From chat:
roughbarked said:
Far from lifeless, the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) appears to be back, albeit with a new look and a new name.
So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
The Rev Dodgson said:
From chat:roughbarked said:
Far from lifeless, the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) appears to be back, albeit with a new look and a new name.
So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
Definitely the former.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From chat:roughbarked said:
Far from lifeless, the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) appears to be back, albeit with a new look and a new name.
So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
Definitely the former.
OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From chat:So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
Definitely the former.
OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/switching-from-coal-oil-to-natural-gas-accelerates-climate-change-study/
No idea of the reliability of the study.
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:Definitely the former.
OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/switching-from-coal-oil-to-natural-gas-accelerates-climate-change-study/
No idea of the reliability of the study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Watch_Group
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From chat:So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
Definitely the former.
OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
Oh, if you put it that way I don’t really care. It’s just a step on the way to reducing our total emissions and I don’t care whether it is done by a interim step of transitioning to natural gas or if it involves harnessing the power of ruminant flatulence. I feel that many people underestimate the engineering challenges involved in going down the solar/wind/storage route and that interim steps are needed.
The Rev Dodgson said:
From chat:roughbarked said:
Far from lifeless, the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) appears to be back, albeit with a new look and a new name.
So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
I think in the medium term, gas has a place in patching up the intermittency and loadshaping issues of renewables. In the longer term it could all be handled by appropriate storage options.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:Definitely the former.
OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
Oh, if you put it that way I don’t really care. It’s just a step on the way to reducing our total emissions and I don’t care whether it is done by a interim step of transitioning to natural gas or if it involves harnessing the power of ruminant flatulence. I feel that many people underestimate the engineering challenges involved in going down the solar/wind/storage route and that interim steps are needed.
I’m inclined to agree, but for the current discussion I wasn’t talking about bull-shit emissions, just the methane emissions associated with fracking. If the total emissions from natural gas fracking + burning are >= total emissions from coal mining + burning, why not just stick with coal and use the money saved elsewhere?
ChrispenEvan said:
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/switching-from-coal-oil-to-natural-gas-accelerates-climate-change-study/
No idea of the reliability of the study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Watch_Group
Thanks. I’ll have a read later.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, you latte-sipping water-melon, how do total GHG emissions compare for methane and latest technology coal, when all sources (including methane leakage) are taken into account?
Oh, if you put it that way I don’t really care. It’s just a step on the way to reducing our total emissions and I don’t care whether it is done by a interim step of transitioning to natural gas or if it involves harnessing the power of ruminant flatulence. I feel that many people underestimate the engineering challenges involved in going down the solar/wind/storage route and that interim steps are needed.
I’m inclined to agree, but for the current discussion I wasn’t talking about bull-shit emissions, just the methane emissions associated with fracking. If the total emissions from natural gas fracking + burning are >= total emissions from coal mining + burning, why not just stick with coal and use the money saved elsewhere?
I’ll admit that I didn’t realise that there’s an argument that natural gas may increase emissions.
SCIENCE said:
That is an excellent point.
Divine Angel said:
SCIENCE said:That is an excellent point.
TLDR
The Rev Dodgson said:
why not just stick with coal and use the money saved elsewhere?
have you ever tried to use burning coal to cook the books properly
Divine Angel said:
SCIENCE said:That is an excellent point.
au contraire, i pointed at the editing box and ended up at another form action instead so I must have missed the point
I’m going to state that it is uncontroversial that switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power production results in reduced GHG emissions, all things taken into account.
The EWG paper a) discusses a putative case in which a conversion is made from {coal AND oil} to natural gas for {power production AND transport AND heating}. This is quite a different topic from converting from coal (especially the brown gear still used in Victoria) to natural gas for electrical power production only.
You’ve mentioned fugitive emissions in natural gas production, but note that fugitive emissions from coal mining in Australia (38 million tonnes CO2e per annum) are more than twice those of oil and gas combined (17 million tonnes CO2e per annum). (source: DoEE Fugitive emissions projections report)
The IPCC’s emissions factors take full cycle emissions into account, including fugitive emissions and emissions generated in production. Their Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions median estimate for coal is 0.82 kgCO2e/kWh, while for natural gas it is 0.49 kgCO2e/kWh.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf#page=26 (you’ll have to get your calculator out)
This recent FAS paper provides a similar analysis.
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Electricity Sector: Factors, Trends, and Projections
As the figure indicates, petroleum-fired electricity yields approximately 80% of the CO2 emission of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a steam generation unit yields approximately 60% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a combined cycle unit yields approximately 43% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
Other sources produce estimates in a similar range. It’s not even close.
The fundamental reason for this is chemical. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon, while coal is (basically) carbon. You get about twice as much energy per CO2 produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons as you do from the combustion of carbon.
—-
Now, this information in itself doesn’t tell us whether or not we should switch straight from coal to renewables rather than switching from coal to natural gas and renewables. That would be a complicated question that would require information about future pricing, infrastructure costs, distruption, load balancing, intermittency, the speed of deployment, skills shortages and so on.
I think it is pretty certain that natural gas is going to play a part of Australia’s energy future for at least the medium term so this is really a question of “how much”. I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Y’all know I personally would favour a carbon pricing mechanism to allow industry to work out for itself the most cost efficient way of meeting emissions targets but others would prefer a more government led approach.
dv said:
I’m going to state that it is uncontroversial that switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power production results in reduced GHG emissions, all things taken into account.The EWG paper a) discusses a putative case in which a conversion is made from {coal AND oil} to natural gas for {power production AND transport AND heating}. This is quite a different topic from converting from coal (especially the brown gear still used in Victoria) to natural gas for electrical power production only.
You’ve mentioned fugitive emissions in natural gas production, but note that fugitive emissions from coal mining in Australia (38 million tonnes CO2e per annum) are more than twice those of oil and gas combined (17 million tonnes CO2e per annum). (source: DoEE Fugitive emissions projections report)
The IPCC’s emissions factors take full cycle emissions into account, including fugitive emissions and emissions generated in production. Their Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions median estimate for coal is 0.82 kgCO2e/kWh, while for natural gas it is 0.49 kgCO2e/kWh.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf#page=26 (you’ll have to get your calculator out)This recent FAS paper provides a similar analysis.
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Electricity Sector: Factors, Trends, and Projections
As the figure indicates, petroleum-fired electricity yields approximately 80% of the CO2 emission of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a steam generation unit yields approximately 60% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a combined cycle unit yields approximately 43% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45453.pdfOther sources produce estimates in a similar range. It’s not even close.
The fundamental reason for this is chemical. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon, while coal is (basically) carbon. You get about twice as much energy per CO2 produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons as you do from the combustion of carbon.
—-
Now, this information in itself doesn’t tell us whether or not we should switch straight from coal to renewables rather than switching from coal to natural gas and renewables. That would be a complicated question that would require information about future pricing, infrastructure costs, distruption, load balancing, intermittency, the speed of deployment, skills shortages and so on.
I think it is pretty certain that natural gas is going to play a part of Australia’s energy future for at least the medium term so this is really a question of “how much”. I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Y’all know I personally would favour a carbon pricing mechanism to allow industry to work out for itself the most cost efficient way of meeting emissions targets but others would prefer a more government led approach.
Thanks dv. I really appreciate you taking the time to post that.
The question then is, how do we get the opposition parties to focus on minimising emissions as quickly and cheaply as possible, rather than opposing policies that make sense?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I’m going to state that it is uncontroversial that switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power production results in reduced GHG emissions, all things taken into account.The EWG paper a) discusses a putative case in which a conversion is made from {coal AND oil} to natural gas for {power production AND transport AND heating}. This is quite a different topic from converting from coal (especially the brown gear still used in Victoria) to natural gas for electrical power production only.
You’ve mentioned fugitive emissions in natural gas production, but note that fugitive emissions from coal mining in Australia (38 million tonnes CO2e per annum) are more than twice those of oil and gas combined (17 million tonnes CO2e per annum). (source: DoEE Fugitive emissions projections report)
The IPCC’s emissions factors take full cycle emissions into account, including fugitive emissions and emissions generated in production. Their Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions median estimate for coal is 0.82 kgCO2e/kWh, while for natural gas it is 0.49 kgCO2e/kWh.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf#page=26 (you’ll have to get your calculator out)This recent FAS paper provides a similar analysis.
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Electricity Sector: Factors, Trends, and Projections
As the figure indicates, petroleum-fired electricity yields approximately 80% of the CO2 emission of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a steam generation unit yields approximately 60% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a combined cycle unit yields approximately 43% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45453.pdfOther sources produce estimates in a similar range. It’s not even close.
The fundamental reason for this is chemical. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon, while coal is (basically) carbon. You get about twice as much energy per CO2 produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons as you do from the combustion of carbon.
—-
Now, this information in itself doesn’t tell us whether or not we should switch straight from coal to renewables rather than switching from coal to natural gas and renewables. That would be a complicated question that would require information about future pricing, infrastructure costs, distruption, load balancing, intermittency, the speed of deployment, skills shortages and so on.
I think it is pretty certain that natural gas is going to play a part of Australia’s energy future for at least the medium term so this is really a question of “how much”. I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Y’all know I personally would favour a carbon pricing mechanism to allow industry to work out for itself the most cost efficient way of meeting emissions targets but others would prefer a more government led approach.
Thanks dv. I really appreciate you taking the time to post that.
The question then is, how do we get the opposition parties to focus on minimising emissions as quickly and cheaply as possible, rather than opposing policies that make sense?
+1
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I’m going to state that it is uncontroversial that switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power production results in reduced GHG emissions, all things taken into account.The EWG paper a) discusses a putative case in which a conversion is made from {coal AND oil} to natural gas for {power production AND transport AND heating}. This is quite a different topic from converting from coal (especially the brown gear still used in Victoria) to natural gas for electrical power production only.
You’ve mentioned fugitive emissions in natural gas production, but note that fugitive emissions from coal mining in Australia (38 million tonnes CO2e per annum) are more than twice those of oil and gas combined (17 million tonnes CO2e per annum). (source: DoEE Fugitive emissions projections report)
The IPCC’s emissions factors take full cycle emissions into account, including fugitive emissions and emissions generated in production. Their Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions median estimate for coal is 0.82 kgCO2e/kWh, while for natural gas it is 0.49 kgCO2e/kWh.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf#page=26 (you’ll have to get your calculator out)This recent FAS paper provides a similar analysis.
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Electricity Sector: Factors, Trends, and Projections
As the figure indicates, petroleum-fired electricity yields approximately 80% of the CO2 emission of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a steam generation unit yields approximately 60% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a combined cycle unit yields approximately 43% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45453.pdfOther sources produce estimates in a similar range. It’s not even close.
The fundamental reason for this is chemical. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon, while coal is (basically) carbon. You get about twice as much energy per CO2 produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons as you do from the combustion of carbon.
—-
Now, this information in itself doesn’t tell us whether or not we should switch straight from coal to renewables rather than switching from coal to natural gas and renewables. That would be a complicated question that would require information about future pricing, infrastructure costs, distruption, load balancing, intermittency, the speed of deployment, skills shortages and so on.
I think it is pretty certain that natural gas is going to play a part of Australia’s energy future for at least the medium term so this is really a question of “how much”. I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Y’all know I personally would favour a carbon pricing mechanism to allow industry to work out for itself the most cost efficient way of meeting emissions targets but others would prefer a more government led approach.
Thanks dv. I really appreciate you taking the time to post that.
The question then is, how do we get the opposition parties to focus on minimising emissions as quickly and cheaply as possible, rather than opposing policies that make sense?
+1
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I’m going to state that it is uncontroversial that switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power production results in reduced GHG emissions, all things taken into account.The EWG paper a) discusses a putative case in which a conversion is made from {coal AND oil} to natural gas for {power production AND transport AND heating}. This is quite a different topic from converting from coal (especially the brown gear still used in Victoria) to natural gas for electrical power production only.
You’ve mentioned fugitive emissions in natural gas production, but note that fugitive emissions from coal mining in Australia (38 million tonnes CO2e per annum) are more than twice those of oil and gas combined (17 million tonnes CO2e per annum). (source: DoEE Fugitive emissions projections report)
The IPCC’s emissions factors take full cycle emissions into account, including fugitive emissions and emissions generated in production. Their Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions median estimate for coal is 0.82 kgCO2e/kWh, while for natural gas it is 0.49 kgCO2e/kWh.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf#page=26 (you’ll have to get your calculator out)This recent FAS paper provides a similar analysis.
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Electricity Sector: Factors, Trends, and Projections
As the figure indicates, petroleum-fired electricity yields approximately 80% of the CO2 emission of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a steam generation unit yields approximately 60% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Natural-gas-fired electricity from a combined cycle unit yields approximately 43% of the CO2 emissions of coal-fired electricity per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45453.pdfOther sources produce estimates in a similar range. It’s not even close.
The fundamental reason for this is chemical. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon, while coal is (basically) carbon. You get about twice as much energy per CO2 produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons as you do from the combustion of carbon.
—-
Now, this information in itself doesn’t tell us whether or not we should switch straight from coal to renewables rather than switching from coal to natural gas and renewables. That would be a complicated question that would require information about future pricing, infrastructure costs, distruption, load balancing, intermittency, the speed of deployment, skills shortages and so on.
I think it is pretty certain that natural gas is going to play a part of Australia’s energy future for at least the medium term so this is really a question of “how much”. I don’t have a firm opinion on that. Y’all know I personally would favour a carbon pricing mechanism to allow industry to work out for itself the most cost efficient way of meeting emissions targets but others would prefer a more government led approach.
Thanks dv. I really appreciate you taking the time to post that.
The question then is, how do we get the opposition parties to focus on minimising emissions as quickly and cheaply as possible, rather than opposing policies that make sense?
Yes, thanks for that, deevs.
I still prefer heating methane (gas fuel) with coal (solid fuel) under pressure to produce diesel (liquid fuel).
Coal seam gas is methane. So yes, use methane as well as coal.
Methane released by coke ovens in steel production is a major source of energy for making steel.
Methane fuel cells are far better for the environment and for vehicles than hydrogen fuel cells. For the environment because hydrogen can’t be mined or stored. Methane can.
Methane is already being used by by sewage farms as their only fuel source. Sewage farms have anaerobic digesters that use bacteria (methanogens) to break down raw sewage and release methane as the first step in sewage detoxification. It’s not a good idea to release the methane straight into the environment, so using it for power is a win-win.
mollwollfumble said:
I still prefer heating methane (gas fuel) with coal (solid fuel) under pressure to produce diesel (liquid fuel).Coal seam gas is methane. So yes, use methane as well as coal.
Methane released by coke ovens in steel production is a major source of energy for making steel.
Methane fuel cells are far better for the environment and for vehicles than hydrogen fuel cells. For the environment because hydrogen can’t be mined or stored. Methane can.
Methane is already being used by by sewage farms as their only fuel source. Sewage farms have anaerobic digesters that use bacteria (methanogens) to break down raw sewage and release methane as the first step in sewage detoxification. It’s not a good idea to release the methane straight into the environment, so using it for power is a win-win.
Sure, there’s no question that using waste methane as a fuel, rather than letting it go to waste, is a no-brainer, but that’s not the issue here. We are talking about replacing coal with mined methane.
“I still prefer heating methane (gas fuel) with coal (solid fuel) under pressure to produce diesel (liquid fuel).”
Why?
Well you can bet I don’t have any answer regarding the political problem but I reckon part of the cause is the winner-takes-all two party system. It makes getting into government the One True Ring such that nothing else matters, not even good government, and provides incentive to destroy one’s opponents ideas rather than find grounds for cooperation. Labor plans an NBN? Make destroying the NBN your stated mission rather than working on the scope and costs. LNP has a less-than-perfect emissions abatement scheme? Trash it completely rather than reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Turnbull.
It’s very inefficient. Compare it to Germany or NZ or Switzerland where the major parties expect to be in a coalition so they’ve become used to the delicate arts of compromise and negotiation.
The Rev Dodgson said:
From chat:roughbarked said:
Far from lifeless, the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) appears to be back, albeit with a new look and a new name.
So is switching from coal to methane a sensible step in the quickest transition to nett zero GHG emissions, or is it climate criminality?
Or perhaps something in between?
“Coal seam gas is a heavily polluting industry that leaks vast amounts of methane and won’t do anything to bring down carbon emissions.
IMO
Gas may burn cleaner
but too much methane is leaking into the atmosphere + Toxic Fracking Fluids are
allowed to poison the precious Ground Water due to clumsy production practices.
THEY’re selling it as the way to go (getting rich playing “The Old Shell-Game”)
while not allowing the people to weigh the downside by suppressing information.
Slightly off topic.
What’s the maximum percentage of CO2 in a greenhouse atmosphere that people have successfully grown plants in?
It’s known that C3 plants grow better at high atmospheric CO2 and C4 plants don’t. But what are the limits on that.
Can plants be grown in a greenhouse atmosphere with 80% N2, 20% CO2 and a small percentage of O2?
What about 80% N2, 10% CO2 and 10% O2?
I’m thinking of feeding off-gas from methane burning straight into an enclosed atmosphere greenhouse.
mollwollfumble said:
Slightly off topic.What’s the maximum percentage of CO2 in a greenhouse atmosphere that people have successfully grown plants in?
It’s known that C3 plants grow better at high atmospheric CO2 and C4 plants don’t. But what are the limits on that.
Can plants be grown in a greenhouse atmosphere with 80% N2, 20% CO2 and a small percentage of O2?
What about 80% N2, 10% CO2 and 10% O2?I’m thinking of feeding off-gas from methane burning straight into an enclosed atmosphere greenhouse.
Depends what you are growing. Hydro growers really pump it in. Can’t go in there unless you turn the pumps off and leave the fans running for a while.
I should have mentioned earlier. The sanest thing to do is freeze greenhouse gas production and wait until the climate stabilises.
Once the climate stabilises, then sensible decisions can be made about the ideal steady-state emission level.
mollwollfumble said:
I should have mentioned earlier. The sanest thing to do is freeze greenhouse gas production and wait until the climate stabilises.Once the climate stabilises, then sensible decisions can be made about the ideal steady-state emission level.
Could be a long time, hundreds or thousands of years.
roughbarked said:
mollwollfumble said:
Slightly off topic.What’s the maximum percentage of CO2 in a greenhouse atmosphere that people have successfully grown plants in?
It’s known that C3 plants grow better at high atmospheric CO2 and C4 plants don’t. But what are the limits on that.
Can plants be grown in a greenhouse atmosphere with 80% N2, 20% CO2 and a small percentage of O2?
What about 80% N2, 10% CO2 and 10% O2?I’m thinking of feeding off-gas from methane burning straight into an enclosed atmosphere greenhouse.
Depends what you are growing. Hydro growers really pump it in. Can’t go in there unless you turn the pumps off and leave the fans running for a while.
“CO2 systems for hydroponics are used to enrich a grow room with CO2”. “Depending on the quality of your CO2 enrichment system, your plants can increase their growth by 25 – 40%.” “inject up to 1600 ppm of agricultural grade CO2”. “CO2 as levels above 2000 ppm are toxic to your plants”. “Most gardens and crops will benenfit significantly when the concentration of available CO2 is kept between 1000 and 1600 PPM.”
1600 ppm is, um, 0.16% atmospheric CO2, and 2000 ppm is 0.2%?
There’s this one from 1989.
Acclimation of Photosynthesis to Elevated CO2 in Five C3 Species
But that’s only up to 0.12% CO2 (compare current 0.04% CO2).
All five C3 species grow better in 0.12% CO2 than 0.04% CO2, but there’s not much difference in growth rate between 0.09% CO2 and 0.12% CO2. i.e. atmospheric concentration of CO2 above 0.09% doesn’t help plant growth all that much for these five species.
CO2 assimilation rate depends on temperature. For these five C3 species, increases in leaf temperature result in a greater CO2 assimilation rate.
Atmospheric oxygen can be reduced from 0.18 bar to 0.03 bar without affecting plant growth rate, at some temperatures.
But 0.12% is a lot less than 10% CO2, so doesn’t tell us about direct carbon sequestration straight from the power plant output.
Here’s one paper with CO2 levels up to 10,000 ppm. Effect of CO2 levels on nutrient content of lettuce and radish
“Chamber-grown radish and lettuce from the Kennedy Space Center were grown at 23°C 65% relative humidity, 18-hour light/ 6-hour dark cycle with daylight fluorescent lamps, and CO2 levels of 400, 1000, 5000, or 10,000 ppm.”
Kennedy space centre. :-)
Radish and lettuce grow perfectly well up to 10,000 ppm of CO2. Nutrition value changes, with different levels of nitrogen and protein in leaves as the atmospheric CO2 increases.
So pumping gas effluent straight from (small) power plants into hydroponic farms may make sense. The limit on the plant growth rate would be the amount of sunlight. I think I saw a plan for doing this using algae ponds for the growing plants.
dv said:
Well you can bet I don’t have any answer regarding the political problem but I reckon part of the cause is the winner-takes-all two party system. It makes getting into government the One True Ring such that nothing else matters, not even good government, and provides incentive to destroy one’s opponents ideas rather than find grounds for cooperation. Labor plans an NBN? Make destroying the NBN your stated mission rather than working on the scope and costs. LNP has a less-than-perfect emissions abatement scheme? Trash it completely rather than reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Turnbull.It’s very inefficient. Compare it to Germany or NZ or Switzerland where the major parties expect to be in a coalition so they’ve become used to the delicate arts of compromise and negotiation.
Exhibit A
ALP attacking the Coalition for trying to increase revenue from the extractive industries.
dv said:
dv said:
Well you can bet I don’t have any answer regarding the political problem but I reckon part of the cause is the winner-takes-all two party system. It makes getting into government the One True Ring such that nothing else matters, not even good government, and provides incentive to destroy one’s opponents ideas rather than find grounds for cooperation. Labor plans an NBN? Make destroying the NBN your stated mission rather than working on the scope and costs. LNP has a less-than-perfect emissions abatement scheme? Trash it completely rather than reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Turnbull.It’s very inefficient. Compare it to Germany or NZ or Switzerland where the major parties expect to be in a coalition so they’ve become used to the delicate arts of compromise and negotiation.
Exhibit A
ALP attacking the Coalition for trying to increase revenue from the extractive industries.
numpties. numptys.
dv said:
dv said:
Well you can bet I don’t have any answer regarding the political problem but I reckon part of the cause is the winner-takes-all two party system. It makes getting into government the One True Ring such that nothing else matters, not even good government, and provides incentive to destroy one’s opponents ideas rather than find grounds for cooperation. Labor plans an NBN? Make destroying the NBN your stated mission rather than working on the scope and costs. LNP has a less-than-perfect emissions abatement scheme? Trash it completely rather than reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Turnbull.It’s very inefficient. Compare it to Germany or NZ or Switzerland where the major parties expect to be in a coalition so they’ve become used to the delicate arts of compromise and negotiation.
Exhibit A
ALP attacking the Coalition for trying to increase revenue from the extractive industries.
Keep that up and I might put Libs ahead of Labs at the next election.
dv said:
dv said:
Well you can bet I don’t have any answer regarding the political problem but I reckon part of the cause is the winner-takes-all two party system. It makes getting into government the One True Ring such that nothing else matters, not even good government, and provides incentive to destroy one’s opponents ideas rather than find grounds for cooperation. Labor plans an NBN? Make destroying the NBN your stated mission rather than working on the scope and costs. LNP has a less-than-perfect emissions abatement scheme? Trash it completely rather than reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Turnbull.It’s very inefficient. Compare it to Germany or NZ or Switzerland where the major parties expect to be in a coalition so they’ve become used to the delicate arts of compromise and negotiation.
Exhibit A
ALP attacking the Coalition for trying to increase revenue from the extractive industries.
Sad.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
dv said:
Well you can bet I don’t have any answer regarding the political problem but I reckon part of the cause is the winner-takes-all two party system. It makes getting into government the One True Ring such that nothing else matters, not even good government, and provides incentive to destroy one’s opponents ideas rather than find grounds for cooperation. Labor plans an NBN? Make destroying the NBN your stated mission rather than working on the scope and costs. LNP has a less-than-perfect emissions abatement scheme? Trash it completely rather than reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Turnbull.It’s very inefficient. Compare it to Germany or NZ or Switzerland where the major parties expect to be in a coalition so they’ve become used to the delicate arts of compromise and negotiation.
Exhibit A
ALP attacking the Coalition for trying to increase revenue from the extractive industries.
Keep that up and I might put Libs ahead of Labs at the next election.
we don’t always disagree with The Rev Dodgson but this isn’t one of those times
SCIENCE said:
we don’t always disagree with The Rev Dodgson but this isn’t one of those times
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Exhibit A
ALP attacking the Coalition for trying to increase revenue from the extractive industries.
Keep that up and I might put Libs ahead of Labs at the next election.
we don’t always disagree with The Rev Dodgson but this isn’t one of those times
If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Keep that up and I might put Libs ahead of Labs at the next election.
we don’t always disagree with The Rev Dodgson but this isn’t one of those times
If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:we don’t always disagree with The Rev Dodgson but this isn’t one of those times
If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
is daylight robbery corruption
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
I once voted LNP because the Labs were trying to give the country away while the LNP were at least trying to sell it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
Right, but at the moment the Coalition is blocking an independent corruption watchdog, and ALP supports one.
I suppose CC is the bigger issue.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
There may not be, but I don’t believe we should accept corruption at all.
Tamb said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Have to weigh it against other issues such as the corruption watchdog. It would be a serious consideration, though.
In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
I once voted LNP because the Labs were trying to give the country away while the LNP were at least trying to sell it.
It’s easier to write ‘the ALP’ or ‘Labor’ than ‘the Labs,…
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:
The Rev Dodgson said:In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
I once voted LNP because the Labs were trying to give the country away while the LNP were at least trying to sell it.
It’s easier to write ‘the ALP’ or ‘Labor’ than ‘the Labs,…
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:
The Rev Dodgson said:In the long term, I’m not convinced there is a great deal of difference between the parties in terms of corruption, not that I’ve looked into it in any depth.
I once voted LNP because the Labs were trying to give the country away while the LNP were at least trying to sell it.
It’s easier to write ‘the ALP’ or ‘Labor’ than ‘the Labs,…
And much easier to read, too.
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:I once voted LNP because the Labs were trying to give the country away while the LNP were at least trying to sell it.
It’s easier to write ‘the ALP’ or ‘Labor’ than ‘the Labs,…
And much easier to read, too.
I have no trouble with English.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Keep that up and I might put Libs ahead of Labs at the next election.
we don’t always disagree with The Rev Dodgson but this isn’t one of those times
If the Libs introduce a Carbon price, and the Labs are against it, why would you put Labs ahead of Libs?
Might depend on what else is offered in terms of social justice. It might be a difficult one to weigh up.
I’ve got this niggling concern that if we now have some cooler weather for a few years (which often happens after drought breaks – you know “of flood and fire and famine”, although it is usually a different order, ie drought then fire then flood) any incentive to keep our nest clean will just get forgotten. Although I do think there is a bit of a movement now towards thinking more in terms of being greener to save money. Like not wasting so much. In my opinion this should have been the way things were approached for a long time. People are more likely to listen to an economic imperative. Simple stuff really – save on electricity by not having stuff turned on that doesn’t need to be turned on. But it’s all a bit hippy, so uncool these days.
Thanks Dv. It seems to be a Samsung device thing. I’ll how bit goes now.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Thanks Dv. It seems to be a Samsung device thing. I’ll how bit goes now.
See how it goes now.
buffy said:
I’ve got this niggling concern that if we now have some cooler weather for a few years (which often happens after drought breaks – you know “of flood and fire and famine”, although it is usually a different order, ie drought then fire then flood) any incentive to keep our nest clean will just get forgotten. Although I do think there is a bit of a movement now towards thinking more in terms of being greener to save money. Like not wasting so much. In my opinion this should have been the way things were approached for a long time. People are more likely to listen to an economic imperative. Simple stuff really – save on electricity by not having stuff turned on that doesn’t need to be turned on. But it’s all a bit hippy, so uncool these days.
who cares, our prayers have been answered, Dear God Has Cholera, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-09/rainfall-nsw-extinguishes-currowan-bushfire/11947268 and all that, what we needed was a Strong White Man From Marketing in charge and success