It is currently Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:49 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1119 posts ]  Go to page Previous 141 42 43 44 45
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:33 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
Because it mandated that oil and gas companies reduce production by 35%.


Even my children know those Accords contain nothing binding or mandatory.

Why don't you?

Foota wrote:
The Climate extremists don't seem to make any distinctions between cleaner natural gas and other carbon based energy like crude oil and coal.


Scientists (a.k.a. "Climate Extremists") don't bother to make the distinction because there's only a slight difference in the rate at which consumption of both is poisoning the Planet.

"Crude oil and coal consumption is rapidly poisoning the Planet! Quick! Switch to a slightly slower-acting poison!!"

Foota wrote:
We can't reduce are Carbon emissions if we force a 35% reduction on the production of natural gas.


Who or what is going to force the U.S. Government (much less President Trump...) to do anything it dioesn't want to do?

Main reason the IGPCC targets aren't binding, was the vain hope that might encourage U.S. participation and co-operation.

Foota wrote:
We can't encourage natural gas companies to make the significant investment in natural gas wells if they are being told they need to go out of business by 2040.


I think you should do some research into the short-term commercial priorities of executives in the Energy Sector.

Foota wrote:
The better question is, why are countries like Germany failing to meet their climate goals despite signing up the Paris Agreement?


Why is that a better question than why did the U.S. withdraw completely from the Paris Accords?

:-?

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:24 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
Once Coronavirus kills millions worldwide that'll largely sort out the pollution problem anyway.

_________________
Norks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:57 pm 
Online
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 21608
Location: teh internet
Slacks wrote:
Once Coronavirus kills millions worldwide that'll largely sort out the pollution problem anyway.


But the bodies need to be shot into space rather than cremated.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:45 pm 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 7307
Location: Close to where I want to be
Bury them in the permafrost. It will start to regrow once we sequester their carbon.

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:02 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Holyman wrote:
Scientists (a.k.a. "Climate Extremists") don't bother to make the distinction because there's only a slight difference in the rate at which consumption of both is poisoning the Planet.


See - this is why we can't have nice things when dealing with Climate Extremists. Natural Gas is MUCH cleaner than oil and coal and is a perfect bridge fuel to reduce our carbon output RIGHT NOW - while we let our amazing Private Sector continue to improve non-carbon alternatives that won't drastically fuck up the economy and make everyone poorer or freeze to death.

America is beating every other country in carbon reduction - despite our BOOMING economy. Germany is spending billions on alternatives and is failing to meet its climate goals. But but but - at least Germany signed onto Paris - right? Don't even get me started on China and India.

Is this stuff important to you or not? A few months ago you were freaking out on about how "all the scientists" (and autistic children) were predicting the earth would be uninhabitable in 10 short years. If you really believe this nonsense, you should be fucking ecstatic that the World's largest and strongest economy is reducing our carbon output faster than anyone else and has excess natural gas to export to other countries to help reduce their carbon outputs as well. If you really believed the world was going to end in a few short years, you shouldn't care if we were burning up aborted fetuses or puppy dogs to power our economy - as long as we were reducing our carbon output.

So forgive me if I am a bit cynical about your purported environmental concerns. I think you simply hate that America is producing our own energy, getting richer and not hobbled by OPEC and Russia - even though natural gas is helping the environment. This fact contradicts over a decade of your prognostications and may put a crimp on your future YouTube talks.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:01 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34795
For reference:

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol) 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

_________________
Norks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:14 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
Slacks wrote:
For reference:

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol) 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11


See - Natural Gas reduces carbon output by over 40% from the cleanest coal alternative.

Why on earth would we not want to burn the shit out of Natural Gas as an alternative to those dirtier fuels while we simultaneously work on non-carbon alternatives and renewables?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:16 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 14783
Location: The OC
Slacks wrote:
For reference:

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol) 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11


:-?

That's a lot of coal! :-O

You know, do to the miracle fracking, we can frack the shit out of a bunch more wells, and get you a cheap clean supply of natural gas to replace all that nasty coal.

And you'll have a slam dunk on your Paris Accord carbon reduction goals.

Just a thought... :>_

Also, natural gas is great for cooking, If we're use to cooking with an electric stove, and you go to a natural gas stove.....that's a fucking miracle!!

Natural gas can run your furnace, your water heater, your stove, your clothes dryer, and you can even hook it up to your barbecue outside. And if you're switching from electrical, it's money in your pocket.

And when your electricity goes out, it's still all works.

_________________
Radio Free Midnight http://www.twitch.tv/midnight562



Image

[**==] [**==] SomeGuy 2020 [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] It's going to be a [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] Brave New World [**==] [**==]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:57 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20598
MIDNIGHT wrote:
And when your electricity goes out, it's still all works.


Can tell you firsthand with natural gas heating for air and water, when the power goes out so does it. But only in the sense of running. The pilot light doesn't die, the fuel supply requires no electricity, but the control, fan and ignition systems on them do.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:01 am 
Online
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 21608
Location: teh internet
Yep, no power, no thermostat, no warm


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:20 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 14783
Location: The OC
SomeGuy wrote:
MIDNIGHT wrote:
And when your electricity goes out, it's still all works.


Can tell you firsthand with natural gas heating for air and water, when the power goes out so does it. But only in the sense of running. The pilot light doesn't die, the fuel supply requires no electricity, but the control, fan and ignition systems on them do.


Yes I suppose you're correct about the fans... Been a decade and a half since I had natural gas anything...

But I thought you would have had some type of natural gas generator ready to go or at least a battery to run the fan on your furnace. :D

Stove top should still work perfectly well you just need to light it by hand since the electric igniter wouldn't work.

_________________
Radio Free Midnight http://www.twitch.tv/midnight562



Image

[**==] [**==] SomeGuy 2020 [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] It's going to be a [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] Brave New World [**==] [**==]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:36 pm 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 7307
Location: Close to where I want to be
Yeah some people get natural gas generators to power their electricity during a failure. It runs out quick though...pressure in the lines drops quick in a failure.

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:43 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
tgrant wrote:
Yeah some people get natural gas generators to power their electricity during a failure. It runs out quick though...pressure in the lines drops quick in a failure.


Most of California's power plants are run on natural gas now. We have a shit ton of EV's in California so it is a double benefit that cars are getting powered by natural gas (and solar) as well instead of running on gas.

BTW - I got to test drive my co-worker's new Tesla Model 3 this week. It was just the base model, but holeee shiiit! It smoked by Chevy Bolt and was so fun and comfortable to drive. Can't wait to get one in a couple years when my lease is up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:54 pm 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 7307
Location: Close to where I want to be
I may go EV next...still think in Canada plug in hybrid is the way forward for the next 10-20 years. If I had to buy tomorrow I would look seriously at the new Toyota Rav4 prime that can do 40-60km on electric and plug it in when it gets home...but also has wicked good fuel economy from the gas engine. 40-60km would get me to my carpool buddies and back on electric and the days I drive would use minimal gas. Probably a tank a month. That's pretty damn sweet (would look a little ghey with 2 rav4's on my driveway though).

Natural gas just makes sense. The Russians used to have a natural gas commercial airliner. It never saw commercial success but natural gas powered jet fuel vs kerosene would be a huge way that airlines could phase out their pollution...with more and more natural gas hitting the market we could see a cost benefit in the not too distant future. ...if we don't all die in hell fire in the next 8 years.

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:08 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17799
tgrant wrote:
I may go EV next...still think in Canada plug in hybrid is the way forward for the next 10-20 years. If I had to buy tomorrow I would look seriously at the new Toyota Rav4 prime that can do 40-60km on electric and plug it in when it gets home...but also has wicked good fuel economy from the gas engine. 40-60km would get me to my carpool buddies and back on electric and the days I drive would use minimal gas. Probably a tank a month. That's pretty damn sweet (would look a little ghey with 2 rav4's on my driveway though).


You should seriously test drive a Tesla before making a decision. The Y is coming out next month.

Even the cheapest base model 3 will have plenty of battery for your work commute with extra to spare. You can top off every other night in your garage or spend less than 10 minutes at a SuperCharger.

Tesla has some big announcements on their battery tech next month which is rumored to nearly double their capacity while bringing the cost down.

Everyone else is 5-10 years behind Tesla in battery tech and development. I think in 10 years, most automakers will be out of business or will be buying the battery packs and drive trains from Tesla.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:05 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17788
Location: Earth
February 18, 2020

Last Chance for the Climate Transition

by Martin Wolf


Image

At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, two people stood out: Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old Swedish climate activist, and Donald Trump, the US president. In their messages on climate change, these two could not have been more opposed: panic, confronted with indifference. But one thing they share is that they are not hypocrites: Ms Thunberg does not pretend we are doing anything relevant; Mr Trump does not pretend he cares. Most participants in the climate debate, however, pretend to care, pretend to act, or both. If anything is to be done, this must change.

Ours remains what it has been since the early 19th century: a fossil-fuel civilisation. There have been two energy revolutions in human history: the agricultural revolution, which exploited far more incident sunlight; and the industrial revolution, which exploited fossilised sunlight. Now we must return to incident sunlight — solar energy and wind — along with nuclear power, while maintaining our high standards of living.

Image

The point of this latest energy revolution, however, is not to raise our standard of living directly, but to preserve the only home we know in the state to which life is now adapted. It is to avoid an irreversible experiment with the climate of our planet. So far, however, despite decades of talk, trends in emissions remain in the wrong direction.

Image

What is to be done? Discussions last week at the Oslo Energy Forum clarified things for me. My principal conclusion was that a transformation from our current energy system to a different one is the only option. Some suggest we should halt growth as well. But this would not only be impossible, it would also not be nearly enough.

Over the past three decades CO2 emissions per unit of global output have been falling at a little below 2 per cent a year. If this were to continue and world output were to stagnate, global emissions would fall by 40 per cent by 2050 — far too little. Relying on actual reductions in output, in order to cut emissions by, say, 95 per cent, by 2050, would require a fall in world output of roughly 90 per cent, bringing global output per head back to 1870 levels.

Image

The conclusions are simple. We will not stop relying on fossil fuels by choosing universal impoverishment. But we also cannot stop using them soon enough, at our present glacial rate of reduction in emissions per unit of output. So we must massively accelerate technological progress away from burning fossil fuels. We must move beyond them almost completely. If we do achieve that, the size of our economy ceases to be the issue: however big it becomes, it ceases to emit greenhouse gases. But note: to achieve this by 2050, the rate of reduction of emissions per unit of output needs to jump massively.

Image

Is this achievable? From a technological point of view, it appears so. So, at least, argues the Energy Transitions Commission in a number of important reports. The essential ideas are simple. The core of the new energy system is electricity generated by renewable means (solar and wind) and nuclear power. This needs to be backed up by a variety of storage systems (batteries, hydroelectricity, hydrogen and natural gas, with carbon capture and storage). Reductions in costs have already been large enough and technological progress rapid enough to make this transition feasible, at manageable cost.

Image

This would, however, be a revolution. A zero-carbon economy would require about four to five times as much electricity as our present one, all from non-carbon-emitting sources. In running such an economy, hydrogen (much of it produced by electrolysis) would play an essential role. Hydrogen consumption might jump 11-fold by 2050.

In many sectors, the costs of decarbonisation are (or soon will be) competitive. Yet in some, they will not be. There will need to be incentives and regulations to force the shift. In order to avoid merely moving production, in its most emissions-intensive forms, elsewhere, it will be essential to impose offsetting taxes on imports from jurisdictions that refuse to support the needed changes.

Image

Suppose that a transition towards a global zero-emissions economy by 2050 is indeed technically feasible. That does not mean it is likely to happen as a result of purely economic forces. This is so for two main reasons. The first is that the cost advantages of the decarbonised alternatives are, in many areas, at best modest. These are not (at least not yet) close to being dominant technologies in all relevant areas. The second is that there is always huge inertia in making shifts to new technologies, especially in areas where familiar methods and systems are to be replaced by entirely new ones. We know very well how to run a fossil-fuel economy reliably and at vast scale. A reliable, entirely renewable energy-economy is an unfamiliar beast.

Image

A global systems transition of this scale will not happen by itself. It will require large-scale policy interventions, via a mixture of regulation, incentives and government-supported research and development. It will require global co-operation and clear recognition of the very different positions — in terms of past behaviour, present responsibility and future needs — of the countries of the world. It will take changes in finance and accounting. It will, in short, take a historic global effort of a kind we have never seen before to avoid a danger that still seems remote to the vast bulk of human beings.

Image

This does need to be done. But will it be? Ms Thunberg fears our inaction. Mr Trump is one of the reasons why she is right to do so. We have so much to do and so little time. If we are to succeed in halting climate change, we have to change course now.

martin.wolf@ft.com

https://www.ft.com/content/3090b1fe-51a ... 2eed0038b1

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:37 pm 
Online
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 21608
Location: teh internet
how dare you

Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:43 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20598
If we listen to the likes of morons like Greta Thunberg who hasn't even graduated high school yet, what we needed to do was go back to the Stone Age about 50 years ago. If the 12 year catastrophe predictions are correct (they're not), there's absolutely nothing short of completely destroying all of civilization overnight that would avert it.

If that's the case, then ending the Cold War peacefully 30 years ago was a mistake of the highest order.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:15 am 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 7307
Location: Close to where I want to be
Image

_________________
What you have taken, Has been from here
What you gave has been given here
What belongs to you today
belonged to someone yesterday
and will be someone else’s tomorrow

Change is the Law of The Universe

-------------------------------------------------

“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Tzu


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1119 posts ]  Go to page Previous 141 42 43 44 45

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited