Comments by Jim Baird Subscribe

On Fossil Fuels Divestment Fever: Canadian Students, Doctors Launch New Campaign

John, I prefer to remain focused on energy production that actually mitigates the problem.

On Fossil Fuels Divestment Fever: Canadian Students, Doctors Launch New Campaign

John your fellow academic, Vaclav Smil, argued in Nature that “carbon sequestration is irresponsibly portrayed as an imminently useful option for solving the challenge [of global warming].” He pointed out that to sequester just 25% of the CO2 emitted by stationary sources (mostly coal plants), we would have to create a system whose annual volume of fluid would be slightly more than twice that of the world’s crude-oil industry.

On Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion a Silver Bullet for Climate Change?

Thanks Jessee, my proffered approach is the reverse of this. TIt uses a working fluid in a closed heat pipe system to circulated surface heat to the depths. You have the potential to produce as much as 25 terawatts of power this way.

On Imagining the Supergrid: HVDC Loops for High Penetration of Renewable Energy

Roger as a fellow innovator I have empathy with your frustration as well as an interest in HVDC power.  I posted a map produced by Alex Michaelis of the Energy Island Group showing how an HVDC grid could service the world with OTEC or any other form of electrical energy on this site last year. (follow link)

Embedded in the URL is the string "edison-would-be-smiling-today." It seems to me back in his day things must have been easier for innovators. Nobel was a millionaire shortly after filing his patent, Edison's work lead to the formation of GE etc.. But then I note the article states, "Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse waged “the War of Currents” , each battling to demonstrate the merits and advantages of Edison’s Direct Current distribution system and Westinghouse’s preffered Alternating Current distribution system."

The likes of you and I are trying to wage our own wars against extremely powerful and entrenched interests.

To say the least it is an uphill battle but possibly we can take heart from knowing Edison lost the AC/DC battle even though in the end he was right.

Best of luck and regards. You are not soldiering on alone.

Thanks to Siemens for affording the forum where we can express our out-of-the-box ideas and meet fellow marchers to a different drum.

On Adding Energy Innovation to Climate Policy Elevator Pitch

“Mitigating climate change requires cutting global carbon emissions to near zero.”

Matthew, “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions”  published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, December 16, 2008, states, “The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.

So cutting carbon emissions does not really mitigate climate change.

As wikipedia points out, the first law of thermodynamics is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings

Cutting carbon emissions would gradually slow the temperature input but would not reverse the accumulation. The only way to reverse it is to short circuit the left side of the equation by converting the input heat to work and once that is under control then reverse the arrows on the right side by converting that heat, most of which is in the ocean to work as well.

Cutting emissions is at best a half measure.

On Who Will Jump on the Fracking Bandwagon Next?

First rule of investing, when everyone is jumping into a stock its probably a good time to sell.

On Canada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil

If the prospect of five Katrinas a decade isn’t motivation enough, maybe I should give up. Then again blocking events may bring the bulk of them ashore north of the Mason-Dixon Line and then things actually might start happening.

On Canada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil

Canadians have spoken, Majority (61%) Disagrees Harper Government Doing a Good Job Protecting Canada’s Environment, Ipso, December 29, 2012

Regardless of whether the US is a petro state, they have dearth of water.

We have a surplus.

They are not the only country suffering this malady. Some with scarcity also are awash in cash.

On Solutions to the World Water Crisis Requires International Cooperation

Wilmot and Tom, in a postCanada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil that serendipitously appeared on World Water Day themed “cooperation.”, I suggest Canada has more than its fair share of water and  that cooperatively leveling out this imbalance on this continent would not only be beneficial for the Canadian economy it would be a boon for sea level rise.

On Climate Attribution Alchemy

Research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase in frequency (of extreme storms like Katrina) if the climate becomes two degrees Celcius warmer.

Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble 1.4–3 K by 2050.

Consequently look for a Katrina every two years.

Or convert ocean heat to another form of energy.

On Canada’s Most Priceless Commodity Is Not Oil

Pierre, we have less than half of 1% of the population of the planet and 20% of the fresh water. How can we possibly need all of our water? Especially considering most of the renewable resource is simply running back into the Arctic and the Hudsons Bay. This waste is simply adding to sea level rise, which is the most significant issue with climate change. You say that a trench to the Great Lakes is essentially an environmental blight. Myself, I consider the Suez and Panama Canals as well as the Roman Aqueducts engineering marvels. The North is a frozen desert but not for long and the melting of the permafrost will be an environmental disaster. The solution to my mind is ocean thermal energy conversion to reduce sea surface temperatures that causes the storms that move heat towards the poles. As to your declaration we are fighting climate change, I think much of the rest of the world and many in this country will not agree. All efforts from this end to advance different solutions over the years have simply fallen on deaf ears. Including the state-of-the-art solution to the nuclear waste problem which could have saved Canadian taxpayers their $20 billion investment in the CANDU.

Here's a little poll I would love to see Sustainable Development Technology Canada put to the Canadian public. Canada has 20 percent of the world's supply of a renewable resource that is vital to all living things and 13 percent of a non-renewable resource, the buring of which contributes to global warming, which would you prefer to sell?

On Arctic Ice Loss Amplified Superstorm Sandy

Negative feedback in action. Storms move heat to poles. Poles melt, storms amplify.

Ad nauseum - heat that drives storms powers OTEC systems.

The more energy produced the less heat available to power storms.