The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can we build a power plant or vehicle engine that emits no CO2?  (Read 1562 times)

Offline Chondrally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Environmental Action Results: Royal Dutch Shell in Seattle and Alaska,7.4 Billion $ writedown

A few months ago, Civilian Disobediance, Human Rights advocates and political and social justice Activists group Avaaz launched a campaign to help the Mayor of Seattle, an environmentalist, prevent Royal Dutch Shell from using Seattle ports to launch a controversial and environmentally repugnant drilling campaign off the shores of Alaska, thousands of miles from anywhere, that would have wreaked havoc on the ecologically sensitive and changing, melting environment of the Arctic Oceans. Fish , Seal , Polar Bear, Caribou habitat would be affected by Pollution, and risks of a BP- Haliburton disaster like the one that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico were not out of the question…. thousands of miles from any port of call, and days away from help. The operation was exposed to the media limelight and people felt, especially now with the new fracking technology in Texas and North Dakota, that America was going to be self sustaining for Oil from now on anyway, and was even going to be able to export Oil if Congress chose to change the law…which is likely to happen, that the Alaskan operation was too risky and had too much bad PR that Royal Dutch Shell decided finally today to announce to the world that it would cancel the project. This amounts to a $7.4 Billion net loss for Shell, but a great boon for the planet and Arctic Oceans especially. It is now estimated that the Arctic environment could be free of ice by 2030, and once that happens, cold air cells coming from the North would diminish and real global warming of the atmosphere and weather would occur. It is said by environmental scientists that now we can expect on average about 3 degrees of warming, but there is a 10% chance of warming as high as 6 degrees globally. The thick probability tail of the distribution just won’t go away. Today is a triumphant day for environmentalists, one day and one battle at a time. But there are so many battles all in parallel that we need people to specialise and diversify to learn best practices from all the previous ones to combat each and every one of the transgressions if we are to save the planet in time. Shell didn’t stop because it was the wrong thing to do, and every barrel in the ground should stay in the ground if we can help it to stay there. Critical technology from SASOL ltd in Texas, that can create gasoline from Natural Gas for one third the cost of what a refinery can accomplish from a barrel of crude , and make it cleaner too with less trace pollutants, and the current and foreseeable barrel prices (If it remains less than $60 per barrel for 5 years Saudi Arabia would go bankrupt.  Their are some valid projections of $20 per barrel for next summer or the summer after.  The best we can hope for to save Saudi Arabia is that the barrel price rises to $60 at least by 3-5 years) tipped the balance away from crude oil, making the Alaskan venture too expensive to continue.

Can we build a power plant or vehicle engine that emits no CO2 and is oxygen net neutral that can save us from Ocean Acidity Climate Shock?

One of the most effective ways to oust them is through technology change in new companies that is game changing (Aside from opinion and media).  Its a real physical constraint that they pay attention to and affects their interpretation of the bottom line.  Even though their interpretation of the bottom line is philosophically invalid, its still how they operate and its difficult or nearly impossible to change that as Dr. Suzuki knows (remember the forest biologists travelling above the Okanagan in British Columbia in a helicopter compared to the foresters travelling the same route and what their differeing perceptions of the landscape below were!).  Technology game changing can not be too radical,  if it would bring too much instability to world markets and economy and cause chaos and suffering.   It has to be just sufficient to save the planet in time with a margin of safety.  Remember what happened to Nikola Tesla at the turn of the 19th century.  We should all remember that.  Technology change can be risky and dangerous to ones health.  We need perspective to remember that we need to survive , live, and prosper and not be naive.  There are forces out there that we really don't want or can't afford to tangle with!

The old Chinese curse or blessing of ‘May you live in interesting times!’ is certainly upon all of us.
« Last Edit: 30/10/2015 18:50:37 by chris »


Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Wind turbines and solar panels emit no CO2 in use. They emit some during construction, but, at least for wind turbines, that's 1/20 of what it would be for the equivalent coal plant.

Electric cars, powered from wind turbines, emit no CO2 in use. Their construction does however emit quite a bit of CO2, but there might perhaps be things you could do to minimise that, and greening up the grid and using the grid, rather than burning fuel, for more things will also reduce CO2.

Offline Hoggart

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
I invented new vehicles that emits no CO2 - URBAMOBILE.

Offline SorryDnoodle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Basically everything emits CO2 during its construction, the more important thing is looking at the CO2 per TWH of energy, keeping this number down would be the important point.

By this standard coal is the obvious villain here since they are essentially a CO2 generator, perhaps a bit surprising nuclear seems to sit right below Wind offshore and just above wind onshore on the list

The Naked Scientists Forum


SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums