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.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (11331)	7/15/2009 1:17:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Who pays for the recycling of batteries? Participating countries impose their own rules in making recycling feasible. In North America, some recycling plants bill on weight. The rates vary according to chemistry. Systems that yield high metal retrieval rates are priced lower than those, which produce less valuable metals. Nickel-metal-hydride yields the best return. It produces enough nickel to pay for the process. The highest recycling fees apply to nickel-cadmium and lithium-ion because the demand for cadmium is low and lithium-ion contains little retrievable metal. batteryuniversity.com And btw, I'm not the only one suggesting that Li-Ion is "not ready for prime time". The DOE is basically saying the same thing: altenergystocks.com seekingalpha.com Make sure you know what you're drinking before you dip into the punch bowl.. Might be a bit of LSD mixed in with your Lithium. Hawk

To: RetiredNow who wrote (11331)	7/15/2009 5:12:59 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Researchers Find that CO2 Forcing Alone Doesn’t Explain Magnitude of Ancient Global Warming Episode greencarcongress.com 15 July 2009 By analyzing data from deep-sea sediment cores to study an ancient global warming episode (the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, PETM), researchers found a less-than two-fold increase (70%) in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels corresponding to the 5–9 °C (9-16 °F) warming of the PETM. Based on current knowledge and models of the Earth’s climate system, they had expected to find a three- to eight-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to drive that amount of warming. In a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience, the team, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa’s School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, suggests that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon. —Richard Zeebe The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming event occurred about 55 million years ago, and was marked by an increase in global temperature of 5-9 °C over about 10,000 years. A key feature of the event was the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the atmosphere, possibly from the dissociation of oceanic methane hydrates, although the source remains an open issue. Zeebe and his colleagues used data from the sediment cores and a carbon cycle model to calculate that the initial carbon pulse in the PETM was some 3,000 Pg C or less. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. —Zeebe et al. (2009) [From the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm (parts per million), the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is more than 380 ppm—about a 36% increase. (Earlier post.)] Once these other processes have been identified, the authors wrote, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account. In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models...Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models—the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming—caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM. —Gerald Dickens, co-author and professor of Earth science at Rice University There are a few ideas what may have contributed to the additional warming. But I don’t think we fully understand these events of intense and rapid global warming. By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we’re gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain. —Richard Zeebe