Zero Emission Vehicles, INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS FOR ALL

>Oil is not all bad.

Glad to hear it... do you realize now that an automobile is not going to sequester carbon dioxide? It is a clean=green-machine-afaik of the technology-if it releases that molecule along with water. Nature, I surmise does not care where the molecules come from.


Story from BBC NEWS: © BBC MMVII
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm

Published: 2007/10/20 04:50:45 GMT



QUOTE
Results of their 10-year study in the North Atlantic show CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005.

Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.

Researchers said the findings, published in a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research, were surprising and worrying because there were grounds for believing that, in time, the ocean might become saturated with our emissions.

'Saturated' ocean

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations.

"But they say it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing that in time the ocean might become 'saturated' with our emissions - unable to soak up any more."

He said that would "leave all our emissions to warm the atmosphere".

/Quote



The notion of saturation especially in light of Gaia or my theory of Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection, is idiocy! The little 'scare quotes' should give you a hint that Zarkov in this respect {within his larger oil slick theory which I can't say I fully understand(and dearth of clouds?)} is right but maybe not...

Gaia and Devolution have two different perspectives of the past.
The proponent(s) differ on the need for more carbon dioxide to civilize and lower the Entropy in an open system that includes more and more people.

QUOTE
Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'
The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.
University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments./Q
The paradigm shift of this has been noted. The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is not anthropogenic as much as it is because of the rise of sea surface temperature which opens the system up to the Sun and cosmic rays and recent Arctic melting with water's great insolation power due to lack of timely cloud cover. I see nothing global in this phenomenon so much as universal starting but not finishing with our own solor system. On the USA home front and Earth for which we can do something: Soot would not be good down under or on the glaciers of Greenland. Soot is generally considered a pollutant and regulations are in play for diesel tractor engines to elimanate it. I can't say how far soot travels anyway, This solid is not like the gas carbon dioxide for which only 'crazies' consider a pollutant.

MrB.

I suppose it could be said astronauts pollute their environment. They do not need to use the larger biosphere("to clean the air") which should tell you how easy it is. In addition to ground transport, air transport is a consideration. (We can leave sea for another day... a large place to hide or dump trash for a time)

I did some editing and put in bold a comment about a or the rate-determining step involving a layer of atmosphere. The rds is a chemical term i searched for a few days ago and just got around to reading. You also will note that they do not use the word saturation but instead speak of a new equilibrium.


Table 4 (CONCAWE (1997), EC (1996)) shows how the emissions of CO, hydrocarbons, NOx and particulate matter have been reduced in Europe, reflecting the ability of technology to deliver reductions in emissions.
The data show how the largest reductions in emissions have already taken place, with projections that further reductions will be possible by the introduction of on-board diagnostic systems, in-service emissions testing, recall programmes and fuel quality improvements (CONCAWE, 1997). These reductions in petrol and diesel engined vehicle emissions are sufficient to leave little room for improvement by switching to alternative hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or vegetable oil.
The only cleaner option, as far as local emissions are concerned, is for a zero-emissions vehicle powered by electricity or hydrogen fuel cells. For such vehicles, it is important to consider, however, the total environmental impact of their use, as the air pollution emissions from remote generation of electricity or production of hydrogen fuel
could possibly exceed the exhaust emissions that a conventional vehicle would produce. The main advantage of zero-emission vehicles is that the emissions can be relocated to where they are further from human receptors, so benefits to human health can be obtained

while other environmental impacts are not reduced (see Fig. 1).


Many decades, they say. You can probably take that with a grain of salt.

When comparing different impacts of aircraft upon the global atmosphere with each other, and with the effect of emissions from other transport sectors and non transport related activity, the most challenging aspect of CO2 is perhaps the time scale over which it has an effect. CO2 is chemically sufficiently unreactive for its dominant removal process to be physical.
Solution in the water of the upper ocean and exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and terrestrial biomass are relatively rapid, with the combined annual flux amounting to 20% of the atmospheric carbon
reservoir mass of 750 GT (Houghton et al., 1996), but these fluxes are bi-directional. The rate determining step for net removal of carbon is mixing from the surface and intermediate ocean to the much larger carbon reservoir of the deep oceans. At the turn of the 21st Century, anthropogenic carbon emissions of 7 to 8 GT per year (including deforestation) are greater than the equilibrium rate of removal at current atmospheric and surface ocean concentrations, such that an
amount of carbon equal to around half the emissions each year are removed and the imbalance results in a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Were emissions to remain constant at today’s rate, the atmospheric concentration would reach an equilibrium level about one third higher than today’s value towards the end of the 21st Century.

The global total emissions of CO2 from aviation in 1990 was about 450 million tonnes of carbon (Barrett, 991), which was less than 20% of global road transport emissions and about 3% of total anthropogenic emissions. Furthermore, historical emissions of CO2 from aviation are almost zero going back just a few decades into the mid 20th Century, while around half the carbon dioxide from all anthropogenic sources currently in the atmosphere was emitted before 1980, so the
overwhelming majority of the total is from non-aviation sources.

The small contribution of aviation is, however, increasing, and the small amounts of CO2 being emitted by aircraft now will remain in the air for many decades.


Finally, water vapour from jet engines can also form line-shaped clouds in the free troposphere. The temperature of these clouds is lower than that of Earth’s surface, so their black body radiation is less than what would be emitted from Earth’s surface were the clouds not there, resulting in net warming. This is more significant than the amount of incoming solar radiation reflected, so that overall the contrails have a warming effect on climate at the surface. Usually, contrails evaporate again within minutes or even seconds
such that their impact is negligible, but under certain meteorological
conditions they can be sufficiently persistent [and] a large part of the sky can become obscured continually along a major flight path until weather conditions change many hours or days later. In the stratosphere, contrails are never persistent because of the low ambient relative humidity there, although the water vapour from aircraft is not removed rapidly by precipitation as it is in the troposphere so has a small warming effect on climate because of its greenhouse gas properties.


-Current ability to quantify impact and major sources of uncertainty-

In theory, the impact of aircraft emissions on upper troposphere and lower stratosphere chemistry can be quantified using global models of circulation and chemistry (such as Johnson et al., 1999). However, despite the fact that the reaction mechanisms are now qualitatively understood, quantifying the impact of aircraft emissions remains elusive. There are two main reasons for this:

Firstly, the chemical reaction cycles are complex, as different gas-phase and heterogeneous pathways become more important at different temperatures. Small errors in the predicted mix of different pollutants can propagate via resulting errors in the relative rates of two or more competing reactions to end up with quite unrealistic simulated O3 concentrations. Not only must the chemical composition of the upper troposphere and stratosphere be simulated accurately, but rates of mixing between layers as well as chemistry determines the composition, the temperature needs to be known to determine where heterogeneous processes occur, and the temperature has a large influence on the mixing. The whole process of stratospheric O3 destruction in particular is a highly non-linear catastrophic process.

Secondly, emissions of aircraft in the upper troposphere and stratosphere occur along highly localised flight paths that vary in time and space. The physical size of these is much less than the resolution of the global-scale models that are required to simulate chemistry in the upper troposphere and stratosphere. This problem of scale is added to the fact that the total emissions from aircraft are at least as difficult to quantify as emissions for road traffic are on the ground. It is exacerbated by the fact that other sources of the same pollutants in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, such as lightening and mixing from the lower troposphere, are also very difficult to quantify accurately.

Any one of these difficulties would make calculations of the total atmospheric impact of aircraft emissions liable to error.
Combined, they present a very formidable challenge indeed for the science of atmospheric chemistry modelling. The most recent calculations indicate that the effect of aircraft NOx emissions on producing O3 in the upper troposphere / lower stratosphere is greater than the effect of sulphur and soot emissions on destroying O3, except at high latitudes Colvile et al., 2000.



PDF

er um... maybe not with todays technology; if I figure out a way, I'll let everybody know

>> How do you close a cycle that includes the Sun?


OK, you know wind, you know solar

well these are OK for limited use

To harness the spin of the Earth is the way some researchers have finally realised..... took too long.....

wave power, tidal dam power, tidal surge power

all are "ever lasting"

Of course the common variable to all these (above and below) is electricity.

The secret that makes them all viable is electrical storage...

Store the electrical potential, and when needed use it or export it

We could have an Earth with unlimited power, with no emissions, no footprint whats so ever.

Unfortunately at this stage in Earth's development there are massive players who have a vested interest in pollution... Big Oil et al

and these players have not only initially unwittingly polluted the world for gain, they have polluted the world with knowledge and set this world on a path to extinction, KNOWINGLY!!! and to develop footprint free energy systems these players are a vicious enemy. They stifle research and close minds.... as shown on this and other forums.

There are ways out of this..
as I said just start thinking

This world is doomed... and unless the public stand up and tear down the walls ... put your lives on the line

Its the children's world BUT

no children will survive to adulthood

! Do y'all want that ???

History clearly shows the rise and fall of civilizations. For one reason or another, they either thrive or don't.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.

That's it.... y'all just accept that your civilisation will end, just like that !!!!!!
y'all will lay down and die????

well this bunny is not giving up.... there is much to do.

re: That's it.... y'all just accept that your civilisation will end, just like that !!!!!! y'all will lay down and die????

>No. Civilizations evolve and grow. While parts of it decay, other parts grow.

re: well this bunny is not giving up.... there is much to do.

>Good to hear it! Yes there much to do!



This post has been edited by PJParent001 on Dec 28 2007, 10:32 AM