Slowly moving ahead:


Over 1.5 MILLION UK drivers will have hydrogen cars by 2030

... Hydrogen fuel cell cars won’t hit the market until 2015, but with the right investment in infrastructure, more than a million and a half of us could be driving one by 2030, with annual sales topping 300,000 vehicles...

... With HFC cars pumping out far fewer nasties than petrol and diesel powered alternatives, and able not only to be topped up “almost” as quickly as a petrol car today but also to deliver a range that battery powered vehicles can only dream of, UKH2Mobility thinks hydrogen will win over no small number of motorists, even those less interested in the technology’s green credentials. ...

... will yield hydrogen that’s the same price as diesel by 2030 yet with a well-to-wheel supply chain that pumps out 75 per cent less CO2. By 2050, the hydrogen infrastructure from production through to user could yield zero net emissions...


There's a way to go yet...

Might China seize upon that technology to clean up their act before they all die from city smogs?


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

.. will yield hydrogen that’s the same price as diesel by 2030 yet with a well-to-wheel supply chain that pumps out 75 per cent less CO2. By 2050, the hydrogen infrastructure from production through to user could yield zero net emissions...

ML1...diesel!! about time they banned that stuff from all but heavy commercial
vehicals...it's healthier to smoke a cigarette than it is to breath in diesel
fumes... now a lot of people don't know this, time they did!!

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

.. will yield hydrogen that’s the same price as diesel by 2030 yet with a well-to-wheel supply chain that pumps out 75 per cent less CO2. By 2050, the hydrogen infrastructure from production through to user could yield zero net emissions...

ML1...diesel!! about time they banned that stuff from all but heavy commercial
vehicals...it's healthier to smoke a cigarette than it is to breath in diesel
fumes... now a lot of people don't know this, time they did!!

==========================================================
bio diesel has very low sulfur and being renewable sequesters as much co2 as it

generates, hemp seed is a very good source. pity we can't grow it in the states.

---

Slowly moving ahead:


Over 1.5 MILLION UK drivers will have hydrogen cars by 2030

... Hydrogen fuel cell cars won’t hit the market until 2015, but with the right investment in infrastructure, more than a million and a half of us could be driving one by 2030, with annual sales topping 300,000 vehicles...

... With HFC cars pumping out far fewer nasties than petrol and diesel powered alternatives, and able not only to be topped up “almost” as quickly as a petrol car today but also to deliver a range that battery powered vehicles can only dream of, UKH2Mobility thinks hydrogen will win over no small number of motorists, even those less interested in the technology’s green credentials. ...

... will yield hydrogen that’s the same price as diesel by 2030 yet with a well-to-wheel supply chain that pumps out 75 per cent less CO2. By 2050, the hydrogen infrastructure from production through to user could yield zero net emissions...


There's a way to go yet...

Might China seize upon that technology to clean up their act before they all die from city smogs?


All on our only planet,
Martin

========================================================================
while all of what you say is true it leaves out that hydrogen has to be made.

this means either cheap electric power or processing from natural gas.

with phase 4 nuclear cheap power could be possible, processing from natural gas

produces greenhouse gases to.

hydrogen is what you do when you have an excess of cheap electricity.

as no hydrogen wells exist.

---

hydrogen is what you do when you have an excess of cheap electricity.

Ideal for storage when there is excess wind/wave/tidal/solar electrical power...

as no hydrogen wells exist.

Which is what oil and gas wells are... There is a simple process for breaking the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbons at or near the well. The CO2 produced can then be pumped back underground to keep the well pressured and productive. The same strata that has held the oil and gas in place for millennia should also be suitable for keeping the CO2 trapped for further millennia...


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

An interesting twist to the power equation:


Solar undercuts coal in New Mexico

... something of a world first: a [50 megawatt] solar facility in Macho Springs, New Mexico, is planning to sell its energy to the grid substantially below the price of coal-fired power. ...


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

hydrogen is what you do when you have an excess of cheap electricity.

Ideal for storage when there is excess wind/wave/tidal/solar electrical power...

as no hydrogen wells exist.

Which is what oil and gas wells are... There is a simple process for breaking the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbons at or near the well. The CO2 produced can then be pumped back underground to keep the well pressured and productive. The same strata that has held the oil and gas in place for millennia should also be suitable for keeping the CO2 trapped for further millennia...


All on our only planet,
Martin

For long term storage it needs to be changed back to base carbon, and then it will store underground. Which could potentially be the equal of coal for the future. And yes that would be energy intensive.. thus the myth of "clean coal".

---

Janice

One trend in the right direction, despite the politics:


US carbon emissions fall to lowest levels since 1994

Energy-saving technologies and a doubling in renewables led to the reduction in climate pollution...

Ah, Guardian says that Bloomberg says that report of ...
quote someone, quoting someone, quoting someone, quoting someone.
We all know the game of telephone.

Try a little truth. US carbon emissions continue to fall as production continues to be off-shored.

Question is from a planet wide perspective is building it in China with dirty power, slave labor and shipping it across the ocean cleaner than building it in the USA? We know it costs less. We know it looks good on paper for US emissions. But planet wide?

---

Now, how much warming is acceptable?

Zero should be the goal. We may discuss and argue about taking it back to what level AFTER that is accomplished.

Zero? This just isn't making sense. I know you meant something, but zero is already impossible. Unless you mean that even with a population of 2 they can't start a fire to keep themselves warm at night.

I'm wondering if you meant, no additional. That also isn't really possible. Enough CO2 has already been emitted to continue the raise for at least half a century even with the assumption there are no more humans on the planet.

If you meant for the world to instantly stop producing CO2 emissions, then you are far to idealistic.

Assuming that reduction in population growth is going to be a required part of the solution ...

Some things to consider, how do we convince a illiterate third world person to use birth control?

How do we convince the Government of Japan, which presently is doing all it can to increase its birth rate, to allow its population to decline?

We can start by making an example by making sure it is available and affordable here.

A very minor step which isn't enough. O/T I thought the last of those laws outlawing it were struck by SCOTUS and the last I checked a pack of condoms wasn't prohibitively expensive. Considering the hegemony of the US, do you have a better plan?

Assuming that some reduction in the rate of industrialization is going to be part of the solution ...

We need to move past the age of fossil fuels. If we lead a better example, Other countries might be convinced to SKIP that level of industrialization
and go straight to clean energy. This could for the most part avoid increasing dependency on the increasingly overpriced fossil fuel industry.

That is likely going to cost a lot of money. How is a non-industrialized country going to pay for it? Don't forget the industrialized world is already operating under austerity.

As to the US, if you want to immediately shut all those non-clean energy things, then someone is going to have to pay the owner to shut it, and build a clean energy replacement. Where is that money coming from?

We need ideas and plans on things which can actually be implemented given the economic and political realities that exist today. Pipe dreams need not apply.

---

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

---

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.

---

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.

If we can move beyond inertia, we have the technology to move to a carbon neutral society. It is even possible to correct some of the damage to the oxygen producing systems(oceans/forests) that we are in the process of destroying.

Lighting a fire is fine, if all the wood used is replanted and the oxygen absorbed back in equal amounts. So Zero is a very reasonable STARTING goal.

We will not be there tomorrow, but it certainly is not impossible. Unless we keep digging up fossils as if there is no tomorrow. For then there would certainly be no tomorrow much too soon.

---

Janice

Lighting a fire is fine, if all the wood used is replanted and the oxygen absorbed back in equal amounts. So Zero is a very reasonable STARTING goal.

You are aware that a tree that falls in the forest and decays releases the CO2 it captured in its life.

---

Lighting a fire is fine, if all the wood used is replanted and the oxygen absorbed back in equal amounts. So Zero is a very reasonable STARTING goal.

You are aware that a tree that falls in the forest and decays releases the CO2 it captured in its life.

Thus sprouts the doomsayer Gary... So where did we get all our coal and oil and gas from?... So how does soil and humus accumulate?...


Rather than spouting random FUD, can you give a useful article to back up your random rants?

Sure is easy to try to smash all threads rather than to be positive and helpful and add to useful discussion... Try turning a new more helpful leaf please?


Meanwhile, the rest of the world have a life and a future to live.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Lighting a fire is fine, if all the wood used is replanted and the oxygen absorbed back in equal amounts. So Zero is a very reasonable STARTING goal.

You are aware that a tree that falls in the forest and decays releases the CO2 it captured in its life.

Not allways true. Plant matter for the most part does rot and give up its CO2. But if it was 100% we would not have coal.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Two solutions in the making:


Sea urchin nickel 'trick' could be key to capturing carbon

... At present most carbon capture and storage (CCS) proposals are based around the idea of capturing CO2 from electricity generating stations or chemical plants and pumping the stripped out gas into underground storage in former oil wells or rock formations.

But there are still question marks about the possibility that the stored carbon may leak back out again.

The Newcastle researchers say that an alternative approach would be to lock up the CO2 in another substance such as calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate.

This can already be done by using an enzyme called carbon anhydrase but it is very expensive.

PhD student Gaurav Bhaduri who is the lead author on the research paper explained that using nickel would be a far more economic option.



Leading paper firm pledges to halt Indonesian deforestation

The world's third biggest paper company has pledged to halt deforestation in Indonesia, and help to restore the habitats of the rare Sumatran tiger and orangutan, following a long-running campaign by environmentalists. ...



All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Lighting a fire is fine, if all the wood used is replanted and the oxygen absorbed back in equal amounts. So Zero is a very reasonable STARTING goal.

You are aware that a tree that falls in the forest and decays releases the CO2 it captured in its life.

Not allways true. Plant matter for the most part does rot and give up its CO2. But if it was 100% we would not have coal.

I don't believe I said rot was 100% efficient in releasing the hydrocarbons in the plant matter. As we are able to find a forest floor it has to be rather efficient however or all the plant matter that didn't rot would pile up hundreds of feet deep. It is also the major source of nitrogen for the next generation of plant matter. You can't just collect the wood and use it elsewhere and expect to have a forest no matter how many seeds you plant.

---

CO-2 is at the beginning of our food chain.

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.

IMO the only thing which could work democratically is when clean energy is more cost effective than what most of the world's population is doing.

---

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.

IMO the only thing which could work democratically is when clean energy is more cost effective than what most of the world's population is doing.

the same "cradle to the grave" responsibility applied to asbestos could be extended to fossil fuels. The new clean alternatives would instantly be far superior.LINK

And capitalism could continue unabated.

---

Janice