Why 100% renewable energy is feasible
Mark Diesendorf
1384

Well I am all for renewable energy and it is doing a great job in reducing harmful gases. But I can see some benefit in using some natural gas to reduce fires using the “rain enhancement gas grid”. Droughts the world is having causes more fires (and there are fires in France, Portugal, Corsica, Florida and so on) and carbon dioxide is being spewed into the air by these fires. It would therefore be worth using natural gas if burning it could create rain — the exploration companies are burning it anyway.

When the methane gas in natural gas is burned, it produces water vapour (methane is the main constituent of natural gas). 
CH4+2O2 gives CO2+2H20, so it humidifies air.
Now convectional rain can be brought about merely by having a piece of darker ground heating up more than surrounding lighter coloured ground (urban heat island effect and so on). Why not encourage fracking companies to burn the waste gas in long pipes with lots of holes in to form a sort of huge grid with thousands of flames coming out? 
This will heat and humidify a large volume of air and could enhance chances of convectional rain if relative humidity is high (relative humidity usually increases when air gets colder at night). More trees could be grown with more rain (perhaps in deserts) to offset carbon dioxide made from the “rain enhancement gas grid” and less trees would be burned in fires. When coal is gasified it produces hydrogen and methane, which could be used, especially hydrogen.

The heat value of natural gas is about 15 kWh per kg and 1 tonne of it could heat a volume of air 200 m deep by 334 m by 334 m, to a temperature 2 degrees C higher than it was.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.