Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Jim Baird Subscribe

On What's More Productive: CO2 Sequestration or Ocean Heat Sequestration?

Thanks for the references Greg. Perhaps the Planet Doctors would like to collaborate with the ocean energy group on advancing this approach. OTEC is the largest base load source of renewable energy. How this is best put to use is an interesting dilemma. 

November 13, 2013    View Comment    

On What's More Productive: CO2 Sequestration or Ocean Heat Sequestration?

Greg, I believe the stirring you are referring to is the result of bringing masses of cold water to the surface to condense a working fluid. This would result in a release of CO2 due to the decrease in pressure and eutrophication. A group of us believe this would be prevented or at least greatly reduced by moving the working fluid vapor in a heat pipe - a closed system-  to the depths for condensation and return.

November 13, 2013    View Comment    

On What's More Productive: CO2 Sequestration or Ocean Heat Sequestration?

Max, clathrates are found in shallower waters on the continental shelves and are therefore more likely to be influenced by the status quo than by moving heat to deeper water. Also I believe you will find warmer water holds less gas than the reverse. William Cheung of UBC has done a study showing that warmer water will also hold less oxygen leading to smaller fish.The temperature of deep water will be raised one order of magnitude less than the 1 to 5 C increases we are seeing which has lead to storms like Haiyan and Sandy. Lowering surface temperature also will be a boon to the fish.

November 13, 2013    View Comment    

On Deeply Conflicted About Weather Extremes

Aslak Grinstedof the Niels Bohr Institute and Kerry Emanuel of MIT lend credence to the slide.

November 13, 2013    View Comment    

On Securitization: The Future of Solar Finance

Lewis, Typhoon Haiyan is a case in point but for the fact probably very little of the property that has been destroyed will have been insured. Insured or not though it will mostly be rebuilt through debt or philanthropy. The same energy source that powered that storm, and all like it, could just as easily power the world with ocean thermal energy conversion, which has an EROI the same as Alberta's oil sands. Are the insurance companies better off paying out claims or financing mitigating strategies? More germaine, which is the better strategy for mankind.

How much money have they invested in fossil fuels?

How much in OTEC?

November 9, 2013    View Comment    

On Inequity: Energy Risk and the Future

Max and Jessee, thanks for the moral support.

November 9, 2013    View Comment    

On Securitization: The Future of Solar Finance

Elias, Allianz SE put the value of the infrastructure in the world's largest coastal cities at risk to sea level rise at $28 trillion.

A few months ago researchers warned that a catastrophic methane release from the thawing arctic could cost up to $60 trillion.

It seems to me therefore a new financial instrument that has an insurance component in it is needed to fiance mitigating strategies.

November 6, 2013    View Comment    

On Carbon Bubble: Pop vs. Deflate, Doom vs. Hope

Lou, from Sinclair link provided, "High quality global journalism requires investment."

The same, in spades, applies to energy production. Fossil fuels, based on centuries worth of experience and infrastructure are able to generate steady returns by offloading massive liabilities on future generations.

The technologies capable of replacing fossil fuels currently generate little to no revenue and in some cases are only at the conceptual stage. They have the potential however to save future generations trillions and produce trillions in revenue down the long development road.

Surely to God, the financial geniuses who have figured out how to build massively profitable companies based on the prospect that I might read, let alone then buy something based on that reading, an advertisement on some search engine or social networking site, can figure out how to monetize future saving of trillions and revenues no less grand.  

Would that I could figure this one out but its way over my head. I will have to be content with working on the solution, which Dr. Paul Curto, former Chief Technolgist with NASA, points out, " is by far the most balanced means to face the challenge of global warming. It is also the one that requires the greatest investment to meet its potential. It is a most intriguing answer that can save us from Armageddon."






November 1, 2013    View Comment    

On Sandy Anniversary a Reminder of the Need for Better Protections 

A need for better energy choices.

The storm was caused by excessively warm Atlantic surface waters from which evaporation occured and heat fueled the storm.

It was exacerbated by sea level rise, which has three causes: thermal expansion, icecap melting and aquifer pumping.

The movement of surface ocean heat to the depths the past fifteen years has caused the so-called global warming hiatus, which is replicated by the ocean thermal energy conversion method. This in turn mitigates the problem of sea level rise, by converting part of the heat that causes thermal expansion to work, moving about 25 times more of that  heat to a depth of 1000 meters, where the coefficient of expansion is half that of the surface and by converting ocean liquid volume to hydrogen and oxygen to get the OTEC power to shore. 

Storms like Sandy also move heat towards the poles where it melts the ice. To the extent the power for such storms can be bled off, sea level rise benefits.

In North America, the aquifer pumping problem can be addressed by relocating water from areas where it is in excess to areas of deprivation and in this process a considerable amount of hydro power can be generated.

Massive problems going begging for PROFITABLE solutions in plain view?

Where are all the so-called New York financial whizzes when their own city needs them?




October 31, 2013    View Comment    

On Foggy Notions of Climate Change

Steve sadly too true.

Banks don't exist however without our deposits.

I believe the numbers are on the side of the angels.

October 28, 2013    View Comment    

On Rising Energy Costs Lead to Recession; Eventually Collapse

Keith, I figure about .0625/kwh which is in the range of your .05 for the first ten years in your video. I suspect this too will decline with economies of scale and experience.

How much environmental damage are you going to do putting your infrastructure into GEO and how vulnerable will it be to space junk?

As to the piping for OTEC, this can be between 1 and 2 meters in diameter as compared to 15 for a conventional 50MW plant, depending on the velocity you need for the vapor. I would bring the power ashore as an energy carrier.



October 27, 2013    View Comment    

On Rising Energy Costs Lead to Recession; Eventually Collapse

Gail, OTEC isn''t intermittent. It is the largest non-intermittent source of renewable energy we have. Its cost is reduced by moving small volumes of working fluid between a hot and a cold reservoir rather than trying to bring massive amounts of cold water from the deep to the vaporized working fluid. The movement of 25 times as much heat from the surface to the deep, as you get with a heat pipe design, mimics the natural phenomenum of the last fifteen years that saw atmospheric temperatures rise between a half and third slower than they had the previous 50 years. This heat also causes about a half the thermal expansion as it would on the surface, thus half the sea level rise, because the coefficient of expansion at 1000 meters is half what it is at the surface of the tropics.

The International Monetary Fund pointed out a few months ago that when you include the Societal Energy Liabilities the fossil fuel industry is being subsidized to the tune of $1.9 trillion a year or 2.5 percent of global GDP.

By my reckoning, if you invest a universal carbon tax of $20 a ton, $550 billion/year in the production of $500 million/unit 100 MW OTEC plants, you could build about 2,000 the first year.

If the cash flow from the energy those produce, plus carbon taxes was reinvested each year, in new facilities, in about 32 years the entire fleet of 300 thousand OTEC plants the ocean can sustain could be built out and the prospect of runaway global warming, sea level rise and proliferating storms would be a thing of the past..

If you invested the entire $1.9 trillion societal cost, this would of course happen that much sooner. And the revenue those plants would produce, between $5 to $10 trillion/year would pay off a lot of debt.

Since these plants use no fuel, they will generate a lot of revenue over their 60 year life spans, to pay off both debt as well as the needs of government . There are also a lot of workers salaries that will go into the building of these plants.


October 26, 2013    View Comment