Climate Change(d)?

[steve_bank]

As a first order approximation ignoring the rest of the processes, calculate the energy needed to boil seawatre per liter at STP.

q = m*c*dt

q watts (dJ/dt)
m mass kg
c specific heat of seawater
dt temperature difference between seawater and boiling point


I leave it as an exercise for the student.

 

[bilby]

As a first order approximation ignoring the rest of the processes, calculate the energy needed to boil seawatre per liter at STP.

q = m*c*dt

q watts (dJ/dt)
m mass kg
c specific heat of seawater
dt temperature difference between seawater and boiling point


I leave it as an exercise for the student.

Who the fuck boils seawater?

Modern desalination plants work by reverse osmosis. Water remains at ambient temperature throughout the process.

 

[steve_bank]

OMG!!! I made a blunder. Not the first and not the last.

 

[Jokodo]

As a first order approximation ignoring the rest of the processes, calculate the energy needed to boil seawatre per liter at STP.

q = m*c*dt

q watts (dJ/dt)
m mass kg
c specific heat of seawater
dt temperature difference between seawater and boiling point


I leave it as an exercise for the student.

Still the wrong unit.

Mass is kg.
Heat capacity is joules / (kelvins*kg)
Temperature difference is kelvins

All you end up with is joules, not joules over time. There is no time parameter in the input.

 

[Politesse]

As drought lowers the levels of these two important rivers, salt incursion becomes more of a problem.

And the political lobby of the ag industry in the Valley counties is such that any conversation about calculated river management is political suicide. The farmers would happily see the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers go completely dry over the summer rather than surrender any of their water rights.

Water politics goes back to the1 9th century does it not?

Water politics are more or less a constant in human history. But yes, often a particular problem in this conversation is that some of the stakeholders have grandfathered water rights that precede state law.

 

[Politesse]

California has no need to be energy poor; Like Germany, their dependence upon imports for energy is entirely self inflicted and unnecessary.

We're not exactly dependent on imports, they're just cheaper and more commensurate with our ecological goals. But as we pay quite a lot for our energy as it is, relative to our neighbors, that's usually a strong consideration.

It's hard to make the case that the nation would be better off without those imports, either; if we just suddenly cut off the tap, it would be a disaster for the states we buy from. But I would like to see Californians use less energy in the first place, and especially California businesses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a first order approximation ignoring the rest of the processes, calculate the energy needed to boil seawatre per liter at STP.

q = m*c*dt

q watts (dJ/dt)
m mass kg
c specific heat of seawater
dt temperature difference between seawater and boiling point


I leave it as an exercise for the student.

Huh? It takes more to vaporize than to raise it to the boiling point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

California has no need to be energy poor; Like Germany, their dependence upon imports for energy is entirely self inflicted and unnecessary.

We're not exactly dependent on imports, they're just cheaper and more commensurate with our ecological goals. But as we pay quite a lot for our energy as it is, relative to our neighbors, that's usually a strong consideration.

It's hard to make the case that the nation would be better off without those imports, either; if we just suddenly cut off the tap, it would be a disaster for the states we buy from. But I would like to see Californians use less energy in the first place, and especially California businesses.

Exporting the pollution is not a viable ecological solution. It's the usual way to make things "green" but it's actually not-green as you still have the same emissions and add the transport costs.

 

[Politesse]

California has no need to be energy poor; Like Germany, their dependence upon imports for energy is entirely self inflicted and unnecessary.

We're not exactly dependent on imports, they're just cheaper and more commensurate with our ecological goals. But as we pay quite a lot for our energy as it is, relative to our neighbors, that's usually a strong consideration.

It's hard to make the case that the nation would be better off without those imports, either; if we just suddenly cut off the tap, it would be a disaster for the states we buy from. But I would like to see Californians use less energy in the first place, and especially California businesses.

Exporting the pollution is not a viable ecological solution. It's the usual way to make things "green" but it's actually not-green as you still have the same emissions and add the transport costs.

Relatively little of California's energy use comes from non-renewable resources, considering how much energy we use, even when imports are considered (it's not all coal); we're consistently ahead of our own goals on that. But, I do think there is room for further progress.

 

[steve_bank]

A thought from the thread on German bird pests.

We label non human critters that foul the environment as pests.

Here in Seattle migrating Canadian Geese discovered open grass like golf courses. They foul lawns and lakes to the point where swimming is banned. They can take over a home lawn.

If we looked at humans as we do her species, might we be 'pests'?

Climate change to me is the result of our mytholgy as being apart and avove all others in the ecosystm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about a farming tax? Almonds require obscene amounts of water. Why not provide a significant tax on top of it, so if the consumer really wants those almonds, they help fund the infrastructure that makes their growth in California possible?

Of course, nut growers would be against that.

 

[bilby]

OMG!!! I made a blunder. Not the first and not the last.

If by that you mean “I got caught out bloviating and big-noting myself as a great teacher and master of the Socratic Method, while in fact not knowing the first thing about the subject under discussion”, then yes, you made “a blunder”.

 

[bilby]

California has no need to be energy poor; Like Germany, their dependence upon imports for energy is entirely self inflicted and unnecessary.

We're not exactly dependent on imports, they're just cheaper and more commensurate with our ecological goals. But as we pay quite a lot for our energy as it is, relative to our neighbors, that's usually a strong consideration.

It's hard to make the case that the nation would be better off without those imports, either; if we just suddenly cut off the tap, it would be a disaster for the states we buy from. But I would like to see Californians use less energy in the first place, and especially California businesses.

Exporting the pollution is not a viable ecological solution. It's the usual way to make things "green" but it's actually not-green as you still have the same emissions and add the transport costs.

Relatively little of California's energy use comes from non-renewable resources, considering how much energy we use, even when imports are considered (it's not all coal); we're consistently ahead of our own goals on that. But, I do think there is room for further progress.

“Renewable sources” are slightly less environmentally harmful than fossil fuels, but if you think they’re anywhere close to having as low an impact on the environment as the nuclear power plants California has been closing, then you are badly misinformed.

 

[skepticalbip]

What about a farming tax? Almonds require obscene amounts of water. Why not provide a significant tax on top of it, so if the consumer really wants those almonds, they help fund the infrastructure that makes their growth in California possible?

Of course, nut growers would be against that.

Vegans would probably object too. It would make their almond milk much more expensive.

Which raises a side question. How do they milk almonds? Those teats have gotta be awfully small and I would imagine getting the milking stool under an almond must be tricky.

 

[Jokodo]

As a first order approximation ignoring the rest of the processes, calculate the energy needed to boil seawatre per liter at STP.

q = m*c*dt

q watts (dJ/dt)
m mass kg
c specific heat of seawater
dt temperature difference between seawater and boiling point


I leave it as an exercise for the student.

Who the fuck boils seawater?

Modern desalination plants work by reverse osmosis. Water remains at ambient temperature throughout the process.

And even if you did boil it, you could significantly lower the requirement of energy by recuperating much of the condensation heat and with a clever anticurrent heat exchange piping.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about a farming tax? Almonds require obscene amounts of water. Why not provide a significant tax on top of it, so if the consumer really wants those almonds, they help fund the infrastructure that makes their growth in California possible?

Of course, nut growers would be against that.

Vegans would probably object too. It would make their almond milk much more expensive.

Vegans are used to things costing more. People with lactose issues would probably complain more.

Which raises a side question. How do they milk almonds? Those teats have gotta be awfully small and I would imagine getting the milking stool under an almond must be tricky.

Yes, that was funny the first 20,000 times it was said.

 

[steve_bank]

It has been reported almond production is going down. It uses more water than most other agriculture.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What about a farming tax? Almonds require obscene amounts of water. Why not provide a significant tax on top of it, so if the consumer really wants those almonds, they help fund the infrastructure that makes their growth in California possible?

Of course, nut growers would be against that.

Vegans would probably object too. It would make their almond milk much more expensive.

Vegans are used to things costing more. People with lactose issues would probably complain more.

People with lactose issues can get the lactose-free milk.

 

[Politesse]

California has no need to be energy poor; Like Germany, their dependence upon imports for energy is entirely self inflicted and unnecessary.

We're not exactly dependent on imports, they're just cheaper and more commensurate with our ecological goals. But as we pay quite a lot for our energy as it is, relative to our neighbors, that's usually a strong consideration.

It's hard to make the case that the nation would be better off without those imports, either; if we just suddenly cut off the tap, it would be a disaster for the states we buy from. But I would like to see Californians use less energy in the first place, and especially California businesses.

Exporting the pollution is not a viable ecological solution. It's the usual way to make things "green" but it's actually not-green as you still have the same emissions and add the transport costs.

Relatively little of California's energy use comes from non-renewable resources, considering how much energy we use, even when imports are considered (it's not all coal); we're consistently ahead of our own goals on that. But, I do think there is room for further progress.

“Renewable sources” are slightly less environmentally harmful than fossil fuels, but if you think they’re anywhere close to having as low an impact on the environment as the nuclear power plants California has been closing, then you are badly misinformed.

Don't worry, I've had conversations with many a nuclear nut over the years. I think of you guys as being a bit like pot adovcates. You know, the golden substance that solves all ills and whose alleged downsides are all propaganda by "the other side" who is trying to keep us down. It's not that you don't have a point of sorts, but nuclear power has costs and benefits like any other power source. I don't disagree that nuclear power should be a part of California's power grid, and contrary to what you seem to imply, it is and will continue to be for the indefinite future, even with our two current plants closed. As has been observed, we do business with other states also.

 

[steve_bank]

California has no need to be energy poor; Like Germany, their dependence upon imports for energy is entirely self inflicted and unnecessary.

We're not exactly dependent on imports, they're just cheaper and more commensurate with our ecological goals. But as we pay quite a lot for our energy as it is, relative to our neighbors, that's usually a strong consideration.

It's hard to make the case that the nation would be better off without those imports, either; if we just suddenly cut off the tap, it would be a disaster for the states we buy from. But I would like to see Californians use less energy in the first place, and especially California businesses.

Exporting the pollution is not a viable ecological solution. It's the usual way to make things "green" but it's actually not-green as you still have the same emissions and add the transport costs.

Relatively little of California's energy use comes from non-renewable resources, considering how much energy we use, even when imports are considered (it's not all coal); we're consistently ahead of our own goals on that. But, I do think there is room for further progress.

“Renewable sources” are slightly less environmentally harmful than fossil fuels, but if you think they’re anywhere close to having as low an impact on the environment as the nuclear power plants California has been closing, then you are badly misinformed.

Don't worry, I've had conversations with many a nuclear nut over the years. I think of you guys as being a bit like pot adovcates. You know, the golden substance that solves all ills and whose alleged downsides are all propaganda by "the other side" who is trying to keep us down. It's not that you don't have a point of sorts, but nuclear power has costs and benefits like any other power source. I don't disagree that nuclear power should be a part of California's power grid, and contrary to what you seem to imply, it is and will continue to be for the indefinite future, even with our two current plants closed. As has been observed, we do business with other states also.

Most definitely a big thumbs up.