Comments on: Stop coal, stop global warming, says architect

Say goodbye to Galveston if we don't stop coal use.

[Randy549]

Nuclear

is the only realistic option. Reducing energy usage is a great thing and should be done, but that's not going to be anywhere near enough by itself.

[UrbanBard]

There plenty of things that we can do, but...

The question is whether it will be needed. The planet Mars is
undergoing global warming. Why? Its southern frost cap is
visibly getting smaller. The only explanation for both the Earth
and Mars heating up simultaneously is solar activity, not
mankind's effects. And we are going to have a confirmation of
that over the next eleven years. Why? Because the Sun's heat
output follows the Sun spot formation. We are at the height of
the eleven year sunspot spot cycle, so we can expect less solar
radiation from the Sun. I hope that all of you who believe in
Global Warming will move to Canada, so you can freeze your
butts off.

[billmosby]

Politics

Nuclear would make the most sense, except for the politics. Most
people have been scared shirtless of it for about 3 decades now.
Hard to overcome that.
I say it makes sense to use an unnatural energy source to support
an unnatural level of human population.
Might make more sense to reduce the population. Any volunteers?

[roadgeek9]

Who Cares!?

I don't really think that global warming is a major issue here, we have to worry about more important things! 0.6 degrees of an increase in 100 years is nothing!

[lixpaulian]

I do

Yeah, 0.6 deg in 100 years may not be too much, but what about
the next 0.6 degrees that we will see in only 10 years from now?

[ipashchuk]

Influence global warming?

I'm sorry, Mr. Architect, but the human impact on global warming is negligible -- watch BBC's The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary... That's not to say that we don't need to take care of the environment... If we don't then the impact will be far more devastating than the notion of man-made global warming seems to convey.

[ToddWBeaver]

First of all

First of all, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.

Second, there is no correlation between atmospheric temperatures and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. No correlation means no cause-and-effect.

Third, humanity only produces about 5% of the annual CO2 emissions. How can humanity be to blame? Of course, this is rather moot because of points 1 and 2.

[wsuschmitt]

Going green

Going green isn't an easy thing to do in today's society. As it was pointed out, there are a LOT of energy plants out there (with more on their way) that produce energy from coal. All these people who think that converting an automobile to an electric car will save the planet. No it won't, if we have to build a bunch more coal fired plants to run them... and there goes the carbon emissions. Switch to flourescent bulbs? What about the mercury in the landfills as they go bad and are replaced?
I am an advocate for reduce, reuse and recycle, but this article just gets me thinking more and more that a lot of environmentalist's ideas on how to save the planet are just going to shift the trouble someplace else rather than fix the trouble.
... and I LOVE how some environmentalists are thinking that nuclear energy is cleaner than coal and how they are being advocated out there in news articles. Put environmentalists from 20 years ago with the ones today, and you wouldn't be able to find a unified, constructive base of ideas to take care of our environmental needs.

[UrbanBard]

The only reason that we have to use coal...

The only reason that we have to use coal is that the
environmentalists will not let us use nuclear or drill for the fifty
year supply of oil and gas that we know is on the US's east and
west coasts.

Nuclear energy is the only source that can beat coal's price per
BTU/hr though.

Are there dangers associated with nuclear power? Yes. But a coal
fired power plant puts more radiation into the environment than
from a nuclear plant because of the thorium in fly ash. Are there
radioactive disposal issues? Sure, but most of those are political.
The Earth safely stores radioactive material. We can copy what
works naturally. Melting the radioactive material into insoluble
glass and burying it make it pretty safe.

[megan-eliz32]

slightly hypocritical???

If one is even using a computer, or electricity, or any other form of "modern" technology.......I hate to say........you ALL are MAJOR contributors to "Global Warming"!!!!!

Practice what you preach. I have no opinion on this topic.....except that I really do not admire people that make statements, yet do not take ACTION to do anything about these "supposed" little "problems"........hmmmmmmmm.......think about that.

[RicDB]

Solar panels will reduce fossil fuels

Solar panels will reduce fossil fuels. But Solar panels will not work everywhere . For Home Owners
Solar panels cost alot more money then they would like to spend. Then what ?

[dobermanmacleod]

Ecosystem collapse

Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that ecosystem adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change.

If the rate should exceed 0.4 C/decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average temperature today is increasing by 0.2 C/decade.

This increase is caused by greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere decades ago, due to the lag time between emission and temperature rise.

We have emitted nearly double the greenhouse gas since then, and are increasing our emissions at a rate of over 3% per year.

Therefore, in the next couple of decades we are facing the quick destruction of all the world's ecosystems, which will result in abrupt climate change (I suggest reading the Pentagon's alarming report on this subject).

Reference: Leemans og Eickhout, 2004, Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change, Global Environmental Change 14, 219?228.

P.S. Any feasible planetary rescue strategy must include a method of removing some of the excess CO2 from the air.

I suggest the low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of biosequestration.

I suggest engineering and extensively testing a GMO and seeding it into the ocean.

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

[billmosby]

Solar panels, natural energy, and the future

Build enough solar panels and you get direct warming. They
absorb essentially all of the light that falls on them, ultimately
turning it all into heat after the energy they produce is used. In
contrast, the earth reflects 30 percent of the light that falls on it
back into space. Solution- make solar energy systems 30
percent reflective and they will not disturb the radiative heat
balance no matter how many are built. Not a problem right now,
of course, but let 6 to 10 billion people make use of them for all
the energy they might eventually want, and it will be.
Of course, nature is using 100 percent of most natural energy
sources now. Probably should analyze how much we can divert
without screwing something else up, before we do it.

[snowbird1]

Global Warming???

Global Warming!!

$125,000 thousand dollar reward to any person that can prove 'man' is the
cause of Global Warming

http://www.junkscience.com/

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

[megan-eliz32]

HAHA

You activists are very funny!!!!!!!

It causes more anger than the war.......Ohhhhh...

Maybe you are old and retired and bored...I assume...I am sorry!!!!

[Sweetfilter]

After burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations the next biggest Greenhouse culprits are covered vented landfill emissions, and the newer style of fully vented septic systems.


Septic Vent Pipe Filters Reduce Fully Vented Septic System Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sewer Odors overnight.



PUT GREENHOUSE CARBON BACK INTO THE SOIL.


Septic Vent Pipe Filters remove Odor, CO2, and other Greenhouse Gases by as much as 18%, on a lb. per lb. basis.

Typically, after 5 years of work, the used ZeoCarbon is replaced and returned to your soil as a nitrogen rich ornamental plant fertilizer.

[Jaredvcxz]

Sure coal reduction might work, but that is not the root of the problem. The root is humans. If we cut down the human population, there will be not as many people putting out the gasses or needing them.

[336tex]

CO2 in air has nothing to do with temperature increase or climate change. CO2 is a gas once produced by combustion, is consumed by the green chlorophyll in the leaf of every plant by photosynthesis taking Carbon out of CO2, this Carbon is the most important constituent of food for plants, animals, and humans.
Our planet Earth is experiencing Magnetic Field Reversal, North and South Pole are now in process of exchange. Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen 2009 are hiding these facts and imposing regulations forbidding any emission of CO2, consequently food prices will skyrocket.
CO2 in air and climate change are affordable, imposing zero CO2 emission has more drastic consequences which no person, country or nation can withstand.
These facts are very simple and clear and can be checked by references.

Neither CO2 accumulate in air, nor anyone has any Carbon footprint, or even a fingerprint. Once produced by any combustion process, CO2 is consumed by the green chlorophyll which is present in every leaf of every plant, by photosynthesis in presence of light, taking Carbon out of CO2. This Carbon is the most important constituent in all organic and biochemical compounds, including the growth of the plant itself, food we eat, all agricultural products, cotton, paper, meat,.......etc..CO2 is not a nuisance, it is rather a blessing, nature is awaiting for its presence to grow. Studies and projects to store CO2 underground (sequestration) are simply looking for their personal profits.

[336tex]

COAL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCE ETHANOL

Unhappily Coal is totally misunderstood, its real value is totally undiscovered, despite that scientific progress is claiming maturity and nothing is still left behind unnoticed.

Coke and Natural Gas= Ethylene Gas(hydration)= Ethanol
C + CH4 = C2H4 +H2O = C2H5OH

Coal can produce an affective liquid fuel (Ethanol), in abundance, as Crude petroleum Oil produces gasoline.
Crude Petroleum took all the privilege and recognition, while coal is left behind unnoticed.

The reason is: During WWII two German Scientists Fischer and Tropsh came up the idea of reacting Coal with oxygen and steam producing a mixture of gases mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. If we apply such a reaction to crude petroleum, we would have destroyed the value of crude petroleum also.

Coal, as crude petroleum, consists of a mixture of several organic compounds. Also, as crude petroleum, it needs to have these compounds separated first. The solid residue of destructive distillation of coal is Coke. This coke reacts with natural gas (methane) to produce Ethylene gas. Ethylene is valuable, and is the well known raw material for ethanol.

The reaction of Coke and natural Gas is described in both Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry and Kirk and Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (under Acetylene, as it is produced by the same process). If we had this ethanol from coal, NO energy crisis could be substantiated???

More details are cited in several websites, two of them are www.coalplantsengineering.com and www.petcoke-to-ethanol.com also several blogs are also posted two of them are ethanol-from-coal-and-natural-gas.blogspot.com and coal-replaces-crude-oil-exploration.blogspot.com

[marcgreenberg]

Do better research Mr. Kanellos before you post something again.