Theoretical maximum can in fact be very high since the highest temperature you can get with hydrocarbon/air is very high. The adiabatic flame temp is about 2000C, so a Carnot efficiency of over 80%. Now add that the combustion starts at a very elevated temperature its easy to see that high efficiency are theoretically possible. Practically things like not melting and stuff is the limiting factor.
its not any better than Uranium with the exception that its 5 times more of it in land based source. So its no more a solution than any nuclear. And good luck getting the general public behind nuclear.
Molten salt designs where originally proposed to solve the problems Th gives you. It is no cleaner than traditional Uranium fuel cycle with reprocessing. It is not a panacea doesn't stop nuclear being nuclear and needs lots of development before it is proven.
And you can still just use a depleted U breading blanked for Pu breading for bombs anyway. Fact is any sufficiently strong neutron source is always a proliferation risk.
Its like living on flood plains and wondering why it floods. What are the tides like in Florida anyway? From a quick Google its on the order of 3 feet.
The utter annihilation of those cities is a huge economic problem.
Oh FFS enough with the chicken little already. 7mm per year *worst case* is the current predictions. There is not going to be any annihilation of anywhere much less utter annihilation.
Thats 10ft due to the west antarctic ice sheet. There is a lot more ice out there.
Turns out not really, at least in the short term (hundreds of years is short term). Greenland is perhaps the next biggest (thousands to 10s of thousands of years). The western ice sheet is important because it is unstable and has been melting for pretty much since we started studying it. However some of the instability is from isostatic rebound. That is really really slow.
No sane scientist is even remotely claiming these levels will ever be reached. Hell i doubt there is enough fossil fuels in existence for those kind of level to ever be reached. Most of the predictions are based on 800pm being reached which is assumed to be somewhat possible, but well beyond peak oil.
Either a) scientists are right and Climate Disruption is real, happening right now, and will cause huge problems. Or b) scientists are united in a big conspiracy to lie about Climate Disruption because it gets them more grant money, or c) scientists are morons and are getting it all wrong. The trouble with b) and c) is that they are not at all credible. I hope no one seriously credits c), it's just too implausible.
Clearly you don't work in science. C is very plausible. Never ascribe magical powers to the Priests, it never ends well. We (scientists) have all the normal human failings are are no better than anyone else. We have our dogma, our favoritism, our truthiness. There is plenty of precedents for option C. Popularity of models and predictions is not a measure of there certainty.
In fact not really. These "massive changes" are not really all that massive as far as the models predict as reported in *peer reviewed* papers. Don't confuse a scientists website to his actual science, or some media claim. By far the most impacting prediction of AGW or even just GW in the next few centuries is sea level rise.
3 meters is nothing for some parts of some nations. It's quite a lot for others. Nothing that can't be handled over the predicted time frame of course. But probably not all that cheap either. You only have to look at various flood protection projects to get an idea of what sort of scale and cost solutions will have. Perhaps scaled up a bit.
There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist.
Oh yes there is. Carbon credits, feel good products that sell at premium prices. Grants Grants Grants. So many of my fellow scientist stick in environmental angles into grant proposals because its how you get funded.
The biggest threat to most species is either over exploitation or habitat removal. Global warming is way down the list. But you put it on grants anyway. You get funding that way.
You know i would prefer a society that is perhaps a little less inclined to send in SWAT at the drop of a hat. The big failure i see is that we have a police department that is far too eager to bash down doors and go all guns in your face without so much as a lick of evidence. Yea an anonymous tip is not a lick of evidence.
Go to one. Watch. I worked on them. We used pesticides and fungicides. No mount of feeling better about yourself for buying them will change that fact.
And that is wrong. You buy "organic" pesticides in 44 gallon drums. It is just certified as organic, which really means jack. And its often more poisonous to humans that modern pesticides not to mention less environmentally friendly. From both a CO2 footprint, and residue effects. But hay if you want to feel better about being poisoned by something organic......
Politics. Its been about nothing but for a long time now.
But there are really somethings we can say. The models have not proven any kind of accuracy over the time frame we are told we must change everything. The changes most think would be enough are either so out of the park in cost or just not even several orders of magnitude enough to make any difference at all. And all things come with costs.
Long story short. Everyone wants someone else to do something about it. Even worse people think buying green is in fact green without looking at *any* data whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Theoretical maximum can in fact be very high since the highest temperature you can get with hydrocarbon/air is very high. The adiabatic flame temp is about 2000C, so a Carnot efficiency of over 80%. Now add that the combustion starts at a very elevated temperature its easy to see that high efficiency are theoretically possible. Practically things like not melting and stuff is the limiting factor.
That already is astronomical. Wouldn't salt be better?
its not any better than Uranium with the exception that its 5 times more of it in land based source. So its no more a solution than any nuclear. And good luck getting the general public behind nuclear.
Continent sized sheets of Ice does that. Warming not so much. Right now its us doing things that are not AGW that's eliminating species.
Molten salt designs where originally proposed to solve the problems Th gives you. It is no cleaner than traditional Uranium fuel cycle with reprocessing. It is not a panacea doesn't stop nuclear being nuclear and needs lots of development before it is proven.
And you can still just use a depleted U breading blanked for Pu breading for bombs anyway. Fact is any sufficiently strong neutron source is always a proliferation risk.
Its like living on flood plains and wondering why it floods. What are the tides like in Florida anyway? From a quick Google its on the order of 3 feet.
The utter annihilation of those cities is a huge economic problem.
Oh FFS enough with the chicken little already. 7mm per year *worst case* is the current predictions. There is not going to be any annihilation of anywhere much less utter annihilation.
Over longer time scales rebound is very significant [expected] contributor to sea level rise. For both Antarctica and Greenland.
Thats 10ft due to the west antarctic ice sheet. There is a lot more ice out there.
Turns out not really, at least in the short term (hundreds of years is short term). Greenland is perhaps the next biggest (thousands to 10s of thousands of years). The western ice sheet is important because it is unstable and has been melting for pretty much since we started studying it. However some of the instability is from isostatic rebound. That is really really slow.
its 10 feet in centuries! Your not going to make desalination plants with expected lifetimes in centuries anyway.
No sane scientist is even remotely claiming these levels will ever be reached. Hell i doubt there is enough fossil fuels in existence for those kind of level to ever be reached. Most of the predictions are based on 800pm being reached which is assumed to be somewhat possible, but well beyond peak oil.
Either a) scientists are right and Climate Disruption is real, happening right now, and will cause huge problems. Or b) scientists are united in a big conspiracy to lie about Climate Disruption because it gets them more grant money, or c) scientists are morons and are getting it all wrong. The trouble with b) and c) is that they are not at all credible. I hope no one seriously credits c), it's just too implausible.
Clearly you don't work in science. C is very plausible. Never ascribe magical powers to the Priests, it never ends well. We (scientists) have all the normal human failings are are no better than anyone else. We have our dogma, our favoritism, our truthiness. There is plenty of precedents for option C. Popularity of models and predictions is not a measure of there certainty.
In fact not really. These "massive changes" are not really all that massive as far as the models predict as reported in *peer reviewed* papers. Don't confuse a scientists website to his actual science, or some media claim. By far the most impacting prediction of AGW or even just GW in the next few centuries is sea level rise.
3 meters is nothing for some parts of some nations. It's quite a lot for others. Nothing that can't be handled over the predicted time frame of course. But probably not all that cheap either. You only have to look at various flood protection projects to get an idea of what sort of scale and cost solutions will have. Perhaps scaled up a bit.
I want a new duck.
There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist.
Oh yes there is. Carbon credits, feel good products that sell at premium prices. Grants Grants Grants. So many of my fellow scientist stick in environmental angles into grant proposals because its how you get funded.
The biggest threat to most species is either over exploitation or habitat removal. Global warming is way down the list. But you put it on grants anyway. You get funding that way.
We really should never throw real shit away for just that reason. I mean how much phosphates are in sewage? Its a bit IIRC.
You know i would prefer a society that is perhaps a little less inclined to send in SWAT at the drop of a hat. The big failure i see is that we have a police department that is far too eager to bash down doors and go all guns in your face without so much as a lick of evidence. Yea an anonymous tip is not a lick of evidence.
I'd really like to see a law requiring citizens to take a low dose of anti-anxiety medication...We'd colonize mars by 2030, cure cancer, solve.....
Warning label reads: May cause apathy, tiredness and reduced creativity.
Go to one. Watch. I worked on them. We used pesticides and fungicides. No mount of feeling better about yourself for buying them will change that fact.
And that is wrong. You buy "organic" pesticides in 44 gallon drums. It is just certified as organic, which really means jack. And its often more poisonous to humans that modern pesticides not to mention less environmentally friendly. From both a CO2 footprint, and residue effects. But hay if you want to feel better about being poisoned by something organic......
all published economists agree that it is cheaper to mitigate than to accept the impacts of climate change.
No they don't.
Politics. Its been about nothing but for a long time now.
But there are really somethings we can say. The models have not proven any kind of accuracy over the time frame we are told we must change everything. The changes most think would be enough are either so out of the park in cost or just not even several orders of magnitude enough to make any difference at all. And all things come with costs.
Long story short. Everyone wants someone else to do something about it. Even worse people think buying green is in fact green without looking at *any* data whatsoever.
Get to know a few more scientists. You would be surprised just how "normal*" we are.
* normal, as in prejudiced, dogmatic, illogical and as unscientific on our approach to "truth" as everyone else.