CO2 Emission Reduction

Just a mind game:

Assumption: The world achieves the CO2 reduction targets

Conclusion:

• The consumption of oil and gas will decrease drastically
• The price for oil will drop (price before tax at least)
• Some oil companies will come into trouble as well as oil tank companies, pipeline operating companies etc.
• OPEC will have a much lower income
• They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes; political stability in these countries will decrease
• terrorism will increase
• They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US
• and so on ...

:no:
I would like to hear youir opinion!

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. People will seek new forms of power, including those countries which currently rely on the Global Oil Market. What if they are the ones who discover some of this new technology? Crisis averted.

The goal should be to shut down all coal based powerplants and start building gas based powerplants with CO2 filters. Or plants with CO2 capturing devices that stores CO2 that we can pump back town into the oil/gas wells to bring up even more oil/gas.
A win win situation...

BTW can you tell I am working for a company named StatoilHydro? :beam:

Imagine this, one day oil will run out anyway and oil prices will rise and despite that we will be left with no oil anyway and then we didn't prepare for it and then?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

[*]OPEC will have a much lower income

---

I'll follow up to this point

Quote:

---

[*]They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes;

---

Tax what ? Several OPEC countreis have a backup plan, they invest in chemical plants (Saudis) or Tourism (Gulf region), others just use that money to hand it out to the poor (Venezuela, Cuba), I'd hardly think taxing the general population more would be a solution, I doubt any of those countries think so.

Quote:

---

political stability in these countries will decrease

---

Why ? Due to poverty ? Poverty often translates into political instability, but not always

Quote:

---

[*]terrorism will increase

---

Are you lumping together all forms of terrorism ? I'd say revolutionary movements would increase (following your own logic), they will be focused mostly on their own state, not on the great Satan.

Quote:

---

[*]They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US

---

Wait, I thought the problem was they didn't have enough money ?

Sorry, too many 'leaps of faith' here for my taste. In any case our decrease of CO2 output will be gradual, so there's little chance for such 'overnight' disasters to occur.

i actually agree with Franconicus on this. The whole of the middle east makes as much annually as Spain, even with oil sales, they do not have much land from which to grow sustainable crops and tourism can only employ so many people. If we meet those nonsense CO2 reduction requirments it will only drop CO2 by around .04 worldwide, that is miniscule but it will essentially strangle the middle east into action desperation causes risk, so terrorism, instability, uprisings and an even increased amount of fanatacism is expected tro rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

The goal should be to shut down all coal based powerplants and start building gas based powerplants with CO2 filters. Or plants with CO2 capturing devices that stores CO2 that we can pump back town into the oil/gas wells to bring up even more oil/gas.
A win win situation...

BTW can you tell I am working for a company named StatoilHydro? :beam:

---

Hehe ~:) The capture devices/filters sound like a good idea, but is there no possibility to combine the capture+filter with a system to chemically bind the CO2 in a way that becomes a solid chemical compound, that would be easier to store (less volume, and less likely to leak)? If this were to be implemented, it would allow using the entire oil and coal reserves, which together are likely to be able to provide energy for over 100 years, thus solving both the oil shortage problem (from energy perspective) and too big amount of oil problem (from a global warming perspective). However, without checking population growth over the earth these 100 years may become less, and we'll be back at status quo when that point comes. In the ultra-long term, other alternatives are necessary, but in the medium-long term, I think capture - especially if it could be done into solid chemical compunds - is our best hope. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Just a mind game:

Assumption: The world achieves the CO2 reduction targets

Conclusion:

• The consumption of oil and gas will decrease drastically
• The price for oil will drop (price before tax at least)
• Some oil companies will come into trouble as well as oil tank companies, pipeline operating companies etc.
• OPEC will have a much lower income
• They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes; political stability in these countries will decrease
• terrorism will increase
• They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US
• and so on ...

:no:
I would like to hear youir opinion!

---

Lower emission doesn't necessarily mean lowered oil prices or less oil consumption. CO2 capture is the most likely medium long term solution to emission problems, and capture allows continued usage of oil for energy production, until the oil runs out, that is. But oil prices will remain high as oil gets more rare, due to the fact that oil can't effectively be replaced for other usages than energy production, such as in certain machinery, for asphalt, for production of plastic, and several other applications: the list is incredibly long. Finally, terrorism is seldom caused by declining internal economy, unless that decline is caused by offensive, hostile, deliberate actions from an outside power that has as its aim to create this weakening. Internal decline in economy is unlikely to cause terrorism, but it may cause humanitarian disasters or - in case the weakening was reinforced by outside nations - cause hostility towards them, after a process of rebuilding. If the rebuilding is inhibited by continuous sabotage from outside nations, these nations are however likely to become victims of terrorism.

In short: lower CO2 emissions are completely unrelated to amount of terrorism and stability levels in the Middle East.

About 84% of the Petroleum that is pumped up from the bedrock is used for energy. Only about 16% is used for the other stuff like plastic etc.

But since we are talking about CO2 emission here I think the focus should be on coal and coal used to produce energy.
The total world oil reserves (discovered) will last around 45 years at the rate we use it today. But the coal reserves are vast and therefore cheap. It will take hundreds of years to spend it all.
Too many coal powered plants are being built today. Take China as an example, they are basically churning out a coal based power plant a week. Each producing more CO2 a week than the entire people of Norway (personal emissions) is able to produce during a year.
There is lot of talk about buying climate quotas abroad instead of reducing the emission at home. The reason is as follows: The technology to reduce emission from our oil industry (the prime polluter in our country) costs more pr ton reduced CO2 than say buying filter technology for the coal power plants in China that will reduce up to 10 times more pr currency unit. Also those bound to the Kyoto agreement has agreed to reduce and there are ample opportunities to help the countries not bound to this agreement (dev. countries). We are talking global here… what use is it for us to reduce our emissions (which is only a tiny spec compared to the total world emission) when countries like China and India churns out their coal based power plants unhindered?

We talk of what we can do personally. If every person in Norway stopped driving cars and stopped warming their houses with wood fire or oil a 12% reduction of the total Norwegian CO2 emission would be reduced. We have committed to a 30% reduction. Clearly other areas need to be looked into.

Some of the politicians don’t want to build gas powered plants because the result would be that our emission will increase. (Currently our energy comes from water powered plants).
The problem is; if we can’t build gas powered plants (which emits only a fraction of what a coal powered plant does) we will not be able to develop the CO2 capturing technology needed. Norway has tons of money and today these CO2 capturing devices costs too much. New and cheaper technology is needed. By doing this we can share this technology with other nations not having the resources to develop this technology themselves.
Today most of the oilrigs in the North Sea have their own power plant, mostly gas driven.
One of these rigs has expensive CO2 capturing technology which captures 100% of the CO2 and pumps it back into the sea bed.

I can easily see the possibility of having sea based gas power plants with 100% CO2 capture and sending the power by cable ashore.

The crux lies in getting the BIG CO2 emitters to reduce… that means the dev. Countries. They can’t afford it themselves, but rich nations can help by buying this technology for them… not for free but to buy percentage that they have committed to help reduce.

:7fortuneteller: How promising and reliable is this CO2 capturing technology. To me it always sounds like a lousy trick!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

:7fortuneteller: How promising and reliable is this CO2 capturing technology. To me it always sounds like a lousy trick!

---

Tree's are promising and reliable, talk about a bang for the buck. Forests are the largest CO2 storage houses we have, deforestation is a huge problem in the CO2 equation.

Sadly, the media, government and corporations have a lot of people believing that oil consumption is the main culprit in CO2 emission and the negative impact on the environment. While its signifigant, its not nearly as alarming as the amazon delta loosing the equivelent of switzerlands land mass in tree's to deforestation.

Increased use of nuclear fission power; more systematic exploitation of hydro and geothermal sources were applicable; use of tidal systems where tides vary enough to be useful for this purpose.

Dedicated & heavily funded research into practicable fusion power. Since this is the primary energy source of our universe -- all of our fossil fuels being mere "battery storage" of this energy, fusion would be the brass ring.

Preserve oil for all of the lovely distillates/byproducts we'll need.


I am not completely convinced about the risks of CO2 emission, but am willing to stipulate that a shift away from fossil fuel consumption would be beneficial on a number of other levels and that such a reduction certainly would be unlikely to harm the environment.

The <CO2 emission = > M.E. instability/terrorism link is tenuous.

Yes, reducing dependence on M.E. oil would result in a pullback in monies circulating in the M.E. However, ruling castes in the M.E. have fairly successfully diverted most of the "revolutionary" energy in their countries into terrorist efforts. Israel has been a god-send for them by allowing all of their "young turks" to focus most of their revolutionary fervor on an "external" target and not within their own borders. Terrorism has become a quasi-institution in the Middle East (I just thought of this, may need to separate the point into its own thread for discussion -- Dibs!) and would not, therefore, readily succumb to "environmental" change as it has become more integral than that. Terrorism is the counter to instability, not its ally.

BP were planning a CO2 capture scheme, but its been shelved now... :furious3:
lack of government action to get it going, and laziness on the companies part. Still, no reason it shouldn't work, although I am concerned about the energy cost of compressing CO2 to an adequate pressure to enter the wells (I haven't done the energy maths but compression is expensive in energy terms, and might be up to 150 - 200 atm required), and the resulting high CO2 return to the surface would also be a nuisance if you injected into a producing reservoir. Exported oil CO2 would potentially also be badly affected as the pipeline companies only allow you to send so much to shore, too much CO2 in the oil would need offshore treatment (more energy used).

And Sigurd, no building giant fuel gas power plants in the north sea, we need that gas for our heating here in the UK!

Just to give you guys a sample here of emissions of climate gases (yes it is the new term for it). I just had a look at the live planet thing or what it was called on TV.
The focus was again on what the individual person can do to reduce their contribution to the climate gasses.
I have here an overview of the six worst mainland emitters of CO2 in Norway.

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...Norway2005.jpg

They are responsible for annually 9,3 million tons of CO2 and as a comparison
4,5 million people are responsible for 5,6 million tons of CO2 annually (number include heating, car-transport and food).
In total the mainland industry is responsible of 14,7 million ton CO2 and the offshore industry is responsible for 13,4 million ton CO2.
If you add them together the total Norwegian industrial emission is 28,1 million tonnes CO2. In addition to this you have the transport sector of witch I have no real numbers. Some sources suggest 17 million tonnes.

It seems like the environmentalists focus on what we as people can do to reduce these climate gasses.
It is true that they try to influence us in such a way that we consume less energy or products that need energy.
This is all good but it will take time. As I mentioned earlier new coal plants pops up in the Asian industrialisation, because the marked demands it. Coal is by far the cheapest resource for energy. They build them without catalysts or other filters in China.

Here back home we are trying to make the industry reduce their emission and I have mentioned some of the initiatives taken to realise this.

The petro-industry is developing better catalysts.
The cement plants are moving over from coal and oil to biofuel.

Hydro (the company I am working for - soon to be StatoilHydro) have committed to a 25% reduction within next year.
Statoil, the other giant petro company, are doing tests (the CO2 gases pumped back into the sea bed) and are building a gas power plant at Mongstad (there is a petroleum refinery there today). They are developing advanced CO2 filters for this power plant that will be finished in 2010 and plan on full CO2 cleansing by 2014. (The environmentalists are not too happy about that deal).

I am not seeing what we, the individual persons on this planet, can do to make a difference. As long as the developing countries are allowed to churn out their coal based energy that emits more climate gases a week than we as a nation of individuals are able to in a year, we are still going down the path to so-called destruction.

I am tired of the nagging from all sorts of enlightened people that we must buy cars that emits less and that we must build homes that uses less energy and … and … blalblallblalblabla.
It makes no difference globally.
I can buy a car that I have no enjoyment from, knowing that next week China will fire up a new coal plant that emits 1 000 000 times more CO2 a day than the car can do in its lifetime. Oh, yeah I am making a difference. Get off my back, I want to enjoy the time I have left on this earth.
Now where did I put the brochure of that Viper Venom 1000. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

I am not seeing what we, the individual persons on this planet, can do to make a difference. As long as the developing countries are allowed to churn out their coal based energy that emits more climate gases a week than we as a nation of individuals are able to in a year, we are still going down the path to so-called destruction.

---

Sadly the issue of CO2 emission has been made very complex. While its a fair assesement to include energy consumption, its not a realistic vein in which to make a lot of headway.

Facing reality isnt always easy, and the energy based needs of humans are not going to evolve to the point of not needing fossils fast enough. The systems in which to employ fossils to increase production of goods is in place, and profitable.

That said there is one thing we can do, and that is work towards decreasing deforestation. Just an example, in 1600 about a billion acres of the US was forest, in 1962 it was 762 million acre's. source.

Basically CO, methane when not absorbed by plants creates a barrier in the atmosphere that traps the suns heat (greenhouse effect) that warms the earth. So there are a few approaches to take here, lower emission by humans (unlikely due the the economics of the issue) or increase the plants that absorb the excess carbon.

the later is possible, because anyone can plant a tree. There was a decent analysis done here when you scroll down a little you see that "Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year."

So per this study the theory bares out, if the numbers are accurate. So you specifically cant plant a tree or two and that will most likely cover your CO2 emission (you seem like a pretty clean guy Sigurd). As for the bigger picture, I dont think we need a lot of detailed research to come up with a CO emission conversion to tons per year.

With that data countries can calculate the needed forestation programs to cover thier emissions. Presto, all those shinny factories producing goods for us happy consumers chug along, and I dont have to sell my 76 vette either...

To the original topic: What are the targets for emission reduction? One of those evil conservative American magazines published an article that said:

Quote:

---

In order to decrease carbon emissions by 33 percent, we would have to remove every existing car and truck from the road (yes, that includes your hybrid), ground every airplane, and shut down every gas station in the United States. In order to bump up from there to a 73-percent decrease in emissions, we would have to shut down most of our electrical grid, with the exception of areas supplied only by nuclear plants, windmills, and dams.

---

(This is for America, mind you).

EDIT: Odin, there's an interesting powerpoint as the second link to this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
We've lost forest since 1600 but we're doing a little better since 1962, it seems.

What a load of crap

Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be

Quote:

---

The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

---

The sun not CO2 drives our climate.

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...p_vs_spots.gif

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE


More and more of this global warming crap is proven wrong every day just as many of you and everyone else are all wrapped up in and believing this junk science.

I urge those of you who care to watch this.Yes you maybe be able to pick some of it apart but it puts all this in its true light far more than Gores movie does. Heres the other side of the story

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Quote:

---

terrorism will increase

---

Hah, nike joke.
Why do you think that? I dont think so.

Quote:

---

The sun not CO2 drives our climate

---

:no: Tell me, who did you teach geography?Do I have to explain which is the circle of the O3. Cmon Gawain, explain little Garcilaso how the sun drive the climate?

Quote:

---

Cmon Gawain, explain little Garcilaso how the sun drive the climate?

---

Read the articles. I know it sounds stupid to say the strongest source of energy in our solar system and the source of our heat is driving global warming as opposed to the huge amount of man made CO2. Just call me crazy.

Better yet watch the movie if you dare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The sun not CO2 drives our climate.

---

Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph! First of all, focus on the rightmost part of it. The sun curve goes sharpy down, yet the temperature steeper and steeper upwards. How does your model explain that? If you find yourself another graph, that hasn't cut off the time 2000 - 2006, you see this trend continuing even more visibly: the temperature increase is getting steeper and steeper, while the sun curve going down lower and lower.

The "solar cycles" theory was a nice try from the deniers back in the 90ies, but anyone looking at the entire graph up till now can clearly see the absurdity of that theory by a quick glance.

I'm also a bit curious how deniers can say that temperature measurements from 1850 are considered unreliable, but believe that solar activity measurements from that time (a LOT more complex measurement!) are correct. The choice to only include 1 temperature graph and 1 solar activity graph is also suspicious, giving the graph constructor the possibility of choosing the temperature and solar activity measurement source that fits his own theory best.

Here's another solar cycle curve, which completely disagrees with yours:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cycle-data.png

Quote:

---

Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph! First of all, focus on the rightmost part of it. The sun curve goes sharpy down, yet the temperature steeper and steeper upwards. How does your model explain that? If you find yourself another graph, that hasn't cut off the time 2000 - 2006, you see this trend continuing even more visibly: the temperature increase is getting steeper and steeper, while the sun curve going down lower and lower.

---

It follows it much better than the one Gore uses to prove Co2 causes global warming when in fact that graph shows that CO2 lags temp increases

Heres a 2 minute clip from the movie showing just that.

Climate swindle, Al Gore and Co2

Just look at Gores graph for yourself. Its right there. I noticed it before looking for proof. In fact its not even disputed anymore.

Carbon dioxide & 800-year lag behind temperature

Quote:

---

Just call me crazy.

---

Crazy.~D

Quote:

---

Better yet watch the movie if you dare.

---

Yes, If I only know spoken english...

Quote:

---

Yes, If I only know spoken english...

---

Do you speak spanish? The two minute clip I jist posted has spanish subtitles I believe.

As does this

climate swindle Oceans

Heres the part you asked about I think for those who speak english and dont want to watch the whole movie

Data from The Great Global Warming Swindle

Yes, I do speak spanish.

Quote:

---

Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph!

---

Would that be the graph that was not only cut but also stretched and then straightened because it didn't show what the producer wanted it to show .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Way to go Gawain are these more "FACTS" you are presenting :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Just look at Gores graph for yourself. Its right there. I noticed it before looking for proof. In fact its not even disputed anymore.

---

Quoting and using Gore as reference, even in jest is blasphemy, he should be shipped abroad as fast as possible.

That said, no matter the cause for increased CO2, there is one sure fire way to deal with it, and thats forestation. Tree's hold carbon, and the less there are the more carbon gets into the atmosphere.

So I dont really care if its the sun, a billion indians who get cars, thousands of chinese factories... Dosent matter to me if we burn oil fossil fuels, heck my CO2 footprint is probably higher then most.

I agree with you Gawain, there is a big reem job happening with global warming fear mongering. Its correctable, and sustainable and everyone can have coal bon fires in thier back yards.

We just need to stop cutting so many trees and plant a few more. Simple isnt it? Of course that dosent sell movies, or commercial time, or papers with op ed pieces does it?

You know Gawain your influence has made me fairly sceptical, more then I was in my younger years, but your bordering on becoming a heathen in my eyes for the Gore references.

I know your better then that... :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

As does this

climate swindle Oceans

---

Nice clip from the film Gawain , that fella talking , the scientist bloke on about oceans and stuff . he wouldn't happen to be the one who says he is completely misrepresented in the film is he , a film he says is as accurate as WW2 propoganda movies ? or is that a different fella ?
Keep 'em coming :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Nice clip from the film Gawain , that fella talking , the scientist bloke on about oceans and stuff . he wouldn't happen to be the one who says he is completely misrepresented in the film is he , a film he says is as accurate as WW2 propoganda movies ? or is that a different fella ?
Keep 'em coming

---

I said there were parts you could pick apart. Sounds like all those guys who say the IPCC did the same to them.

Quote:

---

Would that be the graph that was not only cut but also stretched and then straightened because it didn't show what the producer wanted it to show .
Way to go Gawain are these more "FACTS" you are presenting

---

Look at the graph Gore uses. It shows the samething clearly. Thats where I noticed it. And where did I claim these are facts.? Just your usual nonsense.

Quote:

---

Quoting and using Gore as reference, even in jest is blasphemy, he should be shipped abroad as fast as possible.

---

Well I have to say that seeing him on that concert show really pissed me off. All these people going gah gah over him going "oh I never knew that". What a load of crap. What propaganda. He hasnt changed from that 70s piece of crap he always was. Finding a cause to advance himself.

Funny stuff.

To me, arguments on both sides make sense and I actually like what Odin says, more trees certainly won't hurt us and they also "produce" oxygen which we need anyway and that's just a few of their uses, they have a lot more.:2thumbsup:
The graph about the 800 year lag Gawain showed does make sense but so does the greenhouse explanation for global warming. Another argument for global warming would be that global dimming works against it currently, because it was shown that exhaust fumes, clouds and other particles in the air reflect sunlight back to space, so reducing our emissions will also allow more sunlight into our atmosphere. This means the once we have our CO2 reduction completed and we emit nothing anymore but the atmosphere is still full of CO2, we might be grilled, or not. Depends on who is right and how strong the individual effects are and maybe that's where the truth lies.

Like many said, it's a complicated issue and a combination of differently strong factors can lead to different results. That means it's entirely possible that the earth is warming up and that we help it do so. And I wouldn't even wonder if there was a factor we don't even know about, like the reduction of cool honeybees who absorbed a lot of sunlight before and are dieing now because our waves disturb their GPS(talk about reliance on technology...).:shrug:

Quote:

---

but so does the greenhouse explanation for global warming.

---

If it were so then the temp increase should be the highest in the troposphere but its not . Its highest at ground level. Just about nothing fits. I could claim its the invention of the personal pc as the temp has gone up since its invention. Maybe its because there are more Muslims in the world and the extra CO2 they spout while praying out loud 5 times a day.

The only part that fits is CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat. After that its all conjecture.