Climate Change is definitely a problem and from what this guy is saying our future is not looking to good. Personally, I am not a fan of coal or of Nucluar power. The processes he mentions for exposing of the CO2 is intense and it can't be a good idea to be putting all that CO2 underground. There has to be bad consequences that we do not know about and probably will not know about until it is too late. Nuclear power waste and is the scariest of it all. What are we going to do with it all? There is no good solution and yet we continue to produce it. Good Idea. This guy seems close minded. There are other technologies out there that can "save the world" without producing killer wastes. More money needs to be put into Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the energy of the future. There are already huge skyscrapers in NYC running off of hydrogen power that they produce in their basement, homes that run off of it through sheds in their backyards, and planes that are flying around the earth right now(for 6 months at a time) that run off of a combined solar and hydrogen power. Just try to hunt down the movie The Hydrogen Age. It has all the answers. Jonathan Forte
As the United States has made the transition from an industrial to our post-industrial stage coal is one of the last alterations towards technological advancement. Even if we stopped using coal immediately that ill effects of using it in the past will continue. My grandfather used to tell me of underground coal fires that burn for decades. Ill did some research of my own to find out that is true. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2917579.ece The article above is an example in china, where as there is one a lot closer to home in Centralia, PA. Commenting on the previous posters remark about the absoluteness of hydrogen, although it shows promise I don’t think it’s the all-star he believes it to seem. Boeing has put out a single passenger mono-propeller plane with very primitive results. I think that still the first stage is to make coal and oil represent the true cost of using it, and develop lots of possibilities to encourage the continuous technological advancement of cheap clean energy.
Each different king of energy source has different positive and negative aspects to them. When it comes to coal, the most abundant world wide makes it easier for counties to consider them. What I found interesting was the gasification cycle. I you can control the emissions it gives an option. My concern with the concept of pumping it at the bottom of the sea is that won't that help increase ocean level also? It does take a certain amount of volume. This would not be my favorite, but I am curious about this.
I found this article made several very important points about the supply of energy in the future. A population increase by nearly 50 percent and an economic growth by the order off 500 percent show that there is no way for current energy sources to meet future demand. The article pointed out the amount of time global reserves would last under current supplies. It would be very interesting to the change in the figures if future demand was incorporated. Many people make the arguement that new reserves will be found as supplies dwindle and demand increases. I feel it is going to essential for new technologies and new sources of fuel to be created in order to solve the constraints of supply. More efficient cleaner sources of energy are the future. I do not think that current sources of fuel are the answer, even with carbon sequestration technologies.
I agree with Adam when he said that the first step should be to make coal and oil represent the true cost of using it. Higher prices will not only decrease consumption, but also provide an incentive to develop technology for cheaper, cleaner energy.
Based on everything I have learned about climate change and CO2 emissions over the past years, I feel that carbon sequestration is our only hope for stabilizing atmospheric carbon concentration. There just simply isn’t enough time to develop and implement scalable carbon free technologies before we do irreversible damage to our climate. Pumping carbon under 10,000 feet of seawater seems to be the solution to our short term need of eliminating carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Physics is the force that has and always will dominate the universe. Because CO2 follows the principles of physics, it is a safe bet that CO2 pumped to the bottom of the ocean will stay there forever. We do, however, need to continue to develop our carbon free energy sources and hopefully the economics will fall into place before it is too late.
think the point that some people brought up about increasing the carbonic acid in the ocean is very interesting. I really don't know very much about this and it seems to be a often overlooked part of global warming simply because the oceans are so big. However, there is some concern about the increased absorbtion without adding man made coal emissions to the bottom of the ocean. While, I'm sure that this is something that will be studied further it is very important to remember that the ecosystems are friagle both above and below the ocean and if we ignore the oceans simply because that are not visable daily there could be grave consequenes.
We dont fully understand the full after-affects if we were to pump carbon into deep sea sediments. It seems to be a good idea at first, but we dont' know enough to jump into something quickly. Lots of evidence shows that CO2 sediment pumping would cause a change in the pH of the ocean, thus causing many problems in terms of sea life and calcium carbonate organisms. Also, it is believed that once stored in the deep sea, the carbon takes on different forms and undergoes chemical changes which could lead to unforeseen aftereffects that could cause huge problems.
pricing coal and oil on its true social cost is the best idea ive heard of to cut down on its use. Charge people more and they will go to cheaper methods. Id realy like to read more about the pumping of Carbon to the bottom of the ocean. it seems like there has to be some side effects we havnt discovered.
The idea of pumping co2 deep into the ocean is a very interesting and intriguing idea. Even though it would change its density to be heavier than the water itself, would the ocean level not rise because of it. Also this is a process with too much room for error that could have huge repercussions. Due to the fact that we have such a large coal reserve, we need to find a way to burn it, and then capture the released co2 and find a market to be able to sell it like we talked about in class. The main thing is finding a way to control emissions all around in a safe way.
Coal, hydrogen, wind, solar and nuclear energy: which one do we use? There are so many good and bad energy choices out there, I don't believe we should continue using the sources that are causing the problem. We should start utilizing the safer alternatives for energy. While some might not be perfect, they are cleaner. I think the people living in world today especially those in the US should consider life style changes. I would rather have times of lower energy and know I will still have a planet to live on, rather than continue on the current path and there be a planet not able to support human life.
They make some good arguments for the use of nuclear power in the future, but i wonder if the U.S. and other UN nations would be willing to share enriched uranium with a many of the other countries around the world. Developing countries will start to account for a lot more of world energy use in the coming century, and some of them have unstable and sometimes unfriendly (to the u.s.) governments.
pumping CO2 into the ocean sounds like a good way to get rid of a lot of our current problems...however, I'm not sure if all the negative externalities of doing such have been fully researched. Just the idea of doing this makes me a little uneasy. At least people are looking into new ways to deal with this problem. -Rachel Bisesi
If the Scientists don't trust other countries to limit and filter CO2 emmissions, then why do they trust developing countires to properly store nuclear waste that will reamin dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years? It seems strange to me. I am personally opposed to nuclear power becuase of the waste problem. Should we really be doing something that provides power for one generation, at most, that creates wastes that will last for mileania?
15 comments:
Climate Change is definitely a problem and from what this guy is saying our future is not looking to good. Personally, I am not a fan of coal or of Nucluar power. The processes he mentions for exposing of the CO2 is intense and it can't be a good idea to be putting all that CO2 underground. There has to be bad consequences that we do not know about and probably will not know about until it is too late. Nuclear power waste and is the scariest of it all. What are we going to do with it all? There is no good solution and yet we continue to produce it. Good Idea. This guy seems close minded. There are other technologies out there that can "save the world" without producing killer wastes. More money needs to be put into Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the energy of the future. There are already huge skyscrapers in NYC running off of hydrogen power that they produce in their basement, homes that run off of it through sheds in their backyards, and planes that are flying around the earth right now(for 6 months at a time) that run off of a combined solar and hydrogen power. Just try to hunt down the movie The Hydrogen Age. It has all the answers.
Jonathan Forte
As the United States has made the transition from an industrial to our post-industrial stage coal is one of the last alterations towards technological advancement.
Even if we stopped using coal immediately that ill effects of using it in the past will continue. My grandfather used to tell me of underground coal fires that burn for decades. Ill did some research of my own to find out that is true. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2917579.ece The article above is an example in china, where as there is one a lot closer to home in Centralia, PA.
Commenting on the previous posters remark about the absoluteness of hydrogen, although it shows promise I don’t think it’s the all-star he believes it to seem. Boeing has put out a single passenger mono-propeller plane with very primitive results. I think that still the first stage is to make coal and oil represent the true cost of using it, and develop lots of possibilities to encourage the continuous technological advancement of cheap clean energy.
Each different king of energy source has different positive and negative aspects to them. When it comes to coal, the most abundant world wide makes it easier for counties to consider them. What I found interesting was the gasification cycle. I you can control the emissions it gives an option. My concern with the concept of pumping it at the bottom of the sea is that won't that help increase ocean level also? It does take a certain amount of volume. This would not be my favorite, but I am curious about this.
I found this article made several very important points about the supply of energy in the future. A population increase by nearly 50 percent and an economic growth by the order off 500 percent show that there is no way for current energy sources to meet future demand. The article pointed out the amount of time global reserves would last under current supplies. It would be very interesting to the change in the figures if future demand was incorporated. Many people make the arguement that new reserves will be found as supplies dwindle and demand increases. I feel it is going to essential for new technologies and new sources of fuel to be created in order to solve the constraints of supply. More efficient cleaner sources of energy are the future. I do not think that current sources of fuel are the answer, even with carbon sequestration technologies.
john ferraro
I agree with Adam when he said that the first step should be to make coal and oil represent the true cost of using it. Higher prices will not only decrease consumption, but also provide an incentive to develop technology for cheaper, cleaner energy.
sue reuschle
Based on everything I have learned about climate change and CO2 emissions over the past years, I feel that carbon sequestration is our only hope for stabilizing atmospheric carbon concentration. There just simply isn’t enough time to develop and implement scalable carbon free technologies before we do irreversible damage to our climate. Pumping carbon under 10,000 feet of seawater seems to be the solution to our short term need of eliminating carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Physics is the force that has and always will dominate the universe. Because CO2 follows the principles of physics, it is a safe bet that CO2 pumped to the bottom of the ocean will stay there forever. We do, however, need to continue to develop our carbon free energy sources and hopefully the economics will fall into place before it is too late.
think the point that some people brought up about increasing the carbonic acid in the ocean is very interesting. I really don't know very much about this and it seems to be a often overlooked part of global warming simply because the oceans are so big. However, there is some concern about the increased absorbtion without adding man made coal emissions to the bottom of the ocean. While, I'm sure that this is something that will be studied further it is very important to remember that the ecosystems are friagle both above and below the ocean and if we ignore the oceans simply because that are not visable daily there could be grave consequenes.
We dont fully understand the full after-affects if we were to pump carbon into deep sea sediments. It seems to be a good idea at first, but we dont' know enough to jump into something quickly. Lots of evidence shows that CO2 sediment pumping would cause a change in the pH of the ocean, thus causing many problems in terms of sea life and calcium carbonate organisms. Also, it is believed that once stored in the deep sea, the carbon takes on different forms and undergoes chemical changes which could lead to unforeseen aftereffects that could cause huge problems.
pricing coal and oil on its true social cost is the best idea ive heard of to cut down on its use. Charge people more and they will go to cheaper methods. Id realy like to read more about the pumping of Carbon to the bottom of the ocean. it seems like there has to be some side effects we havnt discovered.
The idea of pumping co2 deep into the ocean is a very interesting and intriguing idea. Even though it would change its density to be heavier than the water itself, would the ocean level not rise because of it. Also this is a process with too much room for error that could have huge repercussions. Due to the fact that we have such a large coal reserve, we need to find a way to burn it, and then capture the released co2 and find a market to be able to sell it like we talked about in class. The main thing is finding a way to control emissions all around in a safe way.
Coal, hydrogen, wind, solar and nuclear energy: which one do we use? There are so many good and bad energy choices out there, I don't believe we should continue using the sources that are causing the problem. We should start utilizing the safer alternatives for energy. While some might not be perfect, they are cleaner. I think the people living in world today especially those in the US should consider life style changes. I would rather have times of lower energy and know I will still have a planet to live on, rather than continue on the current path and there be a planet not able to support human life.
They make some good arguments for the use of nuclear power in the future, but i wonder if the U.S. and other UN nations would be willing to share enriched uranium with a many of the other countries around the world. Developing countries will start to account for a lot more of world energy use in the coming century, and some of them have unstable and sometimes unfriendly (to the u.s.) governments.
- Eric Spence
pumping CO2 into the ocean sounds like a good way to get rid of a lot of our current problems...however, I'm not sure if all the negative externalities of doing such have been fully researched. Just the idea of doing this makes me a little uneasy. At least people are looking into new ways to deal with this problem.
-Rachel Bisesi
If the Scientists don't trust other countries to limit and filter CO2 emmissions, then why do they trust developing countires to properly store nuclear waste that will reamin dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years? It seems strange to me. I am personally opposed to nuclear power becuase of the waste problem. Should we really be doing something that provides power for one generation, at most, that creates wastes that will last for mileania?
-Eric Spence
Post a Comment