demography polls revisited - #1: AGE

[Bram]

Sequestration is the preffered term since in 'our' jargon it implies 'catching it' as well as 'storing it.' Both are equally important sincve filtering it out if you have no idea what to do with is is madness, and you can have all the storage room you want but if you can't 'catch' it, you ain't got nothin' to put in there. The combination of techniques and procedures is knows as sequestration. It's also one of my all-time favorite words.

Well, here's the thing. Our government (unlike yours ;-) signed the Kyuoto climate treaty (which has been discussed before on these very boards). This means we will now have to bend over backwards to achieve its goals, which are an 80% reduction of CO2-emissions compared to the level in 1990 by the year 2050. Some notes on this:

- it sounds like a long time. It's not. Govenrments make decisions involving such long-term (or even longer) actions all the time, such as the Dutch war against the water, or infra-structure related projects.

- it sounds like rather a lot. It is. We're probably not gonna make it. That's part of the reason for my research.

- many scientists disagree that CO2 is the cause of global warming (some even disagree that global warming is occuring). However interesting this discussion might be, it is futile and I will not adress it. The point is: my government has the obligation to reduce its emissions by a certain amount within a certain timeframe. WHY we do this, and if this is USEFUL is NOT a question I seek to answer. I just wanna know how we can get it DONE.

In order to achieve this, our government wants to initiate a transition to an economy based on renewables on the very very long term. They attempt to do this using a relatively new policy tool called 'transition management.' In it's startup phase, all options are kept open. Private companies and universities alike develop many renewable alrernative, each claiming to be 'the best', but often using the same resources (biomass, for example).

The research company I work for (formely Dutch Reactor Center, but now having increased its scope to renewable energy) wants to initiate a massive research program into how these different options would interact IF they were implemetented. A simple example: THIS research institute says 'we can cover our energy needs for 20% if we convert biomass into syngas', and THAT one states that 'we can cover 20% if we use pyrolysis to make bio-ethanol'. Cool. You'd have 40% covered that way. Except you'd need twice as much biomass as you have available. You'd have to import it, which increases economic dependance. Plus, if EVERY coutry decides to do this, we'd have a shortage on our hands and will have invested in technology we can no longer use.

Now MY research investigates the interaction between two very different options. On the one hand, there's all this talk about replacing high-efficiency boilers for home heating with WKK (micro-scale combined heat/power generation). This is a small electricity-producing machine every home would have. It is fueled by natural gas (so in a sense, it's not 'renewable') but it has an efficiency of up to 100% since the HEAT produced while making electricity is used for heating water and keeping rooms at a given temperature (covering all the demand for heat) while the electricity covers most of the demand for power. This is a decentralized energy generation system.

But here's the thing. Another option that is recieving a lot of attention is the CO2 sequestration I told you about. This has to occur in centralized large-scale plants, since you can't really collect it from 6 million WKK-devices. Obviously, like you mentioned, if your energy producers are fully decentralized, you can't catch CO2 centrally. HOWEVER, it is though the centralized plants will continue to exist. For one thing, they will need to supply other sector such as industry. For another, WKK can't fully cover our home needs. Since there is a fixed proportion of heat/power it generates, you have to choose to cover one need. Since heat cannot be easily stored, you choose to cover the hdemand for heat in homes with your WKK. That means that elektricity just sort of limps along. There may well be times when you produce more electricity than you need, or less.

When it's more, you'll have to either store it (in heat pumps, or H2-electrolysis) or sell it back to the grid. When it's less, you're fucked. That's why you still need the central plants: to fulfill 'peak demands' and shortages. I'll be researching when and where these peak demands for heat and power will occur, and what the (time-related) demand curve for both variables are. Knowing this, I can more or less 'design' the preferred central power plant and THEN determine if CO2 sequestriation will be of any use (if the preferable method of filling in the 'surplus' demand would be say, wind or solar power, it will onbviously be of little use).

The end result would be a clarification of choices. A conclusion could, for example, be: IF you invest in large-scale implementation of WKK for households, THEN further investment in C)2-sequestration research is futile. Or the other way around. Or not. See where I'm going with this? ;-)

[dandan]

The sensible way to reduce emissions by 80% is to argue about the 1990 figures, upgrade them using every variable at your disposal and then apply the method of verification that gives you the best result. Actually reducing emissions (except by the removal of obsolete industrial applications) is far too hard and affects your industrial performance.

A practical alternative is to sign a second treaty, this time including the US and China (which ensures that the numbers agreed are merely the predicted figures rather than real attempts at doing anything) and ignoring the Kyoto Treaty.

I really believe that these 2 options are more likely than actually doing anything which is not driven by cold hard economics.

(Holland would appear to have significany potential for wave energy and shoreline heat pumps, wouldn't it be a good idea if serious effort was put into Nuclear Fusion?)

Note that Virgins by virtue of not having sex do not exhale as much CO2 as people having sex. However I doubt that this can be successfully used in a country like Holland.

[Bram]

That might well have been the best post evar. Every single phrase made me laugh uncontrollably.

I have no doubt that both of the methods you suggested will be used eventually. There is no way we're ever gonna get to 80%. Right now, I'd be happy if we could find some way to make the emissions grow less rapidly than the economic expansion, never mind decreasing it, let alone actually decreasing it a LOT.

(Holland would appear to have significany potential for wave energy and shoreline heat pumps, wouldn't it be a good idea if serious effort was put into Nuclear Fusion?)

The potential for tidal and wave energy is ceratinly there; much research is being done in Japan, but the costs of it are astronomical. Also: it's a relatively new and unreliable technology. It will be mentioned, and no doubt further developed, but we're not putting our money on it. Nuclear fusion is percieved as a long-term solution. There's a lot of research on it in Germany. I visited a nuclear fusion plant there once. They were actually able to contain the reaction and keep the process going. On the down side however, this required more energy than the process generated, effecitvely giving it a negative efficiency. A while ago, it was prognosed that the first commercially available nuclear fusion reactors would enter the market arounr 1985. It's now 20 years later and we're still nowhere near a working protype, even. There have been some major advances, yes, but again: it's something of a money pit and there are countries better equipped for such fundamental research than Holland is. I believe it to be THE solution to our energy problems, however, especially if we can force a breakthrough in the are of cold fusion. There was a reportedly succesful experiment some 2 years back, bit the results were sadly never reproduced.

Note that Virgins by virtue of not having sex do not exhale as much CO2 as people having sex. However I doubt that this can be successfully used in a country like Holland.

There is a so-called 'trias energetica' in my field of research, which prioritizes the actions:
1. 'avoiding energy use' is the most renewable way to do things. Making machines that use less energy, or using less machines in general is the best option by far.
2. 'using renewables' is the next best thing. The demand you still have after #1 should be filled inas much as possible by renewable sources.
3. 'clean and efficient fossil fuels' is lowest on the list. Anything not achioeven by #1 and #2 should AT LEAST be generated in a highly efficient manner to avoid unnecessary losses, and should be made as clean as possible by filtering (note that 'cleaning' it does not stop the fossil fuel depletion, but does decrease emissions).

In light of your remark, I'd like to make it an 'energetic square' rather than a triangle. I'd like to add 'avoiding sex' as the very, very LAST possible solution to emission problems.

[rvs]

Bram: you attach too much value to these polls.

[Bram]

Bram: you attach too much value to these polls.

Eh? I attach NO value to these polls, as I explained in the other community forums. What on earth do you mean?

[Dr. Sylvan]

I have no idea what "syngas" or "pyrolysis" are, but that was pretty much what I was wondering about.

I tried Googling for WKK, but got what I think is a CounterStrike site. Even after I added "renewable energy" to the search term and asked for English sites I mostly gleaned "it's thermal". (Also, I still managed to get a hit about Who Killed Kennedy. Seriously, that acronym is terrible for Googling.) Are there, like, news articles about it somewhere that's dumbed down enough for me?

[rvs]

Bram: you attach too much value to these polls.

Eh? I attach NO value to these polls, as I explained in the other community forums. What on earth do you mean?

Your posts are too long. Therefore, I figured they must've been about the poll. But now that I'm thinking more clearly, I know your dutch nature would not allow that. So um... carry on!

[Bram]

Rudy:

Your posts are too long.

Well, the good doctor aked me to explain, so I did.

Therefore, I figured they must've been about the poll. But now that I'm thinking more clearly, I know your dutch nature would not allow that.

You should've known I'd hijack my own thread  

Phil:

I have no idea what "syngas" or "pyrolysis" are, but that was pretty much what I was wondering about (....) WKK

WKK is a dutch term. It stands for Warmte-Kracht-Koppel (heat/power couple). The english term would probably be 'cogeneration' or CHP (combined heat/power). There's some info on it over here but google will probably give you more.

Pyrolysis is a thermal process during which a organic material (biomass) will decompose in the absense of oxygen at a temperature of about 300 degrees Celsius, producing, among other things, biogas (or syngas): basically a methane-like gas which did not require the usage of fossil feedstocks (it's also called anaerobic gasification).

[dandan]

And of course in the Virgin vs Ho debate - if you had to chose a night with Jessica Simpson or Angelina Jolie who would you chose? Here endeth the discussion....

[Bram]

Definitely Jessica Simpson. Why?

[dandan]

You lie!! It is such an Eager Cadet vs Black Lotus choice it isn't true. Only a masochist would chose Jessica but then again Angelina must be the choice for masochists too!! Do you have a fetish for hearing the word 'NO'?

On a totally unrelated note, Holland could use solar power quite well. Whenever you play football just surround the pitch with solar panels and soak up all that orange glow. You know your colours are too loud when even the players start to wear shades. I also hear the Amsterdam is quite advanced in the burning of certain organic biomasses.

[Bram]

Dandan: you know you used to be my favorite poster, right? Lately though, I've found myself laughing at some other people more. HOWEVER, your last two posts have completely restored your reputation.

You know your colours are too loud when even the players start to wear shades.

This made me laugh out so loud, people from other offices came in to see what was up. Just so you know: we make fun of Davids for that, too :)

I also hear the Amsterdam is quite advanced in the burning of certain organic biomasses.

HELL yeah! Actually (and this is absolutely true) hemp is one of the most suitable crops to grow for biomass combustion. A running gag at the biomass research institute next door is that everyone in a 3 mile radius of the power plant would be permanently listening to Bob Marley.

Only a masochist would chose Jessica but then again Angelina must be the choice for masochists too!!

Sorry to burst your bubble dude. Angelina's just not for me. I used to kind of like her, but I just can't get over those odd facial features. Anyways, ever since I saw her naked in that horrible movie with Banderas (I think) I haven't been interested in her at all. Been there, done that :-)

[dandan]

But Angelina is a sick puppy (who wears blood as a sign of love?). That is far superior to someone who considers it a perversion to leave the light on. (leaving aside the Kyoto targets for now)

[Bram]

That is far superior to someone who considers it a perversion to leave the light on. (leaving aside the Kyoto targets for now)

Oh LOL! I f it weren't for the fact that it's illegal for me to even check these boards here, I'd have to print this stuff and show it to my co-workers.

On topic (or possibly off, I don't really remember): I've done the 'sick puppy who needs help' thing in real life. It was something I recommend to everyone who's looking for a subject for a dramatic autobiography, but other than that: I'll pass from now on, thank you.

[dandan]

I meant 'sick puppy' in the 'mad and dangerous' sense rather than in the 'cute eyes but sad face and just needs a hug and lots of love' sense. I suspect that Ms. Jolie is somewhat more demanding in a physical sense than an emotional one.

'Sick puppy that needs help' - don't do that, dogs foam at the mouth for a reason.

[Bram]

I meant 'sick puppy' in the 'mad and dangerous' sense rather than in the 'cute eyes but sad face and just needs a hug and lots of love' sense.

And in what way is that different from what I meant?