Don Libby | 1 Feb 11:10 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2403] Re: Bury charcoal


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David B. Benson" <dbenson <at> eecs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <globalchange <at> googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:30 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2402] Re: Bury charcoal

>
> On Jan 27, 4:18 am, "Don Libby" <dli... <at> tds.net> wrote:
>> ... Don't burn
>> biomass: pyrolize it and hire a bunch of ex-coal miners to shove it down 
>> a
>> mine shaft, then sell your carbon credits to pay off your loan.
>
> Even better is to use hydrothermal carbonization to produce biocoal.
> Your ex-coal miners will recognize even more easily and it is a bit
> denser.  In addition, the reaction is sufficiently exothermic that you
> can generate some electrical power while making biocoal.
>

Interesting idea.  I'm not precisely sure how the economics work out for 
biocoal but I've gathered that charcoal can be produced at about $70 per 
ton, which is about 5 tons CO2 equivalent, which makes the process break 
even if carbon credits sell for $14 per ton CO2 equivalent sequestered - 
currently credits can be bought for between $10-$20.  Looks promising.

http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp#newsitem

New J. Chem., 2007, 31, 787 - 789
(Continue reading)

powersoftmedia@yahoo.com | 2 Feb 04:38 2008
Picon

www.renewableenegyJobs.net


www.renewableenegyJobs.net

I am pleased to announce that

www.renewableenergyjobs.net as launched and will featured dailey
updates jobs posting from
many sectores within the renewable energy field.
Including:

Biomass/Biofuels
Carbon Sector
CHP/Cogeneration
Climate Sector
Consultant
Education
Environmental
Finance
Fuel Cells
Geothermal
Government
Hydropower
Marketing
Renewable Energy
Solar Power
Wave/Tidal Power
Wind Power

We have a large forum that needs populating.
We need your help!
(Continue reading)

Hank Roberts | 4 Feb 04:17 2008
Picon

www.renewableenegyJobs.net


Hm. Okay, there are some job openings actually listed there.
So having paged through, it seems like there may be something to this.

My advice is, post a job yourselves.  Hire a proofreader.
There are misspellings in every page, usually in every paragraph.
Microsoft Word's Spellcheck is _not_ sufficient, though using it would
help.
powersoftmedia@yahoo.com | 7 Feb 17:07 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2406] Featured Jobs This week.


Featured Jobs This week.

From Eden Scott:

Chief Operating Officer,London

Senior Mechanical Engineer - Wind Turbines,U.K

Electrical / Control System Engineers - Wind Turbines,U.k

from Bella Energy:

Solar Electrician,Lafayette, CO

SunPower Corporation:

Director, Utility Sales,Richmond, CA

Blue Oak Energy, Inc:

Associate Engineer - Commercial Scale PV

Our Homepage has a full listing please visit below.

www.renewableenergyjobs.net

Reagrds

Saxon Rowe
(Continue reading)

hgerhauser@yahoo.co.uk | 9 Feb 22:53 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2407] Re: Cost/benefit of human extinction


> I used a 2% real rate of return and assumed the human race stabilized
> at 6 billion and the value of a human life stayed at 10 million real
> dollars.

The value of a human life is infinite and yet people go to the cinema
or buy themselves pretty wallpaper rather than give the money to save
lives.

For some people their own life isn't precious enough to bother wearing
a seatbelt.

AFAIK is the 10 million Dollar (or something close) the cut-off for
road (or railway I forget which one, the latter is higher) safety
measures.

In truth the 10 million aren't about what should be spent or value,
they are mostly descriptive. That's how much we are in fact spending,
or rather what OECD governments are willing to spend to prevent one
particular type of death in their own countries.

The optimal carbon tax calculated by Nordhaus is based on a host of
implicit assumptions about the future, but also about who it should be
optimised for.

Specifically, I think it's assumed that the optimisation should be for
humanity.

I don't think that's the way the world works today; mostly national
governments care hundreds to millions of times more about their own
(Continue reading)

texasriver | 10 Feb 23:33 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2408] RE: What the Election Means for Carbon Trading


Thought you all might like this.  With Romney out, we are pretty
certain to get a cap and trade system.

http://www.cleantechblog.com/2008/02/super-tuesday-was-super-for-us-carbon.html

Zeke Hausfather | 13 Feb 02:16 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2409] Climate and Weather


I wrote up a short piece on climate and weather drawing on William and
James's old RC post, among other sources. I wonder if you guys would
take a quick glance at it before I "publish" it (e.g. stick it up on
the Yale Climate Media Forum) just to make sure nothing is too far off
the mark. I figure I'd be a tad cautious after getting some rather
harsh criticism from a number of climate scientists for using the term
relative humidity inappropriately in my last article.

Common Climate Misconceptions: Climate and Weather
By Zeke Hausfather

Broadcast meteorologists do not have the best of reputations for
predictive accuracy. Audiences are particularly good at remembering -
and at pointing the finger - when they're wrong. Few heap praise when
their forecasts turn out to have been accurate.

So the rainy day expected tomorrow turns out to be sunny, and
projections more than a week away are usually offered - and taken -
with the proverbial grain of salt.

Given the chaotic elements in weather systems that defy simple
calculated predictions, the public understandably asks, "How can we
forecast Earth's climate a century from now if we can't even predict
tomorrow's weather?"
The answers lie in the important distinctions between weather and
climate.

Weather is chaotic [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=204]. Many
are familiar with chaos theory, often caricatured by the metaphor that
(Continue reading)

James Annan | 15 Feb 05:16 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2410] Re: Climate and Weather


Hi Zeke,

Sorry for the late reply - an intrusion of real life, but normality
has now returned :-)

The article looks very nicely written to me.

James

On 13/02/2008, Zeke Hausfather <hausfath <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I wrote up a short piece on climate and weather drawing on William and
>  James's old RC post, among other sources. I wonder if you guys would
>  take a quick glance at it before I "publish" it (e.g. stick it up on
>  the Yale Climate Media Forum) just to make sure nothing is too far off
>  the mark. I figure I'd be a tad cautious after getting some rather
>  harsh criticism from a number of climate scientists for using the term
>  relative humidity inappropriately in my last article.

Michael Tobis | 15 Feb 06:03 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2411] Re: Climate and Weather


"The longer the timeframe and the lower the spatial resolution,
the more likely the predictions will be affected by chaotic behavior."

seems backwards. Chaos averages out on longer and larger scales, right?

Otherwise I agree that this is  well-written and very good.

By the way I have a couple of related articles:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/blogs/2007/10/climate-chaos-and-confusion.html#more
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/blogs/2007/11/chaos-part-2-chaos-doesnt-matt.html#more

probably not as well written as they are somewhat hasty... Maybe the
ideas will be useful just the same.

mt

Tom Adams | 15 Feb 15:06 2008
Picon

[Global Change: 2412] The future of runaway global warming


One could make an argument that the most troubling potential effect of
global warming is not sea level-rise or drought.  The most toubling
potential effect of global warming is  *more global warming*.

Yet there seems to be little public awareness of this.  The public
seems view global warming as a problem that can be dealt with later,
but this might not be true.

"Greenpeace International polled 400 climate scientists during
December 1991 and January '92. The sample included all scientists
involved in the 1990 study of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and others who have published on issues relevant to climate
change in `Science' or `Nature' during 1991. Scientists were asked
whether they thought there would be a point of no return at some time
in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate. By the
end of January 1992, 113 had replied, in the following way: probably -
15 (13%), possibly - 36 (32%), probably not - 53 (47%). In other
words, 45% believe the runaway greenhouse effect to be possible. "

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0638.html

"Runaway global warming" (RGW) is the best term I have found for this
(based on googling).   Is there a better term?

What is the status of RGW in the scientific community these days?  It
is frige alarmist or mainstream?

Is there any research that might sort out RGW, determine if its a real
probability, put a probability on it?
(Continue reading)


Gmane