The Costco Connection - July 2013 - Page 47:
Really cool about Chia.
We knew about the tea and the drinks, but who knew about all the other uses of Chia.
Substitute for eggs.
Even tells a little history. Short article is jam-packed as is the little Chia seed.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Sunday, July 21, 2013
US energy use dropped in 2012 as renewables, natural gas rose | Ars Technica
US energy use dropped in 2012 as renewables, natural gas rose | Ars Technica:
Yes, the US has backed off a little with energy use during the recession, especially.
That would be a good thing if not for the emissions from China and India.
This is an AMAZING chart of the energy in and the energy out within the USofA. This has been an interesting chart to watch over the years.
~95.1 Quads
That is Quadrillion BTUs. (British Thermal Unit). If you think a Quadrillion is a LOT, you are right.
Double interesting in this picture is the the "rejected energy". That is 58.1, estimated to be the same as that used. Therefore the right side is about 116.2 (58.1 + 58.1). I guess the left side is the 95.1
It takes some time to fully understand this diag, over time it is very interesting.
Note the drop in Coal in the US. Nat gas is so clean and cheap it is likely to put coal out of business. In the USA anyway.
We'll send it to China? By now China must have exceeded half of the worlds coal consumption.
Want to look at forecasts of the future, go to US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2013.
'via Blog this'
Yes, the US has backed off a little with energy use during the recession, especially.
That would be a good thing if not for the emissions from China and India.
This is an AMAZING chart of the energy in and the energy out within the USofA. This has been an interesting chart to watch over the years.
~95.1 Quads
That is Quadrillion BTUs. (British Thermal Unit). If you think a Quadrillion is a LOT, you are right.
Double interesting in this picture is the the "rejected energy". That is 58.1, estimated to be the same as that used. Therefore the right side is about 116.2 (58.1 + 58.1). I guess the left side is the 95.1
It takes some time to fully understand this diag, over time it is very interesting.
Note the drop in Coal in the US. Nat gas is so clean and cheap it is likely to put coal out of business. In the USA anyway.
We'll send it to China? By now China must have exceeded half of the worlds coal consumption.
Want to look at forecasts of the future, go to US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2013.
'via Blog this'
The Keeling Curve | How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?
The Keeling Curve | How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?: "Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually."
So... of the 9.3 billion in CO2 emissions, the oceans have been absorbing about 26%. But, as in all things that reach saturation, this cannot be expected to continue.
We do know that CO2 will go into the air, since the atmosphere gets first go at fossil fuel emissions. So the Greenhouse gasses might start to rise much, much faster.
This certainly looks like a no-win.
'via Blog this'
So... of the 9.3 billion in CO2 emissions, the oceans have been absorbing about 26%. But, as in all things that reach saturation, this cannot be expected to continue.
We do know that CO2 will go into the air, since the atmosphere gets first go at fossil fuel emissions. So the Greenhouse gasses might start to rise much, much faster.
This certainly looks like a no-win.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Sea levels set for a 'continuing rise' for generations...The Daily Climate ... Like baking a cake.
Sea levels set for a 'continuing rise' for generations — The Daily Climate:
So here's the story. It's already baked into the cake.
The current setting has sea levels rising for decades. Even if we all went to carbon neutral tomorrow.
The basics are that greenhouse gasses will persist in the atmosphere for decades, even centuries. The most prevalent is Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which will stay in the atmosphere for 70 years, maybe 100.
So, we can expect temperatures to rise 2, 3, maybe 4 or 5 degrees C. And, as the ocean waters warm, the water expands (thermal expansion). If the oceans are about 2 miles deep, on average, the heat expansion really makes a difference. We're talking yards here, not feet.
Some estimates seem to show only the top, maybe the top 10% of the oceans heating and expanding. But that's because they are using a short planning horizon. If you wait another 50 to 100 years, you should expect far more of the oceans to warm, and expand.
That is, the heating is already "baked into the cake"... Or in our case, baked into the atmosphere, which will eventually bake into the oceans, which will eventually...
Well, you get the picture.
Make no doubt, I'm looking and hoping that this scenario is not the most likely to play forward.
We do have lower solar and volcanic activities which should serve as a cooling damper for the atmosphere.
But we appear to be overshadowing that offset. At least from all I can see.
As always, the best and first place to start is conservation and efficiency.
'via Blog this'
So here's the story. It's already baked into the cake.
The current setting has sea levels rising for decades. Even if we all went to carbon neutral tomorrow.
The basics are that greenhouse gasses will persist in the atmosphere for decades, even centuries. The most prevalent is Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which will stay in the atmosphere for 70 years, maybe 100.
So, we can expect temperatures to rise 2, 3, maybe 4 or 5 degrees C. And, as the ocean waters warm, the water expands (thermal expansion). If the oceans are about 2 miles deep, on average, the heat expansion really makes a difference. We're talking yards here, not feet.
Some estimates seem to show only the top, maybe the top 10% of the oceans heating and expanding. But that's because they are using a short planning horizon. If you wait another 50 to 100 years, you should expect far more of the oceans to warm, and expand.
That is, the heating is already "baked into the cake"... Or in our case, baked into the atmosphere, which will eventually bake into the oceans, which will eventually...
Well, you get the picture.
Make no doubt, I'm looking and hoping that this scenario is not the most likely to play forward.
We do have lower solar and volcanic activities which should serve as a cooling damper for the atmosphere.
But we appear to be overshadowing that offset. At least from all I can see.
As always, the best and first place to start is conservation and efficiency.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Companies Search For Ways To Mine Uranium Outside Grand Canyon National Park | KRWG
Companies Search For Ways To Mine Uranium Outside Grand Canyon National Park | KRWG:
Uranium and Nuclear power.
So very much cleaner than coal.
But, we have no plan, even to make a plan, to deal with the radioactive waste. Right now it is all being stored on site like the Fukushima reactor in Japan. They had an entire reactor devoted to waste storage.
The best plan that I have ever seen is to take the nuclear waste from traditional plants and feed it into advanced nuclear reactors. That means we gotta build one or more of these things and/or ship it to the plant (in France?). We are not even able to agree that the stuff can be shipped around the USA (to Yucca Mountain), that alone around the world.
Note the half-life of some of the spent radioactive fuels is loooong. "Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds or thousands of years." (Radioactive waste, 2013, para 1)
Environmentalists are starting to become a lot more happy with Nuclear as we all look at the alternatives.
From my point of view, nuclear is never an option until there is some plan for waste. Even a bad plan (like Yucca Mt) is better than no plan.!:-(
Reference
Radioactive waste. (2013, July 8). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:32, July 10, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&oldid=563340315
'via Blog this'
Uranium and Nuclear power.
So very much cleaner than coal.
But, we have no plan, even to make a plan, to deal with the radioactive waste. Right now it is all being stored on site like the Fukushima reactor in Japan. They had an entire reactor devoted to waste storage.
The best plan that I have ever seen is to take the nuclear waste from traditional plants and feed it into advanced nuclear reactors. That means we gotta build one or more of these things and/or ship it to the plant (in France?). We are not even able to agree that the stuff can be shipped around the USA (to Yucca Mountain), that alone around the world.
Note the half-life of some of the spent radioactive fuels is loooong. "Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds or thousands of years." (Radioactive waste, 2013, para 1)
Environmentalists are starting to become a lot more happy with Nuclear as we all look at the alternatives.
From my point of view, nuclear is never an option until there is some plan for waste. Even a bad plan (like Yucca Mt) is better than no plan.!:-(
Reference
Radioactive waste. (2013, July 8). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:32, July 10, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_waste&oldid=563340315
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)