Why Global Warming does not bother me.

[mistermack]

Is it that you don't read what you are commenting on, or just that you can't understand it?

You bring cold water from low productive area ie. deeps which warms up and releases CO2 acidifying the water. That lowers the carbonate content and thus the ability of organisms to make shells. What don't you understand?

Sheeeeeeesh, it's like dealing with kiddies.

Every cc of colder water brought up is REPLACED by warmer water from above moving down.
Also, cold water from below will mix with, and cool, the water at the surface, INCREASING it's capacity to hold CO2.
It should be obvious to anybody that the overall effect is completely neutral.

And even if it wasn't, the quantities involved would be miniscule in comparison to the volume of the ocean and atmosphere.

Any more kiddies stuff you need explaining?

[Seth]

Is it that you don't read what you are commenting on, or just that you can't understand it?

You bring cold water from low productive area ie. deeps which warms up and releases CO2 acidifying the water. That lowers the carbonate content and thus the ability of organisms to make shells. What don't you understand?

Sheeeeeeesh, it's like dealing with kiddies.

Every cc of colder water brought up is REPLACED by warmer water from above moving down.
Also, cold water from below will mix with, and cool, the water at the surface, INCREASING it's capacity to hold CO2.
It should be obvious to anybody that the overall effect is completely neutral.

And even if it wasn't, the quantities involved would be miniscule in comparison to the volume of the ocean and atmosphere.

Any more kiddies stuff you need explaining?

Any of you bothered to calculate how much energy is required to move that water up and down? Where's it coming from?

[Blind groper]

You can use the temperature differential to generate energy - more than required for pumping. There was an article in Scientific American about this some years back.

Warm water boils a suitable volatile solvent, which drives a turbine. The solvent then to exposed to the cold water to liquify it again, so the warm water can once more boil it, to release more energy. The energy from the warm water is thus tapped to generate electricity.

The energy involved is, in theory, sufficient to do all the pumping, and release extra in the form of electricity into the grid.

[Seth]

You can use the temperature differential to generate energy - more than required for pumping. There was an article in Scientific American about this some years back.

Warm water boils a suitable volatile solvent, which drives a turbine. The solvent then to exposed to the cold water to liquify it again, so the warm water can once more boil it, to release more energy. The energy from the warm water is thus tapped to generate electricity.

The energy involved is, in theory, sufficient to do all the pumping, and release extra in the form of electricity into the grid.

And what about the energy, not to mention the economic investment to build those millions or billions of pumping systems? Where does that come from?

Do you really have a clue about what the energy budget required to raise the oceans 1 degree C actually is? Here's a clue: It takes that much energy, or more, to lower the temperature 1 degree C too.

Have you ever been to sea? It's a fucking huge body of water dude.

[Blind groper]

Seth

It is a long time since I read the Scientific American article, but the authors had no doubts that there was ample energy in the temperature differential to drive the pumps and have a heap left over to put into the national electricity grid. The net result, according to the article, would be a substantial energy gain.

[Seth]

Seth

It is a long time since I read the Scientific American article, but the authors had no doubts that there was ample energy in the temperature differential to drive the pumps and have a heap left over to put into the national electricity grid. The net result, according to the article, would be a substantial energy gain.

Once again, who is going to pay for all the infrastructure, and what will that infrastructure cost in order to make a measurable difference?

By the way, did you hear that the US output of CO2 is the lowest in 20 years?

"In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal." Source

Of course this isn't good enough for the ecofascists, who are now bitching about all the drilling and fracking. They'll not be satisfied till we're all living in wattle-and-daub huts wearing sackcloth and hair shirts and grubbing for roots with sharpened sticks I suspect. Luddite fuckwads.

[mistermack]

The energy requirement isn't all that much, if you use very large bore pipe.
I would design a submersible electric pump attached to the lower end of the pipe, with a power line down from the ship.
That way, you're pushing the water, rather than sucking it, so you could use thin-walled wide bore pipe, kept inflated by the pressure.
I saw a tv clip of a dredger ship the other day doing something similar, it was sucking up mud, sand, silt etc and making an island with the dredged material. The volumes it was shifting was amazing.
Compared to that, sucking up fine organic deposits would take a lot less energy.

I would have thought that if generating electricity from warm/cold water was feasible, there would be loads of places where upwellings of cold water would make it easy to access. I would have expected that it would be in use already somewhere.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

On costs.

The cost of setting up such a structure has to be defrayed by the climate benefits, the energy generation benefits, and the fish production benefits. Obviously, nothing will happen until the money men calculate this will be overall a net financial gain. So far, we do not even have pilot plants, so there is a long way to go, and eventually nothing may happen. But the basic idea is sound.

[macdoc]

It's feasible just not cost effective as yet - nor is the pulling up sediments. There are test facilities but the gradient has to be large to be useful for power - Hawaii has potential.

[pErvinalia]

By the way, did you hear that the US output of CO2 is the lowest in 20 years?

"In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal." Source

Of course this isn't good enough for the ecofascists, who are now bitching about all the drilling and fracking. They'll not be satisfied till we're all living in wattle-and-daub huts wearing sackcloth and hair shirts and grubbing for roots with sharpened sticks I suspect. Luddite fuckwads.

[/quote]

Seth, get a fucking clue. The science is clear. We have to do something about this or we will be living in far worse conditions that your hyperbolic description above. Take your halfwitted opinions and bury them in the sand next to your head.

The other major factor in the fall in CO2 emissions is the fucking GFC. As I said, get a fucking clue.

[pErvinalia]

It's feasible just not cost effective as yet - nor is the pulling up sediments. There are test facilities but the gradient has to be large to be useful for power - Hawaii has potential.

This is the other aspect of the debate, something those who suck fossil fuel cock always fail to realise. The costs to do many renewable/green energy projects would be far more feasible if the true cost of fossil fuels was being paid. That is, if we weren't externalising the pollution costs of fossil fuel use.

[Warren Dew]

Because the solution to messing with mother nature in one way is always messing with her in another way, eh?

Got news for you, Warren.

The whole history of humankind is messing with mother nature more and more. And as we do, we live longer, live healthier, destroy entire diseases, have more material wealth, have more mobility, better homes etc. etc.

And the whole history of humankind is leaving a trail of destruction in our wake, wiping out species after species and destroying entire ecosystems.

This trend ain't gonna change any time soon.

Sadly, you are probably correct.

[Warren Dew]

It's feasible just not cost effective as yet - nor is the pulling up sediments. There are test facilities but the gradient has to be large to be useful for power - Hawaii has potential.

This is the other aspect of the debate, something those who suck fossil fuel cock always fail to realise. The costs to do many renewable/green energy projects would be far more feasible if the true cost of fossil fuels was being paid. That is, if we weren't externalising the pollution costs of fossil fuel use.

And yet, whenever I propose replacing the income tax with a massive fossil fuel tax to internalize these costs, the global warming alarmists whinge about how they can't do that because it's against their political beliefs.

[Seth]

The energy requirement isn't all that much, if you use very large bore pipe.
I would design a submersible electric pump attached to the lower end of the pipe, with a power line down from the ship.
That way, you're pushing the water, rather than sucking it, so you could use thin-walled wide bore pipe, kept inflated by the pressure.
I saw a tv clip of a dredger ship the other day doing something similar, it was sucking up mud, sand, silt etc and making an island with the dredged material. The volumes it was shifting was amazing.

Shallow water dredging that probably costs $10,000 an hour to run the dredge, which is paid for by the market for artificial islands as real estate.

Where's the profit motive for pumping water from the deep sea to the surface?

Compared to that, sucking up fine organic deposits would take a lot less energy.

I would have thought that if generating electricity from warm/cold water was feasible, there would be loads of places where upwellings of cold water would make it easy to access. I would have expected that it would be in use already somewhere.

How many of these ships would be required to make a measurable difference, what does each one cost, and who is going to pay for it and how?

[Seth]

By the way, did you hear that the US output of CO2 is the lowest in 20 years?

"In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal." Source

Of course this isn't good enough for the ecofascists, who are now bitching about all the drilling and fracking. They'll not be satisfied till we're all living in wattle-and-daub huts wearing sackcloth and hair shirts and grubbing for roots with sharpened sticks I suspect. Luddite fuckwads.

Seth, get a fucking clue. The science is clear. We have to do something about this or we will be living in far worse conditions that your hyperbolic description above. Take your halfwitted opinions and bury them in the sand next to your head.[/quote]

Suck my turgid, throbbing member, ecofascist.

The other major factor in the fall in CO2 emissions is the fucking GFC. As I said, get a fucking clue.

Nothing we can do in the short term will make a bit of difference in the next century because the CO2 is already there and, according to "scientists" will remain there for a hundred years or more no matter what we do, so there's no hurry at all.

Adapt or die.