OneClimate Virtual Bali Event

In India we are planning for meeting Climate change

By jorphey

people who want to participate in COP 13 without being there, oneclimate.net has set up a Virtual Bali. Here, you have a chance to participate in one of the most important meetings of our time. Each day

I read the other day that effectively the Bali meeting is an excuse for a jolly at the expense of the world’s taxpayers. To the people that will suffer most it is bound to seem that way, particularly considering the negative “can’t-do” attitude suggested.

The Wilsonian view suggests that mere public can’t have a say in what might be considered world changing solutions but what the hell, I’ll give you my view and you can simply delete it and forget about it.

As anyone knows, there are 3 sources of natural energy, magnetism, gravity and radiation. What is less obvious is that our current energy base, hydrocarbons in any form, are related to these sources by time. We can’t manufacture time but we could manufacture a modern fuel over a relatively short time to eventually replace hydrocarbons if we had the means to do it.

It has been suggested that we have around 15 to 20 years to change our emissions habits. Here’s my suggestion for what it’s worth:

Intermittent energy sources (wind, solar etc) could be harnessed to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. This would allow conventional plant to operate at its most efficient without frequency regulation problems (ask any plant controller). This gives one source for a build up of hydrogen using the effects of radiation.

Increase the effective efficiency of conventional plant by condensing the 1000+ gallons per minute evaporation from cooling towers and implementing a mini hydro system for each tower. This is a second source of hydrogen using the effect of gravity (I’ve tried this on a small scale and it works, harnessing the effects of magnetism). This could be a product for export to those countries which are big on coal and getting bigger by the day.

Over time, using storage techniques developed by the US, whom indigenous Indonesians hold in high regard, hydrogen stocks would exist derived from natural energy sources which could be treated as a commodity to replace hydrocarbons. At the same time the current conventional generation could continue unabated, albeit that sequestration/gasification techniques could be improved etc.

At some time in the future (during that 15 to 20 years mentioned above) it would then be possible to start replacing conventionally boilers with hydrogen. Steam recycling could continue. There is the obvious transport connection etc.

Politically it solves most of the hurdles that can be observed from outside of the current jolly. The US could continue its way of life and no doubt profit along the way with its hydrogen storage technology. Everyone continues in the way it sees fit but at the same time works towards a target of maximising its hydrogen base.

Just a few thoughts…

With the inaccuracies of the “hockey stick” temperature graph that ignores the Medieval warming period and the fact that an overlay of Vice President Al Gore’s carbon dioxide versus time and his temperature versus time graphs that shows that carbon dioxide lags temperature increases by as much as 800 years, how can reputable scientists use this information and ignore the fact that changes in solar radiation do yield a statistically significant match to temperature variations. Given these facts and that 99% of the green house gas that influences our environment is water vapor, how can you scrutinize carbon dioxide as the villain in this scenario?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T9qs2EHrTQ