Don't bother designing green anymore?

Whenever I hear the Tesco Argument - "Every little helps" - I know the discussion is heading to the rocks without a rudder or an anchor.

Please! If we are to prevent dangerous levels of global warming, the entire human race must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80%. Lots of measures to cut 50% here, 30% there cannot add up to 80% overall. It's mathematically impossible. 10% of the world managing a 60% cut will not make up for the remaining 90% not managing any cuts at all. That's mathematically impossible too.

"Every little helps" only if the object is achievable. If it isn't then we should say "A miss is a good as a mile."

Realistically, we are not going to do it. We'll have put a lot of effort into playing at being green, and we'll built a lot of windmills, but we cannot actually do it. Why are people so obsessed with trying to do the impossible? Get real. We've screwed the planet, now we have to live with the consequences.

Interesting discussion.....

I think that "going green" was a fashion, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and then the world didnt change quite as fast as everyone hoped..... Let's not forget that there is still a HUGE number of electrical applications out there that consume power the "old" way. Until that stuff is replaced, a lot of electrons will pass under the bridge.

This is not to say it is not important to change, I strongly believe it is. Compared to emission levels in the 80ies, the world has become a better place. Power electronics is in all applications and a perfect place to start saving energy.

it is not too late. just my two cents.....

Take a look at the slew of blog posts in the Alternative Energy group. It seems like the technology push in that section is increasing rapidly. From students to large companies, everyone has green on the mind these days.

Cabe

What is the difficulty you're finding in designing a green product?  Its nearly impossible to even find non-RoHs pats anymore, the lower power consumption that you've already mentioned is a given, many contract manufacturers don't want to build a product that has lead so they don't contaminate their production lines.  I am interested in how this impacts anybody really negatively?

Getting past some of Derek's less constructive commentary - there is new technology for coal-power generators that make burning coal a lot more cleaner than before.  Unfortunately many coal mines have shut down because oil is easier to extract, but there are still vast reserves of coal.  Solar really gets me though.  The chemicals and the amount of energy that go into producing solar panels is astonishing.

I think people are talking about saving the planet through reducing energy consumption and hence carbon footprint, not really considering banned substances.

I'd say the green aspect of lead-free components is moot. Lead is toxic in chemical compound form as used in paint on childrens' toys and in anti-knock petrol additives and was quite rightly banned from both. I would be fascinated to be proved wrong but I would have thought that the lead content of leachate from land-fill is harmless. Not so for every chemical, but lead, well it isn't exactly the most soluble metal, is it? That's why we used to use it for pipes. For drinking water!

Lead-free IS a nuisance. For one thing, the jury is still out with regard to tin whiskers and for another the higher reflow temperatures have definitely taken their toll. In two products to my personal knowledge. One was some LEDs which cracked when reflowed, the other was some capacitors that melted.

There are, of course, several other things that ROHS banned but we don't have any option about those. My hopes were raised when they banned PCBs ages ago - until I found out it referred to some horribly toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons, not to circuit boards.

As for burning coal cleanly: there is nothing can be done about the fact that 95% or more of the chemical reaction is C + O2 = CO2. Modern plant may squeeze a few percent more energy out but that's about it. The CO2 has to go somewhere and really there's no alternative but to store it unchanged - either underground, or possible deep sea. It's not trivial to do, but if we do it - or take the more sensible route of using nuclear energy - then what excuse will the Greenies have to beat us up about energy consumption?

So, sorry if my comments are less constructive. I stand by what I said. We have massively polluted the planet, principally with carbon dioxide, and are continuing to do so. Messing around with a percent reduction here, five percent there, is not going to help. I don't really care if you feel good about your hi-fi power supply that saves 10W in a household that uses 1000W, the planet will not be impressed until you get that 1000W down to 200W - for everyone on the planet.

Wormius wrote:

 

What is the difficulty you're finding in designing a green product?  Its nearly impossible to even find non-RoHs pats anymore, the lower power consumption that you've already mentioned is a given, many contract manufacturers don't want to build a product that has lead so they don't contaminate their production lines.  I am interested in how this impacts anybody really negatively?

Aye and that's the problem. Some sectors of the industry are exempt from lead-free. To go lead-free, elderly products have to be re-designed, re-tested for safety and EMC, field-tested and re-approved. You can't sweep it under the carpet by saying the products were probably overdue for replacement anyway. These are industry areas that move relatively slowly, being innately conservative and highly regulated, such as medical and avionics. So we get dragged into the lead-free shennanigans even though we are exempt.

I would like to make one simple point about CO2.  It is not a pollutant, it is a necessary gas for photosynthesis.  All of the concern about man generated CO2 being a problem is pure and total "BS".  There is NO scientific data that supports the theory that the CO2 generated in the last couple of centuries is above what would normally be in the atmosphere for this phase of the Normal earth cycle.

The Ice Core data clearly shows that for the last 600,000 years the earth has oscillated from a cold earth and a hot earth.  The CO2 levels have risen Naturally in each of the previous cycles.  Where does the CO2 come from you might ask?  It is trapped in the ice of the glaciers!  As the ice normally melts, it releases CO2 trapped in the ice molecules for the last 100,000 years.  There is an excellent research paper from a Polish scientist who proved conclusively that this is so.

The current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are consistent with the data from the last four cycles.  There is insufficient deviation from the normal expected level to indicate that mankind has changed the level significantly, especially in light of the massive amounts of CO2 released by volcanoes each year and the super massive amounts generated by the melting ice.

So I wish you would all stop freaking about man causing global warming, we are not!  Given the ice data, the only way that man is responsible is if we had the same level of technology existing on the planet during each of the last 600,000 years of the cycle.  There is absolutely no archiological evidence to support this model.  Global warming is a natural earth cycle.  If we do anything to stop it, then we go back into another ice age.  That would mean that about 95% of the life on the earth would die!

So stop worrying about something that is an artificial political theory used by idiots to try to create a competitive advantage using true VOODOO science.

If you check the geologic record you will see that the earth has bounced between a hot earth and a cold earth for the last 2.5 billion years.  It is what the planet does.  We are currently in an accelerating part of the cycle, which means that we will notice the rate of change increasing.  That is exactly what we have measured.  The next point at which the temperature will stabilize is in about 25,000 years.  So get used to the change, it is going to happen over a very long time.

If you do not think my data is accurate please check with the head of atmospheric sciences at MIT.  He has agreed with these findings and is a major critic of the people saying that mankind is responsible.  As I stated earlier, we are not.

PS if you live in low lying coastal areas, I suggest you start looking for new homes because the sea shall rise and there is nothing you can do about it.

Thanks,

DAB

Points well made and taken. However, I am not an expert (are you?) and for the sake of the argument one has to assume that global warming is caused by excess CO2. It is certainly worth questioning whether that is the case but it's not an engineering question and I for one would hesitate to dismiss mainstream views just because vested (equally vested?) interests dispute it.

A couple of points that do not require archeaological expertise. Firstly the strange fact that the mainstreamers, the natural cycle advocates and the global warming skeptics all agree: there is no point whatsoever in going green in the conventional sense - i.e. messing around with windmills and barrages to reduce our carbon footprint. Mainstream theory says we need to reduce emissions by 80% otherwise all we'll do is delay the effects by a few years but even the most optimistic green program doesn't get half way towards this. Global warming skeptics, of course, say there's nothing to worry about and thus arrive at the same conclusion. The natural cycle theorists are not so clear-cut. Some say the cycle is so robust there is nothing we can do about it, but others say it's driven by CO2 levels. In which case (second point for those who are counting) it doesn't matter whether the cause is human or natural. If it's natural we may still be able to halt GW. But we would have to reduce emissions and maybe even reverse them by sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

Even if there is no long-term hope of stopping it, there is no need to be fatalistic. If for example, we could delay GW for a couple of hundred years, it might be enough. The emergence of modern science from mediaeval and classical superstition is only a few hundred years old and we have only been aware of GW for a couple of decades. Avoidance of flooding and preservation of the arctic environment for a few centuries might give our descendants enough time to come up with truly radical solutions - not to mention definitive answers. So I cannot agree with "que sera sera". We must do what we can, cater for the worst plausible case (cf Fukushima which didn't) and then leave it to future generations to use their ingenuity and superior knowledge to ignore, cure or ameliorate as they see fit. Uncertainties in the science are one of the factors which make risk analysis such fun: roll the dice and see whether it comes up  "man-made", "natural cycle" or "no such thing" in due course, but meanwhile allow for each of them to be reasonably likely even though they cannot all be true at the same time

Point 3 or so - and all this ignores the obvious fact that no matter how bad the projected effects of GW, there comes a point when it is not worth getting hysterical and spending too much on it. Has anyone costed a program of mitigation: building (adequate) water barriers to keep low-lying areas going, for instance? Build barriers and then forget the problem, at least until your lawn goes black.

Hi Derek,

To answer your first question, I may well be one of a few handful of people on the planet with the depth of experience and intimate knowledge of most of the sciences involved to truley opine about the subject of GW.  Mostly, as a Systems Engineer, I am trained to evaluate science and its application to solving problems.  By using true science and the historical record, you can clearly see what is going to happen and the ice data tells us when to expect most of the changes.  They take a long time to manifest themselves.

I have been fortunate enough to have spent a lot of time with both the micro and macro effects of different gases and the atmospheric effects to know for certain which theory is correct.  I have worked with some of the most talented atmospheric physicists in the US.  They helped lead me to my conclusions.

As to what to do about GW, I agree that we should not panic and just begin to plan sensibly to deal with the results of the process.

I also agree that a lot of the Green Hysteria is greatly exaggerated.

In many ways we are actually wasting a lot more energy, which directly aggrevates the problems of GW in our misguided attempts to stop specific sources of gases that are not a problem.

People will need to leave low lying areas, basically anything below abour 40 meters above current sea levels.  But there is no hurry.  Best predictions are that it will take at least 10,000 years before things reach that state and a lot of other things can happen long before we have to worry about the sea rising.

On the plus side, the geologic record shows that as we go toward warm earth, the amouont of arable land will increase by at least a factor of two.  Also, the overall world temperature will even out across a wide swath along both sides of the equator.  They have discovered robust plant life and animals in northern Greenland, so Eric the Red was right, he was just a few millenia to early.

So I urge everyone who is interested in the Truth to do the same research I have and understand what is really going on.  I agree that we should stop polluting the planet and wasting resources.  I just don't trust politicians to make the right decisions to get us there.

Meanwhile, sit back, enjoy the current planetary conditions and relax.  Sometimes you just have to let systems run until they complete the cycle.  Attempts to stop the process prematurely could be very hazardous to everyone.

Thanks,

DAB