Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (11224)	11/7/2006 3:16:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218012

My boe analysis of compressing the carbon dioxide was about 25% increased energy consumption. The liquid CO2 would just lie on the bottom of the ocean in a big puddle and gradually dissolve, joining ocean circulation. It would help dissolve the shells of molluscs which would make them easier to eat for mollusc eating fish. Shells are often too hard to bite through, so various fish would like that. Since the fish could eat more easily, we would get more fish to eat. Also, the CO2 would feed the bottom of the ocean food chain. The energy back from CO2 falling 500 metres isn't much, but we might as well have it. The energy available is only the difference between sea water density and liquid CO2 and the fall. What's EROEI? <Might be better plan to get electricity out of everything that falls presently, seeing as how it would be almost free and earth is cooling and not warming as you suggest<g>Or do you?> Earth was cooling and I suspect still is, though it's possible we have stopped it, temporarily - we could fill a leaky bucket in the same way we have filled the atmosphere with CO2. Since we have got 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100 years ago, but have only got a tiny increase in average temperatures, we are not doing a very good job of heating Earth. But average temperatures don't tell us how much heat we have. We need to measure the temperature everywhere simultaneously, as well as humidity, clouds, air pressures and all that, then calculate the total energy in the atmosphere. We'd also need to measure ground and ocean temperatures everywhere because a lot of heat is stored terrestrially. Then we could calculate the total heat Earth has. Then, we could track that over time to see whether it's cooling or heating. Average air temperatures don't necessarily tell us that. Especially if the thermometers are in places like parks in cities, near expanding deserts, or where trees have grown, or been cut down. And maybe the temperatures aren't measured at night as frequently as during daytime. Have average night time temperatures gone up or down? Keep in mind that there's the small matter of heating from Earth's interior too, and that is variable, especially when big eruptions happen and 1000 km3 of stuff is shot into the atmosphere. Lake Taupo [the crater lake of a caldera in NZ] is going to blow again one of these days and that'll have an effect on more than the residents living in the crater [which seems totally insane to me, but people aren't noted for being sensible]. Earth has been cooling for billions of years. What has happened over the last 100 years is insignificantly trivial in terms of total carbon in the ecosphere compared with the last billion years. They [Greenhouse doomsters] talk in terms of decades, centuries or maybe even millennia. To be really, really, impressive they go on about the last 400,000 years, as though that's forever. Less than 1 million years is not long at all, even in chimpoid terms, let alone climatic. Humans were well on the way to being human then. Limestone was mostly formed eons before that. So was coal, gas, oil, bituminous and shale deposits. Greenies and Greenhousies are too short-sighted and should think in sustainability - not for a week, 100 years or 1000 years. They worry about plastic bags for God'- sake. Plastic bags have ZERO effect on the environment in which people live. Plastic bags can go to a land-fill or swamp-fill and be buried. Mqurice Note that these days there are no swamps. They are all sacred wet-lands. Filling in a swamp and making it useful is considered akin to raping children in the vestibule of Congress. Punishment would be greater. PS: I decided to ask Google what EROEI is. en.wikipedia.org I first came across that dopey concept back in the 1980s. It is a term used by the insane to measure economic activity. EROEI proponents can prove that there is more energy spent in any activity which is intended to get energy out than is got out. When I first heard it, I thought - "Oh, that's interesting". But not long afterwards, I realized it was just more religious muck designed to prove things were a bad idea. Energy inputs were high and energy outputs low. What matters is money in and money out, not energy in and energy out. Money is the measure of value, not energy. The latest absurdity is "food miles". What a joke. Environmental miles by Greenies travelling to international conferences and staying in reinforced concrete hotels are huge. And have they done an EROEI on the energy gone into producing and building that concrete, and their travel. They don't seem to understand that money was invented centuries ago to assign values to things. As long as they are getting lots of it they are happy. Okay, I admit that I did do a boe EROEI calculation on the CO2 compression, guilty as charged, so those eroeis aren't always a waste of time.