The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and moderate climate change?  (Read 1977 times)

Offline Scottish Scientist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
UNITED NATIONS
Framework Convention on Climate Change

Conference of the Parties Twenty-first session "COP21"
Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015

ADOPTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT [nofollow]

"Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible
threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation
by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international
response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions,
"

OK then, here's my plan.

  • Hydro-electric / Geothermal / tidal where appropriate
  • Land-based wind turbines
  • Offshore wind turbines
  • Solar power for local supply, recommended where there's winter sun
  • Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)
  • Pumped-storage hydro for energy storage with on-land generation
  • Undersea hydrogen storage for energy storage with offshore generation - wind / tidal
  • Carbon-neutral bio-fuels for transport such as dimethyl-ether (DME) from steam-reformed biomass
  • Convert old vehicles, for transport by land, sea & air to run on bio-fuels
  • New vehicles powered by hydrogen / electrical batteries / bio-fuels
  • Nuclear-powered mega-ships - container & bulk transport, cruise liners etc
  • Nuclear-powered tugs for high-power pulling of ships long distance (rather than low-power navigation)
  • Forget carbon-capture and storage from fossil-fuel burning power stations
__________

When the world is fossil-fuel free but if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, put in water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

I'm the go-to scientist if the world wants this done quickly.


https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/ [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 18/12/2015 14:35:07 by Scottish Scientist »


 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5339
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
What did you think of the coverage and outcomes of the COP21 meeting?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The outcome appears to be a target value for an undefined variable over which we have no control. Since no penalty will be levied on anyone for failure to achieve the target, the whole affair was a waste of time and money.   

There are plenty of good reasons for abandoning fossil fuels and I have a lot of sympathy for SS's ideas for a hydrogen-based economy, though we have some disagreements over the technicalities. But the obvious, zero-cost, no-effort, no-downside, ethical answer to nearly all of humanity's problems is MAKE FEWER HUMANS. Alas, being obvious, zero cost, etc., this solution will be unpopular with priests, politicians, economists and other populist parasites, and nobody will promote it.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2015 12:11:51 by alancalverd »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 920
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
There are plenty of good reasons for abandoning fossil fuels and I have a lot of sympathy for SS's ideas for a hydrogen-based economy, though we have some disagreements over the technicalities. But the obvious, zero-cost, no-effort, no-downside, ethical answer to nearly all of humanity's problems is MAKE FEWER HUMANS. Alas, being obvious, zero cost, etc., this solution will be unpopular with priests, politicians, economists and other populist parasites, and nobody will promote it.

Overpopulation is quite a popular myth theses days. I don't think it is supported by viable evidences that we should depopulate Earth to fix climate change; rather than by an ideology promoted by the establishment of secret (secular) societies aiming to control the world ressources.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
People breathe, use cars, eat meat...generally do stuff that emits CO2 and methane. Fewer people means either less anthropogenic CO2 or fairer shares for all.

Every species modifies its environment. If you don't like the result, reduce the population of that species.

Secular societies are good, because they can be held to rational account. Religious societies are bad because they can't.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Scientists have found that the levels of CO2 flattened in 2014. This means greenhouse gases, like CO2, have moderated due to changes already in place, or maybe nature is balancing things out. 

http://www.livescience.com/50182-2014-co2-emissions-stabilized.html

One set of data that may be connected is this data from 2014:

Quote
Global forest loss amounted to 18.7 million hectares (46 million acres) in 2014, a decline of about 9 percent relative to 2013 and 20 percent compared to 2012.

The much-anticipated data, published this morning on Global Forest Watch, reflects changes in tree cover, including deforestation, harvesting of tree plantations, fire damage, and forest die-off from disease and pests.

Trees and forests sequester CO2. As land is cleared the amount of CO2 will rise even if we freeze all CO2 emissions, since there are fewer trees to sequester; more CO2 stays in play. If the deforestation is connection to forest fires, this is a two for one deal, since we remove sequestering trees to make the CO2 appear to rise faster than the CO2 the fires add. This may not show up immediately but will become part of a new sequestering average that has declined. 

Quote
The NCAR study's author, Christine Wiedinmyer, analyzed the emissions with the model. She estimated that the forest fires (California) emitted 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from Oct. 19 through Oct. 26, the equivalent of about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning in the entire state of California.

This data is only for the CO2 given off. It does not add in the loss of sequestering power that may then appear like new CO2 has been added to the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2015 19:19:55 by puppypower »
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Scientists have found that the levels of CO2 flattened in 2014. This means greenhouse gases, like CO2, have moderated due to changes already in place, or maybe nature is balancing things out. 
No the rate of new CO2 added to the atmosphere stopped going up. The level of CO2 did not stop increasing, it's still going up, very fast, as fast as it did the previous year, it just didn't go up even faster in 2014.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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