Oil prices fall toward $45 a barrel, dropping to a five-month low

Ah, didn't see this until now. Wow, tiptoeing ever so lightly over your fragile ego issues... "I recommended creating fuel out of CO2 already in the atmosphere, which means less CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels." Okay, that's a theory. Something. At least. Still creating a highly fossilized fuel ostensibly to burn less. Sorry, still just sounds silly to me. To get "less CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels" why not just quit burning so much fossil fuel?

"Every single molecule of oxygen that we breath, and every single calorie of energy that our bodies utilize comes from the the transforming of atmospheric CO2 into oxygen and glucose in the cells of plants."

Anyone besides you arguing with that? Plants also produce tons of CO2. So what?

 

any third grader could understand that forming carbon-carbon bonds from CO2 in the atmosphere, then spitting them to get the energy out, forming the same number of CO2 molecules that you started with is much different than pulling new hydrocarbons out of the ground and combustion them.

 

You asked me what my proposal did about existing CO2 in the atmosphere. I asked you the same.

 

My apologies then for presuming you were well beyond the third grade by now. How is the burning of hydrocarbons diminished? You don't care, right? In fact, we'll need to return to this now:

Yes, it is. How does burning one hydrocarbon fuel in place of another, all else being apparently equal, net less CO2 in the atmosphere? Nice tap dance you got going on, but still no sale.

Being a greenhouse gas, excess CO2 in the atmosphere* keeps the planet too warm. Anything short of reducing it is just asking for the planet to warm even more.

*(in the biosphere actually, but for the sake of simplicity..)

 

One obvious way to net reduce atmospheric CO2 is to stop burning CO2 producing stuff (oil, natural gas, propane, gasoline, diesel, coal, sugars, etc) in order to generate electricity. My solar panels perform exactly that function. Duh. Your turn...

 

Given our pathetic media, I doubt many understand that burning non-fossil fuel hydrocarbons is no better than burning the fossil fuel variety. It doesn't matter one lick where the carbon originated from except for determining how much of what's currently in the biosphere is attributable to relatively recent human activity. Meaning anthropomorphic, meaning extracted from deep below the surface of the Earth and burned. One type is mildly radioactive, the other is not.

Our ongoing "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" problem, as I much prefer calling it, comes as a direct result of all that deep below the surface carbon extraction we've already done and continue doing. The simplest logical fix would be to stuff it all back down, deep below the the surface again. But the best theoretical solution is often not possible or extremely impractical. But we still gotta work on it. A practical, emergency start combines much reduced burning of carbon based fuels with capturing and permanently sequestering bulk surface carbon.

 

My proposal nets zero CO2 just like yours, duh.

 

The CO2 produced was first taken from the atmosphere. Net = zero C02 molucules created


Now tell me, if your solar panel nets zero C02 molecules as well, how will it help reduce atmospheric C02 by any greater measure?

 

Given the concern is over global warming, I'd recommend air conditioning. For the outdoors, where air conditioning isn't possible, how about spraying the stratosphere with particulates that deflect sunlight?

 

Your proposal will "combust" air + "CO2 producing stuff" to produce>>> CO2 + soot + waste heat + other greenhouse gases + other pollutants . My solar panels do not and will not. Duh. They consume sunlight and produce electricity, replacing the previous CO2 producing/polluting grid power equivalent.

While you may succeed in capturing and reusing a significant portion of the CO2 and heat your system will produce, it's a two stage process that cannot be 100% efficient and will pollute. Still, I grant you it's better than doing nothing. Nowhere near as good as solar.

 

Theoretically, it wouldn't. But again, you presume 100% efficiency, which is ridiculous. Plus your system will create pollution, including worse greenhouse gases, where my panels already produce none.

 

Air conditioning that requires even more energy, likely creating even more greenhouses gases, creating even more global warming. Right.
Deliberately polluting the entire stratosphere? Right.

 

With oil prices what they are TransCanada is backing off building the Keystone pipeline.

 

you must see how public transportation works in Stockholm ) but London is fine too

 

What are the combustion products of ethane? Two CO2 molecules and water. What are the other greenhouse gasses?

 

Your electrical system produces heat for your home and heat is created on conversion to mechanical energy as well.

What other greenhouse gasses are created from splitting ethane into two C02 molecules?

How much greenhouse gas and pollutants will be created to generate all of the materials necessary to power the country on electrical energy produced from solar radiation?

 

It all depends. Is this "combustion" occurring in air, pure O2, or what? Are you presuming complete combustion? From your answer to yourself, it would seem so. Why? Before you talked about burning hydrocarbons. Why only burn ethane now?

You're just being silly now. My system produces electricity. Your system will produce electricity plus significant heat as well. It's a given that generating electricity is the primary purpose of both systems. Comparative critique of any projected end use for that electricity is irrelevant due to applying equally to both.

What, no longer doing "combustion"? Still planning to generate rather than consume electricity? Again, it depends. Look, I'm all for trying new things. I've already said I think it's probably better than doing nothing. If your heart's set on doing this, go for it and good luck. Meanwhile, my panels will keep generating clean electricity. Don't worry, be happy now.

Well, if you're talking about using solar, we're a good way there already, but I'd still venture a significant amount. However, I don't presume all our electricity will ever be produced that way alone. I do presume we shall continue generating and storing massive amounts of electrical energy. I understand wind power is growing more popular again due mainly to stronger, lighter composites; possibly 3D printing as well. In any case, in terms of creating pollutants such as excess greenhouse gases, solar panel technology has obviously already proven far superior to alternatives such as building more fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.

 

Splitting the bonds is where the energy comes from.
Learn some chemistry.

 

So that would be a "Yes" or a "No", professor? Wow. You're welcome.

 

It's the chemicall process that takes place during combustion, not so astute student

 

Do you realise how much energy is required to split the carbon oxygen bond in carbon dioxide? It takes more energy to produce ethane from CO2 than you would get back. There is a reason why CO2 is a product of combustion.

 

The professor is apparently trying to say "No, I'm still planning to use combustion." Just has never considered responding to student inquiries without meanspirited condescension.