which is that it matters a good 
deal where the carbon comes from. When we create biogas using organic 
materials that grew, then what has happened is that carbon was taken 
out of the atmosphere and returned. When we create heat or power using 
fossil fuels, then we have essentially dug up pre-historic carbon and 
/added/ that to the atmosphere. Deforestation has the same effect, 
even though it liberates carbon that is "historic", carbon that was 
recently in the atmosphere. Thus, depending on how we build our solar 
or bioenergy or geothermal (etc.) systems, we may create a carbon debt 
by using fossil fuels in the construction, or in the creation of the 
materials used. But if, over time, that system can produce energy 
without increasing net carbon, then it is better than the alternative.

What we have to do as well is find some way to sequester carbon, to 
get us back to levels that the earth has been enjoying for the last 
(nearly) half million years.

So, no, global warming is not really proportional to thermal energy 
produced. Certainly the amount of energy we use is an important 
parameter, but given current technology, what is likely more crucial 
is the source of that energy, and the source of any associated carbon.

If we had space-based solar energy stations beaming power to earth, 
then we might face a different situation.


> Considering this hypothesis, shouldn't we be focusing more on conserving energy before we look at alternatives to produce more?... The Kyoto protocol has assisted in quantifying, regulating CO2 footprints as well as reducing them.

Conservation is crucial. It's the low-hanging fruit for having a major 
impact on climate change without major changes to our systems. But 
it's not either/or, it's both/and.

And unfortunately it's not clear how effective Kyoto is or was. I 
think it's correct to say that in the best instance, the Kyoto 
protocol helped rather modestly, but it was far from a real resolution 
of the matter. This is an assessment, not a criticism, however. Kyoto 
was like the first steps of a child learning to walk. When the child 
falls down, as of course it must when it is learning, we do not throw 
up our hands and give up on encouragement. In the same way, it is not 
hard to point to any number of things about Kyoto-- including the fact 
that major economies such as the US and China were absent as 
signatories-- that did not work well. There was a scandal about fake 
carbon credits, for example, and a number of projects producing some 
of the more potent greenhouse gases, such as tetrafluoromethane took 
advantage of flaws in the system. It seems to me that while a carbon 
market can be poorly designed, and moreover is difficult to get right, 
it can be a very potent source of good outcomes. Similar market-based 
efforts have had a good effect on acid rain in the northeastern US.

But as well, Kyoto gave us the very interesting model of the Clean 
Development Mechanism, within which a large number of biogas projects 
were developed. (If you know about this, briefly, CDM transfers 
low-carbon technology to the developing world, and savings in carbon 
equivalent emissions demonstrated by defined processes can then lead 
to carbon credits, in this case CERs, of one kind or another. It's a 
bit complex, but that's a fair summary.)

Because of the nature of the beast, it is not practical to expect to 
gain carbon credits from any project that is not able to aggregate a 
fairly substantial number of small digesters, or which is focused on 
one or a few really large digesters, but there is a real possibility, 
if the carbon market can get off its back and some new Kyoto 
replacement is put in place, that this can be a very important process 
for many of us on this list.


> Is the world moving towards regulations on kWhs utilized against output capacity for each specific industry (e.g. a maximum of XkWh's per ton cement, food, mineral etc. produced) failing which these entities would face fines or closure until they comply?

God only knows. Some would consider the mere possibility to be 
anathema, but as I said, if it is well done, it could be a major step 
in the right direction. Our problems are increasingly and strongly 
becoming worldwide, and really require global-- unific-- solutions. 
Yet we as a species have not developed any governmental structures 
with anything like the scope or power of the problems.



> I know my thinking is very simplistic; however it would be great to see what the rest of this forum can add to this topic. The consequences of not debating or sharing new ideas on this topic   would be dire to all that live on Earth.

Well said.






d.
-- 
David William House
"The Complete Biogas Handbook" |www.completebiogas.com|
/Vahid Biogas/, an alternative energy consultancy |www.vahidbiogas.com

|
"Make no search for water.       But find thirst,
And water from the very ground will burst."
(Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in /Delight of Hearts/, p. 77)

http://bahai.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110722/5376701b/attachment.html>