To my knowledge there are at least two methods of fighting global warming
Cut down on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
Cut down on the heat that reaches the earths atmosphere
For issue one they are looking at thigns like cutting emissions via various methods, using cleaner energy sources, breeding CO2 absorbing plankton in the oceans, liquifying and burying CO2 underground & building gigantic scrubbers that convert CO2 into other molecules
For the second they are looking at creating clouds over the oceans and building mirrors in space
What about finding a way to use up the excess heat that exists in the earth’s atmosphere. Heat is energy, can’t we convert that energy into some other kind of energy like mechanical and as a result help drop the earth’s temperature down a little bit
Naturally none of these things would be a solution as none are totally feasable to fix the problem, but if most were implemented on a smaller scale it could make a difference to prevent major climate problems and the goal is to find as many working solutions as possible. I don’t see ‘cutting emissions’ to be anymore feasable as an unconditional cure to the problem than abstinance is for curing STDs.
By that I mean by the time we cut emissions, clean the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere and eliminate fossil fuels the damage to the atmosphere and it’s effect on us will have already been massive so we need solutions now to tide us over until fixes are implemented.
Perhaps cutting emissions is not the only solution, but it is the only one we could do on a large scale now. Building mirrors in space, liquifing CO[sub]2[/sub] and sequestering it underground, creating additional cloud cover would all need to be studied and then have some time for project implementation/construction.
Even planting trees is delayed: most of a tree’s absorption of carbon from the atmosphere won’t take place until the tree is at least 5-7 years old.
However, I can use less gasoline now, I can walk in to work tomorrow, etc. The quickest fix is reducing emissions, although given our dependence on fossil fuels I have no illusions about everyone in industrialized nations suddenly turning to their bicycles over their cars.
The problem with this idea is that in any use of heat for power the energy is not “used up” in the process, it merely changes form, to, as you suggest kineticenergy. BUt what happens to the kinetic energy? Yes, it eventualy gets released back out as heat energy from friction and other uses.
I suppose if we were to capture huge amounts of energy and use a giant ray gun to shoot the energy into space we might lose a little energy and heat.
In what is probably a far more plausible vein than just directly mandating lowered emissions, we should look for increasing efficiency.
Think about it. To cut emissions directly, you have to find a way to reduce output by, say, 10% or so. Doing this without other changes costs money and makes companies less competitive. OTOH, if you increase efficiency by a like amount, you become more competitive.
Governments should be encouraging industries to keep their operations as efficient as posible.
Yeah, and that is a good idea to implement now. However by the time we actually cut emmissions to negligible levels and have found ways to cut CO2 levels from their current 360 ppm levels to the 280ish ppm levels they were before industrialization 50+ years will have passed and major problems could’ve already been experienced including famines, floods, hurricanes, etc. So solutions that work now until we find ways to cut down on atmospheric CO2 levels are needed.
I had thought the issue wasn’t with the atmosphere, but rather the oceans. Certainly we could cut down on further emissions of greenhouse gases, but that won’t do us any good for another few centuries when all the extra heat stored up in the ocean has finally expelled itself.
So wouldn’t fighting global warming actually have to be an effort of burning off the extra heat in the oceans? For instance, by turning it into usable electricity or such.
Many environmental regulations actually hinder efficiency upgrades, because they take the all-or-none approach. If it’s not done in a certain way, following certain rules, you can’t do it at all. This makes company’s very leery about upgrading facilities at all. They may be willing to pay up 500 million to increase efficiency, but might not be able to afford 1 billion for additional improvements.
What tends to happen is that emissions increase in these cases, as worn parts are simply left alone, new technologies not used, and so on. Bad regulations can make things much worse than if they had done nothing. Thus, the better way is to offer some tax breaks for companies who do major upgrades. It offsets their costs, encourages everyone to keep up together (maintaining competition), makes the world cleaner overall, and encourages innovation.
Truth be told, I like the environment and favor some environmentalist causes. What I dislike is that the movement has become associated with statism and top-down approaches. Those can work, if made strict enough, but have all kinds of unintended side effects. More to the point, it can never be as versatile and innovative as bottom-up solutions.
There is an idea of seeding the oceans with iron filings. Link
I have found the idea facinating since I first read about it a few years ago and wonder why it hasn’t been tried. I did see an article that said it might work but wasn’t practicle, but I can find it at this time.
In order to do that, we’d need a cold resevoir. When heat is just sitting there, you can’t get any work out of it. The only way to convert some heat into useable energy is to transfer the rest of the heat from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object. The only place we could transfer our heat would be out into space, and that’s how the Earth is already losing all of its heat. There’s not much more we can do, in that department.
I don’t recall the exact regulations involved, but Bush relaxed some of these restrictions recently. The point was not to increase pollution allowed, but that some large-scale plants had simply not done the upgrades at all rather than go through an expensive adjustment to meet federal upgrade standards. But they never upgraded any equipment given a chance, since it would have triggered the legal requirement that they go through the whole thing.
I imagine you’re thinking about New Source Review for large power plants. Short version: the companies really weren’t ‘upgrading’ in order decrease pollution, but rather to expand the capacity of old-fashioned, inefficient and polluting plants.
Of course, the companies are going to claim that keeping these extra-polluting plants open is a wonderful thing for everyone involved, and especially for ducks and bunnies, and if we get rid of these pesky environmental laws then, honestly, pollution will decrease. But they’re, uh, not partaking in the reality-based community there. Please let me know if you ever find an example of a company admitting “Yes, this would be bad for you, but we want to do it so we can make more money”.
smiling Bandit has a slightly valid point. There are aspects of New Source Review that in some cases do hinder even well meaning power plants from doing things that would be beneficial to the environment. In some cases there is a change that can be made that, for example, increases the efficiency of your boiler. You get more energy out for the same amount of fuel and pollution. This reduces the overall amount of fuel burned in the country, and so is not really a bad thing. However, NSPR would kick in if this change was made, so the company decides not to do make the change. Pollution and energy supplied stay the same.
That being said… there are enough loopholes in New Source Review as it is. Yes, it does hinder some upgrades, but if it was removed … Katie bar the door! We’d see NO pollution improvements at all until the law was changed again. Existing plants that could skirt the law more easily would NEVER come into compliance with modern regs. New plants would be at a HUGE competitive disadvantage with existing plants. If we ever want ot see REAL improvement, I’d say stick with our current flawed law. And even begin to phase out grandfathered units.
No, no. Not that kind of ray gun. One of those with enough juice to shoot out into space? No, that’s just not a good idea. What if we hit a passing spaceship with it and started an intergalactic war?
I’d say a 1990’s style heat gun would be sufficient.
Or use the energy to sling rocks out into space. I hadn’t thought of that way of removing energy. Of course, we’d run out of rocks before too long.
Yes, there are several bills with grandfather clauses in them. Basically, all new plants must meet a certain enviromental standard but it would be far too hard to retrofit all the old plants so old plants only have to meet the older, more relaxed standard. The unintended side effect of this is that old plants are kept going for far longer than they should be, increasing pollution.