<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Georgia"><br>
Robin,<br>
</font><br>
On 7/22/2011 9:32 AM, Jones, Robin (TWP) wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBF00BF5F1C23F469A34595277A538CC3A39DF41@ZAATRFS34.twp.co.za"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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). <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBF00BF5F1C23F469A34595277A538CC3A39DF41@ZAATRFS34.twp.co.za"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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 <i>added</i> 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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
If we had space-based solar energy stations beaming power to earth,
then we might face a different situation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBF00BF5F1C23F469A34595277A538CC3A39DF41@ZAATRFS34.twp.co.za"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.) <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBF00BF5F1C23F469A34595277A538CC3A39DF41@ZAATRFS34.twp.co.za"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBF00BF5F1C23F469A34595277A538CC3A39DF41@ZAATRFS34.twp.co.za"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well said.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
d.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div style="font:Georgia" ;=""><span style="font-size:110%;">David
William House<br>
</span>
<div style="padding-left:3em;font-size:80%;">"The Complete
Biogas Handbook" <code><a href="www.completebiogas.com">www.completebiogas.com</a></code><br>
<em>Vahid Biogas</em>, an alternative energy consultancy <code><a
href="www.vahidbiogas.com">www.vahidbiogas.com</a><br>
<br>
</code></div>
<div style="padding-left:2em;">"Make no search for water.
But find thirst,<br>
And water from the very ground will burst."
<div style="padding-left:2em;font-size:80%;">(Rumi, a Persian
mystic poet, quoted in <em>Delight of Hearts</em>, p. 77) <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bahai.us/">http://bahai.us/</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>