- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:18 pm to goatmilker
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:22 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Nope. Viable != optimal.
It it were such an economically viable substitute at the time the regulations were passed it would have already been in use.
Secondly, most equipment that uses CFC have a relatively short useful life. Residential and auto air conditioners do not typically last more than 10-20 years. Replacement costs using substitute coolants slightly (if at all) more expensive. So, any additional replacement costs were marginal to non-existent.
Replacing a NG power plant with solar... Carries a much, much larger replacement differential. Much more CAPEX intensive too. Anything but pay-as-you-go.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Maybe part of it? Not sure how the decrease in industrial and personal uses can be dismissed out of hand?
It was actually a result of natural gas.
Can you reconcile it back to the difference of CO2 / BTU between NG and diesel, coal, etc alone?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:22 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Funny how the alternatives to CFCs weren't "economically viable" enough until big mean government phased CFCs out. Interesting coincidence, wouldn't you say? Its almost as if the market responded to the regulation by producing the economically viable alternatives!
The alternative was flammable propellants. Having nonflammable propellants for the aerosol industry is why the CFC'S were used. In the Aerosol industry Customer Safety was chosen first over the use of propellants like propane, n-butane and iso-butane. Once the science linked the CFC's as a depleater of Ozone also known as smog in the lower atmosphere the USA Aerosol Industry banded it's use before the government faze out timetable.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:23 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Funny how the alternatives to CFCs weren't "economically viable" enough until big mean government phased CFCs out. Interesting coincidence, wouldn't you say? Its almost as if the market responded to the regulation by producing the economically viable alternatives!
The alternative was flammable propellants. Having nonflammable propellants for the aerosol industry is why the CFC'S were used. In the Aerosol industry Customer Safety was chosen first over the use of propellants like propane, n-butane and iso-butane. Once the science linked the CFC's as a depleater of Ozone also known as smog in the lower atmosphere the USA Aerosol Industry banded it's use before the government faze out timetable.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:50 am to Taxing Authority
quote:I understand that it isn't a direct reading but as long as the same formulas are used and new sources are measured well then at least the relative changes that we are looking for will be captured.
We should also consider how the CO2 production estimate is calculated. I'd reckon, it's calculated by looking at commodity use, and stats like above. It's not a real measurement. It's no like there are magical CO2 meters that sniff every emission source (or even most) to arrive at a physical measurement. Probably some bias built in there.
quote:The main reason I asked is that if there is an immediate change in CO2 in the atmosphere to changes in human energy production, then there should be little problem in accepting that the rise in CO2 is from humans... at least not the rise we are experiencing of late. Probably not important to you, but there are a number of people who claim that the rise of CO2 is caused by cow farts and volcanoes.
Regardless, the OP looked to be rampping up to claim a disconnect between the economy and CO2 production. They look pretty well connected to my "eyeball test". Ironically, over the same time period the CO2-GDP correlation looks a lot better than the CO2-Temp correlation. But hey, it's just correlation, right?
As far as the regulations causing an immediate effect, the Ozone treaties didn't do that either. In fact the EPA has been the most successful agency for creating exceptions for US. The Montreal Treaty went into force in 1989 and thee are still plenty of exceptions carved out.
I imagine any CO2 treaties would be similar to the Montreal Protocol but would be possibly slower in effect, maybe taking 40 years to get to the same point. But until all countries come together and realize we need to do something, we can't even really map out the solution.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:08 pm to BeYou
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:10 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:As was explained earlier, it tracks GDP.
It was actually a result of natural gas.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:24 pm to mmcgrath
quote:CO2 treaties wouldn't be similar to the Montreal Protocol for two reasons. Firstly, we can emit a certain amount of CO2 into the natural carbon cycle.
I imagine any CO2 treaties would be similar to the Montreal Protocol but would be possibly slower in effect, maybe taking 40 years to get to the same point. But until all countries come together and realize we need to do something, we can't even really map out the solution.
That's a net -11 Gt from the land and -6 from the ocean, so there's 17 Gt to cap even if you wanted zero net emissions, which is not a goal I hear from anyone except the most radical greens. CFCs on the other hand don't really get "cycled" by anything, they are extremely inert until they get up to the stratosphere and the radiation breaks them down into Cl-, which then sits around catalyzing ozone.
Secondly, and related to the above, since CO2 is in the troposphere and not the stratosphere, you can also take positive steps to scrub it through processes like afforestation, BECCS, and some more speculative processes like artificial weathering or quicklime scrubbing towers.
The Montreal Protocol is good for the general proof of "international treaties between governments can solve an environmental problem" but CO2 is its own problem, for the cost reasons and because the solutions don't need to be as drastic.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News