Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
RR
Is the process capable of using a variety of cellulosic material? Other than forests, and I really hate to see us go there, I really think if there is a promising cellulosic process (and I also hope it doesn't involve bacterial gene splicing), that it needs to be on a smaller local scale which would use a variety of materials, specific to the region, or most usefully, city. This would help lessen the logistical transport problems both of the raw material and of the product. Currently, every city collects tons of leaf waste, grass clippings, brush and branches, much cellulosic waste goes down garbage disposals, and enormous amounts of lumber and other left over building materials go into land fills, etc. Storm damage unique to a region can produce tons of cellulosic waste, as well. Since Bloomberg's on a roll, start with a plant near a NYC landfill. Perhaps regional farms could add appropriate waste products, as well. I am curious whether this process would require dry storage of the material. If not, that could be a big hurdle out of the way. Anyway, thanks for giving of your time to yet another project inquiry and good luck.
NYC landfill was a theme I kept coming back to. Right now these landfills a leaking loads of methane into the atmosphere - and we know that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It seems like a win all the way around to me.
No gene-splicing to my knowledge. But one of my vulnerabilities here is that there is a part of the process I have not seen. This is a black box to me, and I have told them that it is important that I take that box apart. This is the only thing that keeps me from saying "This is truly revolutionary." There could be a perpetual motion machine hiding in there, but I think I can sniff out a fake pretty well. These guys did know their stuff.
and we know that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
Recall methane is a feedback enhancement, not a primary, mechanism. The reason is the timescale... methane content is more or less a function of other parameters due to its short equilibration time. The reason CO2 is so significant is its longer time scale. See the intro articles on
RealClimate for more detail.
"Methane is transient in the atmosphere, so if the anthropogenic source stays constant, the methane concentration stays constant. This is different from CO2, which accumulates. Methane is well-mixed in the troposphere. Gets oxidized by OH in the troposphere and zapped by UV light in the stratosphere. Gases don't sink out very much in the atmosphere because it circulates so quickly. You can measure gravitational settling of gases in stagnant columns of air like in firn above ice cores, but in the atmosphere, gases don't really settle out. The atmospheric measurements are straightforward, replicated, reliable."
--David Archer on RealClimate
ciao,
Bruce
Natural methane may be a feedback mechanism, but rice paddies, landfills and pipeline leaks are not. If we can reduce atmospheric methane by turning landfill gas into electricity and feeding our livestock differently, that's changing a human greenhouse contribution.
Methane is transient in the atmosphere, so if the anthropogenic source stays constant, the methane concentration stays constant.
On the other hand, if the anthropogenic source were to lessen, then the concentration would lessen, wouldn't it?
That's very true... unlike with CO2 there is no significant delay hence methane doesn't accumulate in the way CO2 does. I don't remember the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere, but ...(google)... it's about a century for CO2 and about a decade for CH4. The latter figure is long enough for CH4 to be well mixed and short enough that even with increased input the effective sinks keep the concentration in equilibrium. The response (eq conc as a fn of forcing) is nonlinear, but in this case the nonlinearity is stabilising (i.e., you don't get explosive growth without a catastrophic event).
Those interested should google on these things a bit, there is lots of interesting stuff on the net. It is easy to stick to scientific (or just multiple) sources.
ciao,
Bruce
I'm not sure forests cannot generate point source biomass. A new craze in Australia is 'fuel reduction burning' http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20934343,00.html to reduce the intensity of wildfires. Rather than torch the undergrowth perhaps it could be mechanically harvested and rendered by pyrolysis. This could help the parks service in different ways
1) the forest gets its historical thinning
2) they won't get sued for medical bills by asthmatics
3) the fire can't escape and burn houses
The Eucalypt forest on the eastern coast of Australia is adapted for (by 60,00 years of fire-stick farming by the Aboriginal inhabitants) and now requires regular burn offs. This removes the dry bark and undergrowth, which has built up over a five or so year period and removes a lot of the insect parasites. The burns offs are done on calm winter days and cause some temporary smoke haze and very little inconvenience and zero damage to the trees of ecology.
When idiots insist on it not being done, due to ignorance and NIMBYism, the biomass builds up you get massive dangerous fires that kills people and the trees.
It would be almost impossible economically or physically to harvest this biomass and the turn it in to ethanol – it is far too dispersed in the trees and shrubs.