The abstract also mentions "In the presence of the colloidal PVA-Pt as a catalyst and triethanolamine (TEOA) as a sacrificial electron donor, the photosensitized reduction of water to H2 takes place." This basically means that electron fro TEOA is being used to reduce water to hydrogen. This chemical (TEOA) is oxidized and has to be replenished to maintain the H2 production rate. I am not disparaging their results (they are valuable, otherwise it would not be published in such a reputed journal), but trying to put things in perspective.
Compare this to the reports of water splitting using titanium dioxide and other ceramics ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApPhL..89p3106P,http://edu.chem.tue.nl/6KM11/files/Project%20repor ts%202003%202004/Photocatalytic%20water%20splittin g.pdf ) where water is split to yield hydrogen and oxygen without the need for any "sacrificial electron donor".
1. Burning methane is a lot cleaner than burning coal (assuming that cow poo produces little amts of other sulfur, nitrogen contaning gases). This comparison of SOx and NOx emissions with coal/natural gas powered plants will get interesting if we consider the emissions (frm equipment) handling the cow poo into and out of the reaction vessel (or whatever produces methane)...
2. as others in other threads 've mentioned, it certainly is carbon neutral since the CO2 is produced from plant material which has been renewed (i.e. more carbon from the atmosphere has been fixed as plant material)..
has anybody compared SOx adn NOx emissions of methane from cow manure to coal powered powerplants (using a life cycle assessment)?
So is ST, being more math than physics, similar to these "closed systems of ideas" ? In that case, I dont think anything relevant to the physical world can result from ST. [The article says that ST hasn't shown anything new to us.] What I am saying is that ST should not be an end in itself, especially that lots of research funding goes into it.
a quick note: "Mathematics along with Philosophy are the only two pure 'sciences' known to man. Everything else is 'unverifiable'."
i dont think philosophical questions can be disproven. Ex: can we prove/verify that god doesnt exist ? probably in an another universe:-), according to ST, not for us earthlings, though.
Thanks to Maxo-Texas for the numbers. I guess my point was that we need to have an energy policy that emphasizes a mix of options, whereever they are feasible. These might include geothermal (iceland, anyone ?), wind, solar, biomass and so on. anyway, i was emphasizing the fact that governmental policy has a role to play in this process. This "process" should be based on environmental economics and not either "mine to user" approaches on one hand or overly sensationalistic "green thinkers" on the other. i admit that it is hard for the user to see the environmental costs from using coal vs. solar, this is where i think policy comes into play. i dont know whether this is going to happen in the coming years...:-(
Maxo-Texas wrote: "but right now, it is probably more effective to *invest* the $50k and use the interest income to pay your electric bill than it is to purchase a solar system. unless you are physically distant from the grid." one idea for investment is the emissions futures market.
"SOME people who knew how to game the system were given $35,000 dollars of other people's money, from a limited pool of money set aside for that purpose, artificially lowering the cost of their purchase. Even after the $35,000 theft from other people, you still had to have $15,000 of your own money to use this program so it was basically reserved for upper middle class people living in $300k+ houses." Using the same argument to our oil prices, it seems that the situation is not very different. Just wanted to point out that arguments for energy subsidies go both ways.
BTW, just curious to know what technology do these solar panels use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Current_re search_on_materials_and_devices has a good writeup on the current status of solar cell technology. especially interesting among the ones mentioned are the third generation dye sensitized solar cells. i wonder what the costs of a system using those would be...
This is an interesting debate - there are arguments going both sides. I dont pretend to be an expert in global warming, but what I know is that global temperatures are increasing. Whether this is due to CO2 or something else is the question.
Some comments abt Lurky's populisitic reasons for not adopting a green economy:
1. Economists can measure the economic impacts of say burning coal vs. burning natural gas by a process called Life Cycle Assessment. For those who prefer a rigorous approach to costing, enough data on externalities (i.e. economic impacts of using products harmful to the environment) exist, which should be considered in making these decisions.
2. Another idea is that of Green Engineering - this basically says that most of the mass that goes into any process should be present in the main product of the process. The process can be a powerplant burning coal to produce power or a steel plant using iron ore. If we can make our industrial processes more materially efficient, it will certainly help us to overcome shortages that we might see in the future - this applies not only to energy but to other sectors of the industry too. This also helps to reduce load on our landfills.
Some comments abt Lumpy's points: "1. all efficient energy is at a price level that only the uber rich can afford it. (solar, etc...)" To start with, energy pricing is all a matter of regulation. (Lumpy alludes to this in point 7). The US has a gas price which is 4 times lesser than that of the UK. why ? States like NJ are making regulation to make clean sources of energy affordable. Ppl have bought solar panels for their home. BTW, i am not saying that one particular source of energy would solve our problems. A mix of energy sources should be considered.
"2. 90% of all the worlds housing is over 50 years old and therefore horribly inefficent." This seems to be an unsubstantiated fact to me. Developing countries are building at a frenetic pace. Their houses are not certainly 50 years old. When you mean the world, do you mean the developed world ? Remember that in the coming years, developing countries will steadily increase their energy consumption, if they are not doing it already. Another point is, if the housing is inefficient, why cant the "uber rich" buy energy efficient appliances in their "horribly inefficient" homes if they really want to do it? Unfortunately, Wally culture doesnot make ppl do this.
"5. Efficent electronics are also only rich people items. a 20" monitro that uses 180 watts costs $95.00 a 20" lcd that uses only 15 watts is $300.00" Is the difference in cost due to the energy saving features or something else? Again, what cost are you talking about? The life cycle cost (which considers environmental impacts) or what the user pays ?
"6. Most people cant afford to live near where they work forcing the higher consumption of fuel and energy." This is my favorite. Who says that living far from work and higher consumption of energy are cause and effect? You are assuming that ppl will have to use gas guzzling suvs to get to work. they can (and do) take public transportation, which though not being as efficient as the "uber rich vehicles", is better than driving a 5 mpg pickup.
"7. renewable resources are actively discouraged by corrupt politics and officials. Drastic tax credits and refunds whould be put in place to encourage spending money on insulating your home, cars that get over 40mpg, and alternative energy." I dont know if renewable resources use is limited due to corruption, but i agree with Lumpy that some form of compensation might be put in place to make costs (again life cycle assesment) more realisitic. I am not suggesting that the cost of things be raised, only that renewable energy sources (and other things that make good sense) should be given some form of encouragement. It is better than doing nothing at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The abstract also mentions "In the presence of the colloidal PVA-Pt as a catalyst and triethanolamine (TEOA) as a sacrificial electron donor, the photosensitized reduction of water to H2 takes place." This basically means that electron fro TEOA is being used to reduce water to hydrogen. This chemical (TEOA) is oxidized and has to be replenished to maintain the H2 production rate. I am not disparaging their results (they are valuable, otherwise it would not be published in such a reputed journal), but trying to put things in perspective. Compare this to the reports of water splitting using titanium dioxide and other ceramics ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApPhL..89p3106P, http://edu.chem.tue.nl/6KM11/files/Project%20repor ts%202003%202004/Photocatalytic%20water%20splittin g.pdf ) where water is split to yield hydrogen and oxygen without the need for any "sacrificial electron donor".
1. Burning methane is a lot cleaner than burning coal (assuming that cow poo produces little amts of other sulfur, nitrogen contaning gases). This comparison of SOx and NOx emissions with coal/natural gas powered plants will get interesting if we consider the emissions (frm equipment) handling the cow poo into and out of the reaction vessel (or whatever produces methane)...
..
2. as others in other threads 've mentioned, it certainly is carbon neutral since the CO2 is produced from plant material which has been renewed (i.e. more carbon from the atmosphere has been fixed as plant material)
has anybody compared SOx adn NOx emissions of methane from cow manure to coal powered powerplants (using a life cycle assessment)?
So is ST, being more math than physics, similar to these "closed systems of ideas" ? In that case, I dont think anything relevant to the physical world can result from ST. [The article says that ST hasn't shown anything new to us.] What I am saying is that ST should not be an end in itself, especially that lots of research funding goes into it.
p(b)ull-sheet analogy sounds better for me
a quick note: "Mathematics along with Philosophy are the only two pure 'sciences' known to man. Everything else is 'unverifiable'."
:-), according to ST, not for us earthlings, though.
i dont think philosophical questions can be disproven. Ex: can we prove/verify that god doesnt exist ? probably in an another universe
Thanks to Maxo-Texas for the numbers. I guess my point was that we need to have an energy policy that emphasizes a mix of options, whereever they are feasible. These might include geothermal (iceland, anyone ?), wind, solar, biomass and so on. anyway, i was emphasizing the fact that governmental policy has a role to play in this process. This "process" should be based on environmental economics and not either "mine to user" approaches on one hand or overly sensationalistic "green thinkers" on the other. i admit that it is hard for the user to see the environmental costs from using coal vs. solar, this is where i think policy comes into play. i dont know whether this is going to happen in the coming years...:-(
e search_on_materials_and_devices has a good writeup on the current status of solar cell technology. especially interesting among the ones mentioned are the third generation dye sensitized solar cells. i wonder what the costs of a system using those would be...
Maxo-Texas wrote: "but right now, it is probably more effective to *invest* the $50k and use the interest income to pay your electric bill than it is to purchase a solar system. unless you are physically distant from the grid." one idea for investment is the emissions futures market.
"SOME people who knew how to game the system were given $35,000 dollars of other people's money, from a limited pool of money set aside for that purpose, artificially lowering the cost of their purchase. Even after the $35,000 theft from other people, you still had to have $15,000 of your own money to use this program so it was basically reserved for upper middle class people living in $300k+ houses." Using the same argument to our oil prices, it seems that the situation is not very different. Just wanted to point out that arguments for energy subsidies go both ways.
BTW, just curious to know what technology do these solar panels use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Current_r
This is an interesting debate - there are arguments going both sides. I dont pretend to be an expert in global warming, but what I know is that global temperatures are increasing. Whether this is due to CO2 or something else is the question.
/.
Some comments abt Lurky's populisitic reasons for not adopting a green economy:
1. Economists can measure the economic impacts of say burning coal vs. burning natural gas by a process called Life Cycle Assessment. For those who prefer a rigorous approach to costing, enough data on externalities (i.e. economic impacts of using products harmful to the environment) exist, which should be considered in making these decisions.
2. Another idea is that of Green Engineering - this basically says that most of the mass that goes into any process should be present in the main product of the process. The process can be a powerplant burning coal to produce power or a steel plant using iron ore. If we can make our industrial processes more materially efficient, it will certainly help us to overcome shortages that we might see in the future - this applies not only to energy but to other sectors of the industry too. This also helps to reduce load on our landfills.
Some comments abt Lumpy's points:
"1. all efficient energy is at a price level that only the uber rich can afford it. (solar, etc...)"
To start with, energy pricing is all a matter of regulation. (Lumpy alludes to this in point 7). The US has a gas price which is 4 times lesser than that of the UK. why ? States like NJ are making regulation to make clean sources of energy affordable. Ppl have bought solar panels for their home. BTW, i am not saying that one particular source of energy would solve our problems. A mix of energy sources should be considered.
"2. 90% of all the worlds housing is over 50 years old and therefore horribly inefficent."
This seems to be an unsubstantiated fact to me. Developing countries are building at a frenetic pace. Their houses are not certainly 50 years old. When you mean the world, do you mean the developed world ? Remember that in the coming years, developing countries will steadily increase their energy consumption, if they are not doing it already. Another point is, if the housing is inefficient, why cant the "uber rich" buy energy efficient appliances in their "horribly inefficient" homes if they really want to do it? Unfortunately, Wally culture doesnot make ppl do this.
"5. Efficent electronics are also only rich people items. a 20" monitro that uses 180 watts costs $95.00 a 20" lcd that uses only 15 watts is $300.00"
Is the difference in cost due to the energy saving features or something else? Again, what cost are you talking about? The life cycle cost (which considers environmental impacts) or what the user pays ?
"6. Most people cant afford to live near where they work forcing the higher consumption of fuel and energy."
This is my favorite. Who says that living far from work and higher consumption of energy are cause and effect? You are assuming that ppl will have to use gas guzzling suvs to get to work. they can (and do) take public transportation, which though not being as efficient as the "uber rich vehicles", is better than driving a 5 mpg pickup.
"7. renewable resources are actively discouraged by corrupt politics and officials. Drastic tax credits and refunds whould be put in place to encourage spending money on insulating your home, cars that get over 40mpg, and alternative energy."
I dont know if renewable resources use is limited due to corruption, but i agree with Lumpy that some form of compensation might be put in place to make costs (again life cycle assesment) more realisitic. I am not suggesting that the cost of things be raised, only that renewable energy sources (and other things that make good sense) should be given some form of encouragement. It is better than doing nothing at all.
BTW, this is my first post @
Draka