I wonder what scale of sequestration "in anyway that is fit" wd make any detectable inroad into the total of anthropogenic CO2 production?

Posted By: SteamyTeaElectrons have mass, 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms, so very small.
They also move at speed, up to 300,000 kilometers per second in a super conductor, so very fast.
So now we are into familiar world of kinetic energy and all is rosy again.

and you're saying the same electron KE is responsible for both heat and electricity? And that high electron KE means both high temp (heat) and high voltage (electricity)? That electrons move faster or slower, resulting in hi-grade or lo-grade energy by any name? Is that true?

Still can't picture it - electrons don't move from A to B, they orbit, maybe bang into ea other; alternatively they're not really objects with velocity, more probability clouds.

Or we coudl just take a leap of faith and invest in this:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html

Note the date

Posted By: pmagowanWhy can't we build power plants to put the carbon back. They could even be used to regulate the grid i.e. All nuclear power stations running at 100% capacity all the time. When we need the entire output it is there, when we don't it powers carbon capture and storage devices. That way any insulation or energy demand reduction would still be worthwhile as every watt saved goes to pumping more CO2 into the disused gass fields.

Interesting alternative take on grid-based storage!

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: fostertomPosted By: WillInAberdeen
Dont try to convert low-exergy waste heat back into high-exergy electricity, the 2nd Law wont let you do this efficiently.
Why not, in the case that mechanical work doesn't come into it? Some good science writing for everyman needed here!

science writing is beyond me guvnor - I'd start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy#History

"Carnot next described what is now called the Carnot engine, and proved by a thought experiment that any heat engine performing better than this engine would be a perpetual motion machine. According to Carnot, "Such a creation is entirely contrary to ideas now accepted, to the laws of mechanics and of sound physics. It is inadmissible."

They dont write 'em like that any more....

Posted By: pmagowanways of removing carbon from our atmosphere but most of them require large amounts of energy. This is not a big problem as we know that smashing atoms or fusing them together in a controlled environment produces shed loads

could be re-written:

'This is not a big problem as 'free' solar energy is available worldwide in shed loads'

Don't know how exactly this energy, whether from nuclear or solar, wd be used, to pull CO2 from atmosphere - presumably in endothermic reactions that break CO2 molecules - but hopefully needn't require energy as electicity (PV if from solar), but cd use lower grade energy as heat (much more efficient thermal collection if from solar)?

There's lots of other kinds of environmental clear-up that cd be done, given lots of 'free energy' - other toxins in atmosphere, toxic mine wastes, rare elements in obsolete electronics, petrochemical feedstock in plastics waste that cd be reconverted to useful longer-chain molecules and re-used instead of pumping virgin oil ...

I'm beginning - just beginning - to see your point, put this way.

The key, to me, wd be a lot more than mere 'aspiration' about storage of waste from present-day nukes, which are about to be rolled out as never before,
bnuclear processes that don't produce lethal waste and/or which needs not be stored faultlessly safe for aeons, and
opening up of scientific minds to 'free limitless' sources of energy other than by elaboration of 'nuclear' thinking - i.e. strong assumption that Star Trek did portray technology future!

Interesting that your take on renewables buying us enough time develop new nuclear technologies is the opposite of Lovelock's view that nuclear is the stop-gap that will buy us the time to develop CONSISTENT renewables without smothering the planet with turbines, especially given the prospect of climate change altering the pattern of wind flows and rendering current ideal locations becalmed.

Very good, but if you put the pros and cons on paper against the predicted requirements I can see no alternative. If anyone can come up with a viable alternative to nuclear I have yet to hear it.

pmagowan, underlying all you say is an uproveable belief system e.g.

"The solution is a 'futuristic' ... technology"
"We are the dominant species on the planet and it is inevitable that we will mould it to our liking"
"you can't stop 'progress' you can mearly mould it"
"We need fuel, like any machine"

Hope this isn't unfair cherry picking, and I of course am coming from another unproveable belief system myself.
To me, your end-objectives, like using nukes to sequester atmospheric CO2, are right-on, but my 'unproveable' belief is that the means you suggest, and the world-view that leads you to those means, are excellent ways of making life not worth living, in your cleaned-up world, unless we really are machines that can be kept going by some continuous process of self-modification to cope with the conditions that your solutions create.

I want humans to be able to revert to their most healthy, 'natural', non-neurotic potential, perhaps as never before, whilst still enjoying steady, even rapid improvement in our standards of security, comfort, opportunity etc - economic growth if you like but separated from growth in finite-resource consumption.

That to me means doing everything 'as if' we ARE nature - co-operating with nature and all its beings just as we co-operate with our own right arm. I don't see that nuclear and all that can be that - it doesn't even want to be - nuclear presumes that humans are separate from nature and will continue to mould nature to suit the unstoppability of 'progress'.

Posted By: JoinerAdwindrum recommended John Michael Greer's "The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age", but apart from me and Adam, no one else seems to have read it. Pity, because it addresses so many of the issues discussed on here, viz how to cope in a world of diminishing resources, an issue at the heart of virtually all other, non-building, discussions." alt="" src="http:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/cry.gif" >

I have read it.

Tom's point is the important one I think - "of course am coming from another unproveable belief system myself."

We cannot discover the correct, best, way by proving it now, so the only hope is to be able to have a discussion, based on logic and mutual respect, and hope we can find a way forward that works in the long term.

Greer's book is good, must have another look.

Fostertom, almost anything is 'unprovable' if your standards of evidence are too high. We must work with the evidence that we have.

The solution is a 'futuristic' technology- I think this is likely since we do not appear to have any current technology which meets all the requirements. Which futuristic technology it is depends on where resources are put. I propose directing investment towards what is, in my opinion, the most likely candidate.

We are the dominant species on the planet and it is inevitable that we will mould it to our liking- I think this is a fact. It is no good denying our position. It is our 'natural' position. We have intelligent, conscious thought and can create technology to overcome obstacles. All other creatures are bound by the environment they find themselves in, we can change it. I think it would be unnatural for us to act otherwise and thus it will not happen.

"you can't stop 'progress' you can mearly mould it"- I think this is true based on the evidence of all our history. The human race will continue to evolve and will continue to develop new technology, I see this as inevitable. Since we can not prevent this without taking some kind of authoritarian view backed up by enormous physical power then we must decide what 'progress' we want, what direction it should go in.

We need fuel, like any machine- once again I believe this to be fact based on the evidence we have. We require the oxidation of carbohydrate to generate the energy required to sustain life. This means we need fuel in the form of food and we need oxygen to burn it in. It comes down to how we wish to achieve this. I like the concept of 'slow food' where you enjoy the food and savor it, using local produce etc etc. I can indulge my preference since I was lucky enough to be born in a western civilization and thus am relatively rich. However this is besides the point when looking at global population and possibilities. We can run like a machine but we require a purpose. My purpose it to get experiences and enjoyment out of life (part of which requires other people and feeling I have improved their lot also). If we create a future where we are unable to get enjoyment out of life then there is no point in achieving it.

My ideal vision of a future is one where the global population has reached a reasonable balance. this has happened in 1st world countries and can happen in developing countries if they are given help. They need to empower their women through giving them control of their reproductive cycle as a primary concern. In my ideal future fusion would provide almost all power and most things would run on electricity. The green spaces of the world would be maintained and protected because with almost unlimited power there is less reason to destroy them. Water resource would be easily achieved through de-salinisation plants. The damage to our atmosphere would be reversed through CO2 scrubbers and other cleaning technologies. Pollution would be reduced to a bear minimum due to the lack of need for FF's. Many decisions would be made globally recognising the needs of all people. Some foods may be produced in large buildings to take the strain off the natural environment. There would be few resource problems due to the understanding that all energy is interchangeable and thus almost anything can be created, recycled or alternatives made. Very few things disappear off the face of the globe. I would tend towards a social, liberal, future as that is my bent but with less competition over resource I think that could be achieved, even to the extent of requiring no currency. But now we get quite far down my futurology and I am long since dead.

Much like someone a millennia ago would look on our world now and yet we would not turn our back on our modern medicine, comfort, transport and technology. The future is dangerous, there are people there!

If LENR is real, and it only turns out to be viable with Nickel (as the only consistently repeatable demonstration appears to be), the the answer to the original question would be:

Buy Nickel

And whilst you're at it:

Sell Fossil fuels (surely not here - bet my pension fund is full of the stuff tho')
Sell wind / solar / conventional nuclear / pretty much every other generating source too

Which from what I've seen is not standardised or liquid (or gaseous)!

Rgds

Damon