Landscape of the future

They're ugly and they don't do anything to improve wildlife habitat as real trees and grasslands do (I recognize that these man made structures probably absorb more carbon) and in my view, we're putting a band aid on the current problem that we've caused. They're a solution for only 100 to 200 years. What then? And, they don't even have an idea what they'll do with all the carbon that's stored.

They'll allow us to continue with our business as usual attitude which presents us with most of our problems in the first place. Wouldn't it be nice if we could start to work with any progress and development that we engage in now but at the same time couple this with planning and preparation for the future?

 

Right on Evan.
Power lines are ugly, yet no one notices or complains about them, as they are indespensible. Someday windmills will be the same.

 

These climate engineering schemes are disturbing because we're playing with something we don't really understand. The Sodium Hydroxide trees (or some other, similar contraption) is fairly innocuous compared to some of the other ideas. Far more reversible, which is a good thing. Hopefully it won't come to this. It won't allow biz as usual because of the cost. Frankly, I think turbines (they're not windmills, dammit! ) are cool and there's plenty of tourist data to back that up (from NZ and CA).

 

I love the way wind turbines look, and I absolutely would put one literally in my back yard if I could. To be fair though, I love the idea of them because they're so simple, and that love translates into a love for the design and look of the structures. I guess if I didn't care about CO2 I'd think they're ugly.

 

From what I can tell, these aren't windmills. They are carbon absorbing vacuums. I don't have a problem with windmills (or should I say turbines as Tripp so points out ). These are the types of solutions that I appreciate as they would help us decrease our use of conventional energy sources.

These vacuums will simply allow us to continue our current consumption rate of conventional fuel sources as they'd be providing us with false illusion that the carbon is no longer a problem. Considering that they've no idea what they'd do with all of the stored carbon, we'll just be creating another problem that we'll have to contend with down the road.

 

There will be a wide variety of new "looks" in the viewshed - windmills, photovoltaic panels, triple-pane windows, landscaping for shading, proper orientation of buildings - all with an effort toward efficiency and conservation.

Cost effectiveness will drive much of the effort and efficiency will win because it is the "soft path" and has the least cost over the long term.

 

You lot are nothing but a pack of Hitlers with your nazi windmills.

I think the point of coupling the scrubbers with turbines was to reduce the cost of the structures by having them generate some power to offset their cost.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 19 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]426102[/snapback]</div>

I'm cracking up. Settle down there.

Hey, Tripp... How are these vacuums any better an idea than just implementing cleaner operating coal power plants? If cost the cost is higher to transition our existing coal plants to cleaner operations, maybe this initial cost would be lower than that of the carbon storage problem that these vacuums present down the road??? And, isn't there technology to sequester the carbon that's emitted from these plants to be used for other applications, or am I confusing this with methane?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 19 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]426092[/snapback]</div>

I have a question in terms of CO2. i was looking at the famous CO2/temp graph that goes back several hundred thousand years and noticed the dramatic increases in CO2 levels and then its drop - how did CO2 levels drop without CO2 scrubbers and how did it rise without mankind burning fossil fuels and eating meat?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 19 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]426115[/snapback]</div>

Just speculation here, but I'd surmise that that increased CO2 in the atmosphere spawned a huge cataclysmic(though gradual) proliferation of CO2 consuming vegetation that caused the consumption and decrease of atmospheric CO2. That resulted in today's atmospheric "equilibrium" that is consistent with the current makeup of life and continental geography. Would this last forever? Doubtful since the continents are constantly changing. But man's unnatural consumption of vegetation/forest clearing and unnatural pumping of CO2 into the air is seemingly creating change faster than what techtonic plate shifts would create.(but not faster than say a big assed meteor striking the earth).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 19 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]426115[/snapback]</div>

Speculation on how it rose? Perhaps when there was too much vegetative biomass and a relatively low atmospheric CO2 content. Perhaps this led to global cooling which was incompatible with sustaining all the biomass. Thus the biomass died off. Biomass decomposition results in CO2 release. Ofxourse this occurs over hundreds of thousands of years.

In Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, it described the respiration of of the earth. I think more CO2 in the winter is released when vegetation dies and less CO2 is in the atmosphere occurs in the spring/summer as vegetation emerges and consumes the CO2. But that's respiration, you deal with GI.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Apr 19 2007, 08:18 AM) [snapback]425989[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmmmm, let's see 250,000 units, capturing 90,000 tons of CO2 per year at a cost of $30 per ton that would cost turbine to me.

 

I'm still waiting for our cities to be covered with giant glass domes; that'll solve all of our problems.

Seriously, why can't we just change our ways a little bit?

 

Those turbines look a hell of a lot better than a belching smokestack -- and that's a choice we're facing right now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 19 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]426158[/snapback]</div>

so there are no answers to my question - thanks - perhaps the co2 levels now are also not due to human activity and they will fall again as the earth cools on its own (like it might be doing now according to ocean temperatures) - without human intervention needed????

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 19 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]426200[/snapback]</div>

think of all those dead humans from starvation, poor drinking water, hiv/aids, etc etc etc - where the allocation of resources will make an immediate impact - instead of chasing co2 windmills.

a new religion has been born - the religion of anthropogenic global warming- these guys are the new flat earth people.

 

Question for dbermanmd: Any evidence in the ancient past that CO2 levels changed drastically in a 2-3 centuries or less? On a geologic time scale, that is considered sudden.