After hearing about Boone Pickens’s plan to reduce our oil imports using wind power and freed up natural gas (Methane, NG, CNG, LNG), I started doing deeper research into the topic to see what the global situation was and likely to be in the future. I came upon the following article and it really got me thinking that maybe we should start talking about the methane economy again. The article came out in 2004 when oil was cheap and the hydrogen economy was fresh in people’s minds. Here’s what the methane economy is all about:

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=781


Looking over the advantages and disadvantages brings up some interesting points:


Disadvantages:

1) Wind is intermittent and NG in America is used as base load and used when more power is needed (peak times).

2) Natural gas is a fossil fuel and thus contributes to global warming. Methane is also 20 times more potent as a green house gas.

3) We don't have much infrastructure in place to run our trucks and cars on NG.

4) The price of NG fluctuates like oil and usually follows it. This is unpredictable and thus risky.

5) Being a fossil fuel it is non-renewable and will eventually hit peak, just like oil.


Advantages:

1) Very clean burning. It is a very simple gas and only produces CO2 and water on combustion. Much better than gasoline or diesel.

2) The peak seems many years away, much better than for petroleum.

3) It can be stored much easier than hydrogen. It is much heavier and does not leak as much or require as much pressurization as hydrogen.

4) Bio-methane produces net zero CO2 on combustion. It can be produced using hydrogen and CO2 in the air. The hydrogen can be produced using solar energy. Thus, solar methane production is possible and a very simple and sustainable process.

5) Biogas is used all over the world by villages. It is an excellent source of energy for the vast amount of people that don't have access to or can't afford petroleum products. Gobar gas is made in a simple reactor using only animal waste, used biomass and waste water: http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/gobar-gas-methane.html

6) If renewable sources of energy are used to manufacture the gas, it is also completely renewable and sustainable.

7) There are over 8 million cars and trucks that run on NG. Big trucks as well as cars can run on it. Even semi-trucks can run on it as the engines and systems are avaliable for sale today.

8) There is vast infrastructures around the world that already use NG every day. Unlike hydrogen that will require completely new infrastructure build-outs.

9) The liquefaction of Natural Gas happens at a much higher temperature than for Hydrogen. Thus, it needs less energy and less expensive equipment to not only generate the liquid but to maintain it in that state. There is already a massive global market for LNG. Japan has over 23 ports for accepting LNG ships.

10) Although a more potent greenhouse gas, Methane only lasts about 9 years in the atmosphere compared to the 100 years that CO2 lasts.

11) Unlike hydrogen, NG exists naturally in and above the earth. We can use existing fossil NG and switch to bio-methane as fast or as slowly as we are able.


I am interested in hearing what others think about this and if this idea has any legs.

You just gave us that video clip on the smart grid in Germany. In there, NG was part of the solution. With EVs, solar, and wind just over the horizon I do not think we need to emphasize NG at all. It is already there, but has limited useability for both transportation and power generation.
IMHO, what we really need is a way to power our trucks. We can maybe get people on EVs but it will take a while to get trucks fully electric. We really need algae-based biodiesel for the trucks, for the airplanes, and as a heating fuel. If that happens, biodiesel will also displace at least some NG.

You just gave us that video clip on the smart grid in Germany. In there, NG was part of the solution. With EVs, solar, and wind just over the horizon I do not think we need to emphasize NG at all. It is already there, but has limited useability for both transportation and power generation.
IMHO, what we really need is a way to power our trucks. We can maybe get people on EVs but it will take a while to get trucks fully electric. We really need algae-based biodiesel for the trucks, for the airplanes, and as a heating fuel. If that happens, biodiesel will also displace at least some NG.



You bring up some good points. Here is a very unbiased article written about the advantages and disadvantages of using NG or Diesel for large trucks. They go back and forth but both not only work fine but you can buy the engines and trucks today! One note about the article, it was written in 2000 - way before the price of diesel shot up through the roof. That might be the deal breaker right there!

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_trucks_fueling_diesel/


Also, there are no algae-to-diesel commercial production plants. There is a lot of testing and test plants going up but nothing is ready. I love algae and can't wait to see if it can be a viable energy source (I think it can) but as of today it's definitely not ready.

Biogas or bio-methane however is being produced all over the world and is an well proven process. You can even make a reactor for around $500. Just check out YouTube under biogas. Only cost is keeping people on fossil natural gas instead of biogas.

However, both diesel and natural gas seem to have viable paths going from fossil to bio. This is a good thing because the infrastructures already exist and so do the massive amounts of trucks. I think the electric truck is going to take some time.

There is also an airline that is working with LNG for use in their planes. If algae-to-biodiesel doesn't work out we at least have bio-methane! It also becomes a liquid at a much higher temperature than hydrogen thus making it easier to produce and store.

Here is a list of available truck engines that run on NG or bio-methane.

http://www.cleanvehicle.org/Available-NGVs-and-Engines.pdf

From busses to heavy-duty trucks we can be running biogas or bio-methane today. It might not be the eventual winner but it is ready and there is already a vast natural gas distribution infrastructure running throughout the US.

Don't forget that bovine flatus is a major source of methane.

I can envision each bovine wearing a vest that collects the methane in a small tank by compressing it with a small solar-powered compressor. The compressor would be triggered by monitoring the instantaneous differential pressure between the atmosphere and the collection attachment unit ("CAU"); to avoid false triggers, the pressure envelope could be analyzed by using an FFT looking for the acoustic signature of the flatus event. Of course, the CAU would need to allow the passage of solid waste without impeding it. The flatus tanks could then be collected at milking time. The methane could then be separated for use. :D

Don't forget that bovine flatus is a major source of methane.

I can envision each bovine wearing a vest that collects the methane in a small tank by compressing it with a small solar-powered compressor. The compressor would be triggered by monitoring the instantaneous differential pressure between the atmosphere and the collection attachment unit ("CAU"); to avoid false triggers, the pressure envelope could be analyzed by using an FFT looking for the acoustic signature of the flatus event. Of course, the CAU would need to allow the passage of solid waste without impeding it. The flatus tanks could then be collected at milking time. The methane could then be separated for use. :D


Careful with the tanks or this might happen:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/cow-methane.jpg

4) Bio-methane produces net zero CO2 on combustion. It can be produced using hydrogen and CO2 in the air. The hydrogen can be produced using solar energy. Thus, solar methane production is possible and a very simple and sustainable process.

If you use air capture and hydrogen, then methanol is probably the more logical choice.

If you look to alternative fuels, you can also compare it with methanol and DME.

The advantage of NG is that you don't need any conversion to another fuel, if NG is the source. NG requires a large tank. Methanol is a liquid and the tank for DME is comparable with LPG. It is liquid under some additional pressure.

Lucas

I'm not sure I agree that both diesel and NG are choices for the trucks. From the article:

"In addition, natural gas vehicles have a smaller driving range because of the limited number of CNG and LNG refueling stations. As a result, natural gas vehicles typically must return to a central facility for refueling. Drivers of natural gas trucks also report poorer fuel economy than diesel truck drivers.

"One gallon of LNG contains about 60 percent of the energy in a gallon of diesel fuel, and CNG contains even less energy per unit volume,

I see this as the main problem for trucks as well as for avionics. On the other hand, I agree about the status of algae-based biodiesel, so we will just have to see. Pickens may yet come up as the winner, but I'm rooting for the algae.

Advantages:
2) The peak seems many years away, much better than for petroleum.

It may not happen my life time or my children time, but it will happen again like "peak oil" in another time. It solve today, but not for tomorrow. I guess it had prove that history does repeat it self.


3) It can be stored much easier than hydrogen. It is much heavier and does not leak as much or require as much pressurization as hydrogen.

I would not call that advantages. It leak just like hydrogen. I don't care how much it leak. It needed pressurization as hydrogen. Again. I don't care how much either.


4) Bio-methane produces net zero CO2 on combustion. It can be produced using hydrogen and CO2 in the air. The hydrogen can be produced using solar energy. Thus, solar methane production is possible and a very simple and sustainable process.

I'm not so sure about this idea. The question I'm wondering is how much efficient is it



5) Biogas is used all over the world by villages. It is an excellent source of energy for the vast amount of people that don't have access to or can't afford petroleum products. Gobar gas is made in a simple reactor using only animal waste, used biomass and waste water: http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/gobar-gas-methane.html


It may work great with small town, city, or poor country. Will it really work large populations? I would needed to look more info on that. That is new to me.


7) There are over 8 million cars and trucks that run on NG. Big trucks as well as cars can run on it. Even semi-trucks can run on it as the engines and systems are available for sale today.

Great for now, but not for tomorrow. I don't want to repeat again. Let do it right in the first place. People do hate to change once they get into. I would not call that advantages in the long term.


8) There is vast infrastructures around the world that already use NG every day. Unlike hydrogen that will require completely new infrastructure build-outs.

Yeah, it there alright. So is the electric is infrastructures around the world that already use everyday, unlike hydrogen as well. So scratch that advantages out.


10) Although a more potent greenhouse gas, Methane only lasts about 9 years in the atmosphere compared to the 100 years that CO2 lasts.

Why color the word to make it sound like it not that bad. Make it black and white, so it show where it stand out. So there is a greenhouse problem as well. That no advantages. Is that why we are trying to get out of the CO2 problem? (BTW, I don't believe CO2 cause global warming.)

So 6 advantages vs. 5 disadvantages, It does not look all that impressive. I still think it better to have a Electric Economy over Methane Economy. I think Methane Economy is in the wrong path to be. Electric Economy is more flexable compare to Methane Economy. I could says at this point in time is that Methane Economy is cheaper then Electric Economy. But the long runs the Electric Economy may become cheaper, if not, then it more efficient of use. Maybe a hybrid Methane-Electric Economy? Naaaa that is my crazy talk.

I'm not sure I agree that both diesel and NG are choices for the trucks. From the article:

"In addition, natural gas vehicles have a smaller driving range because of the limited number of CNG and LNG refueling stations. As a result, natural gas vehicles typically must return to a central facility for refueling. Drivers of natural gas trucks also report poorer fuel economy than diesel truck drivers.

"One gallon of LNG contains about 60 percent of the energy in a gallon of diesel fuel, and CNG contains even less energy per unit volume,

I see this as the main problem for trucks as well as for avionics. On the other hand, I agree about the status of algae-based biodiesel, so we will just have to see. Pickens may yet come up as the winner, but I'm rooting for the algae.





Yes, I wanted to give that very unbiased article because it brought up so many good points. It didn't sugarcoat anything. However, there now exists the Kenworth T800 LNG semi truck:

http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/LNG1.jpg

http://www.kenworth.com/newspics/T800LNG.pdf
www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/LNG1.jpg


Also, someone said why not just go electrical. Well, we don't have the technology to have electrical trucks right now (perhaps a LNG hybrid would improve the range and torque). We need a renewable liquid or gaseous fuel for transportation. Methane (gas) or Methanol (liquid - easily produced from methane) are proven and here today. We can start with using the fossil methane and transition to bio-methane as fast as we can.

A note about escaping methane. If you burn it in an engine or use it in a fuel cell then it no longer is a green house gas. In fact, today around the world untreated animal and human waste along with rotting landfills and other producers of methane are major contributors of methane in the atmosphere. If they used bioreactors and methane collection systems (because the technology is well developed and thus cheaper) then going to a methane economy would actually reduce methane emissions into the environment! Nobody wants to waste their hard earned fuel!

Again, we need a good transportation fuel for at least all existing machines in the world. NG or biodiesel have some amazing potential. Unfortunately, biodiesel is not ready for commercialization. bio-methane and biogas is already used all over the world. I think Boone Pickens is on to something.

I want to hear all sides of the argument from the liberals and environments to the hard core conservative. Remember that we are dealing with limited options that move us away from the black gold we have been addicted to. Perhaps NG is not the final answer but it could be a helpful contributor. We are going to need everything!

I posted a thread with details and a picture earlier

I posted a thread with details and a picture earlier




Thanks Jeremy, The electric semi-truck that Jeremy is referring to can be seen on the following YouTube video:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0f1AlrG8gVU


While it is very easy to design an electric semi-truck because electric motors are so powerful (that is why they are used on trains) electric trucks still face the same problems that other electric vehicles face - Range. The truck you are looking at has a range of only 30 - 60 miles and takes at least 4 hours to recharge. It might be good for port work like moving the shipping containers to warehouses but will do nothing for regular over-the-highway use. For standard over-the-highway use the drivers will need several hours of driving per day and quick refill. Some drivers drive 10 - 12 hours a day!

NG, LNG, propane, diesel, etc. are the only options that are running today. As technology improves everything will be electrified but the sheer amount of energy needed for an electric semi-truck makes that many years beyond that for cars and we all know how far away a practical BEV is. Add about 5 to 10 years onto that for the practical electric semi-truck. However, you can purchase a natural gas powered semi-truck today and it has long range and the ability to quickly recharge.

Of course the infrastructure to do that is not as good as diesel but it's much better than for hydrogen and 2nd generation biodiesel is not ready.

After hearing about Boone Pickens’s plan to reduce our oil imports using wind power and freed up natural gas (Methane, NG, CNG, LNG), I started doing deeper research into the topic to see what the global situation was and likely to be in the future. I came upon the following article and it really got me thinking that maybe we should start talking about the methane economy again. The article came out in 2004 when oil was cheap and the hydrogen economy was fresh in people’s minds. Here’s what the methane economy is all about:

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=781


Looking over the advantages and disadvantages brings up some interesting points:


Disadvantages:

1) Wind is intermittent and NG in America is used as base load and used when more power is needed (peak times).

2) Natural gas is a fossil fuel and thus contributes to global warming. Methane is also 20 times more potent as a green house gas.

3) We don't have much infrastructure in place to run our trucks and cars on NG.

4) The price of NG fluctuates like oil and usually follows it. This is unpredictable and thus risky.

5) Being a fossil fuel it is non-renewable and will eventually hit peak, just like oil.


Advantages:

1) Very clean burning. It is a very simple gas and only produces CO2 and water on combustion. Much better than gasoline or diesel.

2) The peak seems many years away, much better than for petroleum.

3) It can be stored much easier than hydrogen. It is much heavier and does not leak as much or require as much pressurization as hydrogen.

4) Bio-methane produces net zero CO2 on combustion. It can be produced using hydrogen and CO2 in the air. The hydrogen can be produced using solar energy. Thus, solar methane production is possible and a very simple and sustainable process.

5) Biogas is used all over the world by villages. It is an excellent source of energy for the vast amount of people that don't have access to or can't afford petroleum products. Gobar gas is made in a simple reactor using only animal waste, used biomass and waste water: http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/gobar-gas-methane.html

6) If renewable sources of energy are used to manufacture the gas, it is also completely renewable and sustainable.

7) There are over 8 million cars and trucks that run on NG. Big trucks as well as cars can run on it. Even semi-trucks can run on it as the engines and systems are avaliable for sale today.

8) There is vast infrastructures around the world that already use NG every day. Unlike hydrogen that will require completely new infrastructure build-outs.

9) The liquefaction of Natural Gas happens at a much higher temperature than for Hydrogen. Thus, it needs less energy and less expensive equipment to not only generate the liquid but to maintain it in that state. There is already a massive global market for LNG. Japan has over 23 ports for accepting LNG ships.

10) Although a more potent greenhouse gas, Methane only lasts about 9 years in the atmosphere compared to the 100 years that CO2 lasts.

11) Unlike hydrogen, NG exists naturally in and above the earth. We can use existing fossil NG and switch to bio-methane as fast or as slowly as we are able.


I am interested in hearing what others think about this and if this idea has any legs.

I would prefer a methanol dominated nuclear synfuel economy through water electrolysis and carbon dioxide extraction from the air.

Large remotely sited nuclear parks (10 to 40 reactors) would be solely dedicated towards synfuel production (methanol, gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, ammonia, and hydrogen).

Methanol can be manufactured and pumped from these remote nuclear facilities to modified natural gas power facilities all over the nation for the production of carbon neutral electricity. And methanol sent to coastal cities can be shipped all over the world to power other nations.

Marcel Williams

A note about escaping methane. If you burn it in an engine or use it in a fuel cell then it no longer is a green house gas.

I do agree with that statement. I wasn't thinking as in a fueling tank. I was more thinking as is a large storage that may hold a weeks before it been use up.

I do agree with that statement. I wasn't thinking as in a fueling tank. I was more thinking as is a large storage that may hold a weeks before it been use up.


Well the world currently uses massive amounts of natural gas (87% methane) so I don't see it being a problem. Additionally, we have sensors that can detect methane so eventually we can monitor to a very high degree. Imagine wireless methane sensors that report any leaks to the smart grid in seconds.

Additionally, we have sensors that can detect methane so eventually we can monitor to a very high degree. Imagine wireless methane sensors that report any leaks to the smart grid in seconds.

That something that I'm not aware. Yeah, there is sensors everywhere and everything. I was not being aware that it being used. It look like I have long way to catch up with the energy trends. I still think it better to get into Electric Economy over Methane Economy. I understand to get off the oil soon as possible and methane will have a playing role. I just hope people will not get attach to methane cause in my view once gasoline become high and slowly replace with methane will created demand more then it can supples. If it just for heavy duty trucks then that be fine. Until people find a way to electrify the heavy duty trucks and buses.

That something that I'm not aware. Yeah, there is sensors everywhere and everything. I was not being aware that it being used. It look like I have long way to catch up with the energy trends. I still think it better to get into Electric Economy over Methane Economy. I understand to get off the oil soon as possible and methane will have a playing role. I just hope people will not get attach to methane cause in my view once gasoline become high and slowly replace with methane will created demand more then it can supples. If it just for heavy duty trucks then that be fine. Until people find a way to electrify the heavy duty trucks and buses.

Yes, that's the idea. To get us off of petroleum as fast as possible. Let's say, for example, that EEStor is not full of crap and comes out with a perfect and easy to manufacture supercapacitor. Then we can all join hands and skip into a beautiful new reality. The only thing we will need is renewable and sustainable fuels to work our old but still useful infrastructures. Thus, even with the golden child of solutions, we will still need that renewable methane and methanol (or some other bio-fuel) to keep the world running as a complete transition to the new technology takes place. Even with a massive war-like effort it will take over a decade to complete the transition. That's with a proven solution in full volume production! That's what people need to understand. Change of this magnitude takes time and massive amounts of capital and natural resources.

Methane - yes. Methane production from biological sources is just in its infancy and has a lot of potential. Methane can be made from coal, switch grass, manure, landfills...and methane is the richest molecule in Hydrogen (CH4).


Also, there are no algae-to-diesel commercial production plants. There is a lot of testing and test plants going up but nothing is ready. I love algae and can't wait to see if it can be a viable energy source (I think it can) but as of today it's definitely not ready.

Actually, can you wait about 3 more years? I don't know if you are familiar with Solazyme, I haven't read any posts about them in here. Assuming the answer is no, read the links below; these guys are for real and are way ahead of anyone else. As I mentioned in another post, not all algae requires sunlight...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10021122-54.html

http://www.solazyme.com/news090908.shtml

http://www.solazyme.com/news080415.shtml

We need diversity, bring it all forward...Methane, Algae, Solar, Wind, Ethanol and Renewable Hydrocarbons.

The double punch of harvesting methane (22x more greenhouse effect than CO2) that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere and plugging it into the fuel system seems to me to show much more promise than trying to capture CO2. You all may be interested in a public-private partnership research/pilot project using organic waste including restaurant garbage, yard trimmings, and agricultural waste to produce methane (and hydrogen). I have no expertise but this appears much more doable than ethanol production. See the following url's:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7915
http://www.onsitepowersystems.com/about_us.html

The double punch of harvesting methane (22x more greenhouse effect than CO2) that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere and plugging it into the fuel system seems to me to show much more promise than trying to capture CO2. You all may be interested in a public-private partnership research/pilot project using organic waste including restaurant garbage, yard trimmings, and agricultural waste to produce methane (and hydrogen). I have no expertise but this appears much more doable than ethanol production. See the following url's:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7915
http://www.onsitepowersystems.com/about_us.html


It's true that if non-fossil Methane became more of an energy source that there would be more of a push to harness a lot of the gas that is currently wasted (cows, landfill waste, etc.).

Also, CH4 (Methane) is much larger than plain H and thus is easier to store. Hydrogen is very hard to store because it's so small and light.

Finally, although Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas it does not last as long as CO2 does in the atmosphere (9 - 15 years where CO2 lasts around 70 years - hard to get good numbers on this however) .


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png/250px-Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png


Very good info on greenhouse gasses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Some good points. Anything to get off OPEC. Note that burning methane... any methane.....[QUOTE]A note about escaping methane. If you burn it in an engine or use it in a fuel cell then it no longer is a green house gas./QUOTE] yields CO2 and H2O, both "greenhouse" gasses. Al Gore's and the IPCC words, not mine. According to the Greenhouse gas ecos, burning methane is not "greenhouse " gas free.

Also, you have the methane/CO2 age reversed, CO2's lifetime in the atmosphere is more like 10 years, not 100.

FWIW the City of Sacramento converted from diesel to CNG busses a decade ago. These are Big busses. They run fine with a lot less visible soot and grime effluent. I doubt their range is comparable to the older diesel versions. What is the range of the commercial CNG truck ?? In this, T Boone Pickens is at least barking up the right tree. The CNG "infrastructure" shouldn't be that difficult. If it is transported anything like propane, C3, it should be easy.

While CH4 is partially a "fossil fuel", there are tremendous domestic reserves and a lifetime supply. Certainly preferable to Oily OPEC crude. A CH4 window could allow solar, wind and nuclear energy to fully close the domestic petroleum gap.

Also, you have the methane/CO2 age reversed, CO2's lifetime in the atmosphere is more like 10 years, not 100.


OPECSUCKS, I think you will find this guy's credentials good enough:




Question - How long dose Carbon Dioxide stay in the atmosphere?
---------------------------------------
Bill,

The duration period for carbon dioxide molecules in the
atmosphere is somewhere between 100 and 500
years. Obviously, not all carbon dioxide molecules
will stay in the atmosphere that long, but on average
the duration may be around 200-300 years. Some scientists
believe that it could be longer than that, others
believe that the duration is shorter. Presently,
there is some uncertainty in those figures.
The most important thing concerning CO2 duration is that
its large concentration plus its long duration in the
atmosphere make it the most important greenhouse gas
after water vapor.

Some other greenhouse gases also have similarly long
durations in the atmosphere, but their concentrations
are much smaller than CO2 and thus they are less
important (but not unimportant) contributors to
warming.

Although water vapor is the most effective greenhouse
gas, it has a duration in the atmosphere of only 3-7 days
and its concentration will likely only increase if atmospheric
temperature increases. This is a double whammy that
most climate scientists are concerned about. If increasing
concentrations of CO2 result in warmer atmospheric
temperatures, that will likely result in higher
water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere and thus
further enhance atmospheric warming, assuming that the
increased water vapor concentration does not lead to
increased cloudiness (which may reduce warming in
some regions of the world, but increase warming in
others).

David R. Cook
Meteorologist
Climate Research Section
Environmental Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00296.htm


Again, let's not just spew completely false information, shall we? Think about it. If CO2 only lasted 10 years we could just switch to solar and wind 50 years from now, wait 10 years and the world would be perfect again. If that were the case, nobody would care at all about the issue. Make sense now?

Atmospheric CO2 lasts approximately 5 years. My casual recollection was better than your data. Page 6 section 6.

http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf

Open another beer. Watch the bubbles. You are now melting Greenland's ice cap.

Ain't science wonderful ??

Atmospheric CO2 lasts approximately 5 years. My casual recollection was better than your data. Page 6 section 6.

http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf

Open another beer. Watch the bubbles. You are now melting Greenland's ice cap.

Ain't science wonderful ??




Very interesting! Let's check it all out. First, here is what the author is claiming:


"1. Introduction It has recently been created a belief among people that an apparent increase in 2 atmospheric CO concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil carbon in 2 petroleum, coal, and natural gas. The extra atmospheric CO has been claimed to
cause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric temperature rise, of 1.5 to 4.5°C in the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990). This postulate is here discussed and rejected on energetic and geochemical grounds."


Tom V. Segalstad
Mineralogical-Geological Museum
University of Oslo
Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
Norway

http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf


Wow! We have no global warming problem!!!! Excellent. Let's just hang up all of that nonsense and get back to the real issue - fixing our petroleum problem. There is still the question as to if we can keep increasing supply as we move out further, drill deeper and hit the tar sands. There is still the issue if we want to put so much of our economic stability in the hands of OPEC and other nations that might not want us to succeed. Therefore, even if this guy is completely correct the situation does not change much. In fact, I hope he is right because we can then concentrate on the global petroleum problem first!

Before we pop the champagne corks in celebration. How about we get some more information on this guy. Has this report been peer reviewed? What were the conclusions?


Who is Tom Segalstad:

“Tom V. Segalstad (1949 - ) is a Norwegian geologist and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo. He has taught in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, United States. He was also formerly head of the Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.
Segalstad has disagreed with the IPCC about global warming. He believes that human-released CO2 would not have a large effect on the Earth's climate, as it produces only a small percent of the greenhouse effect, and that most CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean through geological processes.

He currently holds a position as Associate Professor of the largest university of Norway, UiO, University of Oslo, in Resource- and Environmental Geology.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Segalstad



Now, here’s a reasonable sounding argument claiming we don’t have to do anything:

http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=1954


However, if I think about the future where we might become hundreds of times more powerful (if we don’t kill each other off or some natural event happens) then it seems to me that if we took his views then we would eventually (assuming we don’t today) cross some point were we do have an effect on our environment. Do we have any responsibility to where we live? Can we simply just throw our trash on the side of the road? Can we just take off all filters and emission equipment off of our power plants? Does that seem right to people? It doesn’t seem like the right path to take.

I think we need to start working on a global culture that respects our environment and tries to do the least amount of harm as reasonable while we go about our activities. Instead of just using up all of our resources and strip mining our planet till there is nothing left but waste dumps maybe it would be better for the long-term happiness of humans if we at least put some effort into living more sustainability. The way we are going now we are going to turn our planet into the something that resembles the Lord of the Rings. Just YouTube “tar sands” and see what’s going on in Alberta. Does that look right?

What about the Olympics and how the pollution was such a real and embarrassing problem? Did China stand up and say they are working to help heat up the environment for the coming ice age? No, they were ashamed and had to take drastic measures to reduce this almost universally disliked situation.

If we are only talking about CO2 and the effect of releasing fossil-stored carbon then I would also argue that not only is there great debate going on in the scientific community but that we are very unlikely, as a civilization, to take real measures to stop it. Yes, we have the Kyoto protocol and that has cost billions but is it really that aggressive? My point is that the individual is not likely to really feel the pain caused by this problem (due to the long delay in cause and effect). Therefore, it’s unlikely that a majority of people will support working on this problem when other, more pressing problems come up.

I think there is a much better solution to this dilemma! If the world concentrates on the real huge glaring problem - petroleum supply (how much and where is comes from) then the resulting solutions to that problem automatically takes care of the CO2 problem! It’s a win-win, even if CO2 is no problem! If CO2 is no problem then we are potentially wasting money on nothing if we follow just the Kyoto protocol. If CO2 is a problem then we are directly addressing it just by transitioning away from petroleum.

Therefore, I recommend we redefine the priority of the Kyoto protocol to work on the burning of petroleum and its derived products. This extensive use of a non-renewable energy resource is a policy that will bring us economic disaster and the real potential for global conflict. I hope our children don’t have to talk about the “resource wars”. That would be not only unfortunate but preventable.

OPEC SUCKS, I will go ahead and enjoy that beer. Thanks! Of course, even Al Gore can feel good about that decision. Remember, that any CO2 released would be no more than the amount of CO2 that was absorbed by the hops that created the beer. It’s a completely renewable cycle (of course I‘m talking about an operation that is done the old fashioned way and does not use industrial technology). Cheers!

Lioness and the mother bear (http://www.afkicks.com/se/56.html)Monkeys and leopard (http://www.afkicks.com/se/57.html)Crayfish and its daughter (http://www.afkicks.com/se/58.html)Marriage victims (http://www.afkicks.com/se/59.html)Women's drowning (http://www.afkicks.com/se/60.html)Floret dog to find a friend (http://www.afkicks.com/se/61.html)Fables little story: two rooster (http://www.afkicks.com/se/62.html)Liang hear a case (http://www.afkicks.com/se/63.html)Fu mud (http://www.afkicks.com/se/64.html)Rats and Bulls (http://www.afkicks.com/se/65.html)And the Lion (http://www.afkicks.com/se/66.html)The bat was partner to expel (http://www.afkicks.com/se/67.html)Hedgehog stool (http://www.afkicks.com/se/68.html)And the eagle owl (http://www.afkicks.com/se/69.html)The donkey bad idea (http://www.afkicks.com/se/70.html)Solid stick (http://www.afkicks.com/se/71.html)Fish King (http://www.afkicks.com/se/72.html)Ying-shadow in the water (http://www.afkicks.com/se/73.html)Bright lamb (http://www.afkicks.com/se/74.html)The wild crab (http://www.afkicks.com/se/75.html)

It's true what Texas says, I like that post. Trying to prevent global warming with the Kyoto protocol is analogous to someone's who slit their wrist and is slowly bleeding to death and the only thing we can think to do is find something to catch the blood in. Remember we don't just use oil for cars and trucks, that's just slightly over 1/4th of the oil consumption. Oil is used for aviation, it heats millions of homes (bless their hearts, but I really wonder about the New Englanders who apparently still don't know what an electric heat pump is and pay $700/month just for heating oil), not only that, but even our tires and plastics come from oil. Global warming is going to be so gradual and there are so many other factors that influence the earth's temperature that rallying the alternative fuel future around a global "warming flag" is just too dubious and questionable. There are way more concretely substantiated issues with the same common denominator.