Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[UncaNed]

Have we discussed removing water vapor from air as a way to lower greenhouse gases?

If we extract and condense atmospheric water where it is most needed for irrigation or drinking, it instantly has great positive value unlike the disposal expense of removed CO2. There is recent progress with localized fog collecting and very small, expensive powered water condensers, but we'd have to find new ways to extract enough water orders of magnitude cheaper than ever before. Perhaps cubic miles of water annually worldwide, to fill reservoirs and end the kinds of water problems in California right now.

It's a basic truth that EVERY single farm and home worldwide has a perfectly adequate water supply nearby hovering directly overhead and all we need to do is find a way to condense it, and so far as I know, we're hardly even trying; the current efforts are not commensurate with the potential positive good for mankind and our planet. In other words, an Elon-esque effort is needed and justified, and Elon already has the Carbon Removal X Prize... and the teams of top scientists and many more who'd love to join Tesla to make it happen, to empower individuals with the ability to summon water from the heavens if and where it suits them. Adequate water means life vs. death in some rural villages, or the difference between squalid substance survival vs. educated excellence for the children of other communities.

OK, bring on the blinder-wearing, can't-be-done naysayers with talk of energy needed to condense water from cold, dry high altitude air, but I say it can be done somehow.

Happy new year, while I think of it.

 

[nwdiver]

Have we discussed removing water vapor from air as a way to lower greenhouse gases?

Yes. We call this process 'Rain', 'Snow', 'Lluvia', 'Nieve', 'Neige' or more generally 'Precipitation'

The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is exponentially proportional to the amount of CO2. Every 1C increase in average temperature increases Water Vapor by ~8%. So the best way to reduce H2O is to reduce CO2.

H20 is a positive feedback. More CO2 => Warmer Atmosphere => More H2O => Warmer Atmosphere => More H2O. Physics.

 

[mspohr]

Have we discussed removing water vapor from air as a way to lower greenhouse gases?

If we extract and condense atmospheric water where it is most needed for irrigation or drinking, it instantly has great positive value unlike the disposal expense of removed CO2. There is recent progress with localized fog collecting and very small, expensive powered water condensers, but we'd have to find new ways to extract enough water orders of magnitude cheaper than ever before. Perhaps cubic miles of water annually worldwide, to fill reservoirs and end the kinds of water problems in California right now.

It's a basic truth that EVERY single farm and home worldwide has a perfectly adequate water supply nearby hovering directly overhead and all we need to do is find a way to condense it, and so far as I know, we're hardly even trying; the current efforts are not commensurate with the potential positive good for mankind and our planet. In other words, an Elon-esque effort is needed and justified, and Elon already has the Carbon Removal X Prize... and the teams of top scientists and many more who'd love to join Tesla to make it happen, to empower individuals with the ability to summon water from the heavens if and where it suits them. Adequate water means life vs. death in some rural villages, or the difference between squalid substance survival vs. educated excellence for the children of other communities.

OK, bring on the blinder-wearing, can't-be-done naysayers with talk of energy needed to condense water from cold, dry high altitude air, but I say it can be done somehow.

Happy new year, while I think of it.

although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the earth’s temperature. instead, the amount of water vapor is controlled by the temperature. this is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. if a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. this is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds

 

[winfield100]

When we are discussing personal mobility and car travel, people don't seem to realize that the EV is to become the biggest electrical appliance in any household that's gonna feed off the grid, which is already stressed to the limit because of more airco's as a result of rising temperatures...

the

@voyager
i consume 55% - 60% of what i produce on 60sq meters of my roof, a very profligate use indeed but if everyone did the same or similar, T&D, transportation and distribution costs would virtually zero out, production costs would close to zero out except maintenance & such.
3 years of real world data, the colors didn’t come through, ~17.4 mwh/yr produced, ~9.5 mwh/yr used, 100% electric with EV, use 55-60% electricity at point of production so no grid stress from that, rest i expect close neighbors consume

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Thanks Raffy, it's great that you are still contributing and fighting the good fight! Well done.

I have a couple of suggestions for books for those looking for current and future solutions:

The Ministry for the Future A novel by: Kim Stanley Robinson​

https://www.audible.ca/pd/The-Ministry-for-the-Future-Audiobook/B08K2HDD77?​

Driving to Net 0: Stories of Hope for a Carbon Free Future [Print Replica] Kindle Edition​

by: David Hrivnak https://www.amazon.ca/Driving-Net-Stories-Carbon-Future/dp/0692143831

The first looks ahead to quasi-utopian solutions after disasters in the decades ahead but is quite thought provoking.

The second provides some real world examples of families currently enjoying net zero lifestyles in the US and Canada.

Both are available in electronic forms.

Enjoy.

Thank you for your advices Richard. And you know one thing?
David Hrivnak is a friend of mine. It’s 9 years that I and David are in contact on Facebook!
So I will really enjoy reading his book.

 

[winfield100]

Have we discussed removing water vapor from air as a way to lower greenhouse gases?

If we extract and condense atmospheric water where it is most needed for irrigation or drinking, it instantly has great positive value unlike the disposal expense of removed CO2. There is recent progress with localized fog collecting and very small, expensive powered water condensers, but we'd have to find new ways to extract enough water orders of magnitude cheaper than ever before. Perhaps cubic miles of water annually worldwide, to fill reservoirs and end the kinds of water problems in California right now.

It's a basic truth that EVERY single farm and home worldwide has a perfectly adequate water supply nearby hovering directly overhead and all we need to do is find a way to condense it, and so far as I know, we're hardly even trying; the current efforts are not commensurate with the potential positive good for mankind and our planet. In other words, an Elon-esque effort is needed and justified, and Elon already has the Carbon Removal X Prize... and the teams of top scientists and many more who'd love to join Tesla to make it happen, to empower individuals with the ability to summon water from the heavens if and where it suits them. Adequate water means life vs. death in some rural villages, or the difference between squalid substance survival vs. educated excellence for the children of other communities.

OK, bring on the blinder-wearing, can't-be-done naysayers with talk of energy needed to condense water from cold, dry high altitude air, but I say it can be done somehow.

Happy new year, while I think of it.

@UncaNed
this was discussed 20-30 years ago in an article on “short stacks” in Analog magazine
a stationary tube a mile or so high, start an updraft in the tube, which becomes self sustaining, the warm moist air rises, water condenses out, flows down insides of tube, you end up dehumidifying a part of the surrounding surface air and induce breezes, similar to a fixed thermal of rising air, cloud base is where it condenses out to a bit higher.

the idea though seemed to go nowhere

 

[mspohr]

@voyager
i consume 55% - 60% of what i produce on 60sq meters of my roof, a very profligate use indeed but if everyone did the same or similar, T&D, transportation and distribution costs would virtually zero out, production costs would close to zero out except maintenance & such.
3 years of real world data, the colors didn’t come through, ~17.4 mwh/yr produced, ~9.5 mwh/yr used, 100% electric with EV, use 55-60% electricity at point of production so no grid stress from that, rest i expect close neighbors consume

View attachment 750753

Good example of the benefits of distributed energy production and use.

 

[mspohr]

Have we discussed removing water vapor from air as a way to lower greenhouse gases?

If we extract and condense atmospheric water where it is most needed for irrigation or drinking, it instantly has great positive value unlike the disposal expense of removed CO2. There is recent progress with localized fog collecting and very small, expensive powered water condensers, but we'd have to find new ways to extract enough water orders of magnitude cheaper than ever before. Perhaps cubic miles of water annually worldwide, to fill reservoirs and end the kinds of water problems in California right now.

It's a basic truth that EVERY single farm and home worldwide has a perfectly adequate water supply nearby hovering directly overhead and all we need to do is find a way to condense it, and so far as I know, we're hardly even trying; the current efforts are not commensurate with the potential positive good for mankind and our planet. In other words, an Elon-esque effort is needed and justified, and Elon already has the Carbon Removal X Prize... and the teams of top scientists and many more who'd love to join Tesla to make it happen, to empower individuals with the ability to summon water from the heavens if and where it suits them. Adequate water means life vs. death in some rural villages, or the difference between squalid substance survival vs. educated excellence for the children of other communities.

OK, bring on the blinder-wearing, can't-be-done naysayers with talk of energy needed to condense water from cold, dry high altitude air, but I say it can be done somehow.

Happy new year, while I think of it.

I don't think we want to dry out the atmosphere. We want to increase moisture to promote plant growth.
The best way to remove CO2 is through plants. Destruction of the Amazon has been a disaster. Some attempts to recreate green areas in the Sinai, Sahara, and in China have shown how to do it.

 

[winfield100]

I don't think we want to dry out the atmosphere. We want to increase moisture to promote plant growth.
The best way to remove CO2 is through plants. Destruction of the Amazon has been a disaster. Some attempts to recreate green areas in the Sinai, Sahara, and in China have shown how to do it.

no longer remember where i ran across this, perhaps here

Video: How wolves can alter the course of rivers | TED Blog

Wolves will travel to drink from a river. But could the presence of wolves lead a river to change its behavior?

blog.ted.com

 

[mspohr]

no longer remember where i ran across this, perhaps here

Video: How wolves can alter the course of rivers | TED Blog

Wolves will travel to drink from a river. But could the presence of wolves lead a river to change its behavior?

blog.ted.com

The book "Playing God in Yellowstone" goes into a lot of detail on this subject.
Everything is connected.

 

[mspohr]

The fossil fuel industry's preferred solution doesn't work so well.

Plans to capture CO2 from coal plants wasted federal dollars, watchdog says

But the infrastructure law will pump more cash into carbon capture projects.

www.theverge.com

The DOE doled out $684 million to coal six coal plants, but only one of them actually got built and started operating before shuttering in 2020. Of the three separate industrial facilities that received $438 million, just two got off the ground. Without more accountability, “DOE may risk expending significant taxpayer funds on CCS demonstrations that have little likelihood of success,” the GAO says.

 

[iPlug]

@voyager
i consume 55% - 60% of what i produce on 60sq meters of my roof, a very profligate use indeed but if everyone did the same or similar, T&D, transportation and distribution costs would virtually zero out, production costs would close to zero out except maintenance & such.
3 years of real world data, the colors didn’t come through, ~17.4 mwh/yr produced, ~9.5 mwh/yr used, 100% electric with EV, use 55-60% electricity at point of production so no grid stress from that, rest i expect close neighbors consume

View attachment 750753

This is really superb and needs to spread elsewhere. A great goal for the rest of us.

According to your sig it looks like you live in Florida? How many Powerwalls?

Florida is one of the best places in the U.S. to see this takeoff with the most successful use of renewables + demand management with grid utilization minimization. SoCal and a few others in the southwest are probably close seconds.

FL and very south Texas are closest to the equator, so have the least variation in solar radiance throughout the year - a big advantage for home solar PV and heat pumps with the least need for home/grid batteries. Mild FL winters also are a big advantage. Further, the risks of edge cases like blizzards which require a robust grid has the least risk in such a location.

Looking to the future for the higher latitudes and elevations in my state - using our weather scenario from the last couple of weeks in mid/northern CA in the foothills and mountains and considering heat pumps as the future for home HVAC and water needs:
We are currently near the winter solstice and with the blizzards that just went through here, there was little solar irradiance and very high energy needs for many consecutive days (profoundly inverting their maximal season solar PV production:energy use ratio). This means these areas will remain deeply dependent on the grid for the foreseeable future - for these not-so-edge cases alone. But, fire risks from transmission to these areas aside and the lack of local internalization of these costs, this is ok as those residents can be served by the import of renewables from far away such as offshore wind, TX/midwest wind, southwest solar PV, and pacific northwest hydro.

 

[cpa]

@UncaNed
this was discussed 20-30 years ago in an article on “short stacks” in Analog magazine
a stationary tube a mile or so high, start an updraft in the tube, which becomes self sustaining, the warm moist air rises, water condenses out, flows down insides of tube, you end up dehumidifying a part of the surrounding surface air and induce breezes, similar to a fixed thermal of rising air, cloud base is where it condenses out to a bit higher.

the idea though seemed to go nowhere

So, what is to be done when from April through October the average relative humidity hovers between 35% at dawn and <10% by early afternoon?

This sort of thinking might work in the east and plains states, but certainly not in the deserts and interior valleys of the west and southwest. And that is where we need the water the most.

 

[mspohr]

Filipinos count cost of climate crisis as typhoons get ever more destructive

The Philippines adds little to global emissions but faces some of its worst effects in extreme weather. Climate justice is needed

www.theguardian.com

 

[iPlug]

A Global Breakdown of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

 

[ggies07]

I really like this graph....goes right along with the point of the movie #Don'tLookUp

 

[mspohr]

I really like this graph....goes right along with the point of the movie #Don'tLookUp

Depressing. Absolutely no progress.

 

[ZsoZso]

Depressing. Absolutely no progress.

Looks like we have a major communication problem, as in: nobody told the climate that we are fighting its change, so it never noticed...

In other words: this is what you get when the politicians make non-binding & meaningless promises to keep climate change under X value without making any specific commitments regarding reductions in CO2 output.

 

[mspohr]

CleanTechnica: Astonishing Things You Never Knew About Fossil Fuels From Bill McKibben. Astonishing Things You Never Knew About Fossil Fuels From Bill McKibben

That’s a remarkable snapshot: almost half of what we move around the seas is not finished products (cars) nor even the raw materials to make them (steel), but simply the stuff that we burn to power those transformations, and to keep ourselves warmed, cooled, and lit.”
You can do the same experiment over and over again. There are a hundred thousand oil tanker trucks circling the U.S.—in an EV world, which is where we’re headed, they won’t be taking up space, crashing, polluting the air. There’s an endless network of pipelines, regularly spilling and exploding. Yes, you’ll need transmission lines to move electrons around, but they are far less dangerous and intrusive. Hell, eleven percent of the energy that America currently uses, according to Saul Griffith’s excellent book Electrify, simply goes to finding more energy.”

 

[eevee-fan]

Looks like we have a major communication problem, as in: nobody told the climate that we are fighting its change, so it never noticed...

In other words: this is what you get when the politicians make non-binding & meaningless promises to keep climate change under X value without making any specific commitments regarding reductions in CO2 output.