Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28716 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #165 on: November 06, 2018, 12:56:35 pm »
Yah it sounds familiar. You use the tactic all the time...when someone disagrees with you and your opinions, you call them names.

What was your point, that you can't debate without getting personal and insulting?

Get off your moral throne and stick to the topic.

That's rather rich coming from you! Only argus could top that hypocrisy.
Informative Informative x 1 Optimistic Optimistic x 1 Creative Creative x 1 Old Old x 1 Bad Spelling Bad Spelling x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #166 on: November 06, 2018, 04:00:47 pm »
The fact is many members of the corporate sector are on board implementing CO2 emission programs and achieving remission results. How can that not be positive?
You raise a lot of fair points which would require a separate thread to deal with the issues that lie below the headlines. A few general comments:

1) Energy efficiency measures can reduce CO2 but the scope of savings are limited since there is already an economic incentive to avoid wasting energy. If energy is "wasted" is often because the cost of stopping the waste exceeds the cost of wasted energy.

2) Beware of touting biomass power since that often means chopping down low grade forest in NA or Russia and turning it into pellets to burn in Europe. Headlines on small scale methane capture tend to obscure where the majority of biomass power comes from and it is often a long way from carbon neutral.

3) Emissions trading schemes are largely scams and often do not represent real emissions reductions. They are simply accounting tricks. In some cases, unnecessary facilities in places like China are built simply to collect money selling credits when the facility is close and/or upgraded.

4) Don't be fooled by carbon capture claims because true permanent, large scale carbon capture (i.e. create limestone from CO2) takes a lot of energy because they involve reversing the chemical processes that release the CO2 in the first place. The need to consume as much as 25-30% of energy produced to capture CO2 makes it very hard to do cheaply no matter what headlines might say. Capturing CO2 in underground bunkers (they leak) or by planting trees (they eventually die) are not truly sustainable solutions.

Useful Useful x 1 Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #167 on: November 06, 2018, 04:10:25 pm »
And before trees die they produce seeds which produce more trees which consume more CO2. Otherwise I guess we would have no trees.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #168 on: November 06, 2018, 07:44:04 pm »
Biomass has its limits. Recycling has made some biomass power plants unviable because there isn't enough garbage to keep them going. Burning wood would be OK as long as the forests are replaced at the same rate as they are being burned.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #169 on: November 13, 2018, 10:13:26 am »
That's rather rich coming from you! Only argus could top that hypocrisy.

I am actually discussing the topic with TG without name calling. How about you?

I will tell you this. You get it personally  when you initiate it personally. Stop whining and discuss the topic.

Sir John Argus has blasted me many times. So phacking what. Of course.  Its a bloody forum mate. Discuss the topic.

You have anything to contribute other than posing as a victim of Sir John Argus or myself? Lol.

TimG has been presenting the other side of the debate damn well. What do you want me to do, insult him because I don't agre
with some of his points?   I also take the points he and Wilbur made. Doesn't make either of them Satan worshippers.
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #170 on: November 22, 2018, 11:17:45 am »
So... yeah, about that great push for renewable energy and getting rid of the fossil fuel industry...
It doesn't seem to be working.

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

The WEO report, yet again, projects that global fossil fuel use — and related emissions — will grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture. But it is also struggles to put a positive spin on wind and solar. Solar had a “record-setting” year in 2017. The Chinese solar business is “booming.” New wind and solar additions “outpaced those of fossil fuels in 2017, driven by policy support and declining costs.

“Policy support” means subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As for declining costs, solar is at least twice as expensive a generator as coal and almost twice as expensive as gas.


https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-another-report-reluctantly-admits-that-green-energy-is-a-disastrous-flop

Meanwhile in Canada, home of virtue signalling.

There’s long been a view in Alberta that the Trudeau government is intentionally winding down Alberta’s oilsands, and ultimately the entire fossil fuel industry.

This belief has a basis in fact. Indeed, you could say it’s not a fake fact, but an honest-to-goodness fact fact.
It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself who said in January 2017: “We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

“That is going to take time. And, in the meantime, we have to manage that transition.”


https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/braid-liberal-no-oil-plan-for-alberta-is-working-just-a-little-early/wcm/3de8ad98-046c-462e-bcbf-35518d294ec9
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 11:20:45 am by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #171 on: November 22, 2018, 03:02:03 pm »
“Long been a view in Alberta”...  blah, blah....

First, Trudeau is 3 years into his 1st term ...  “long been the view”.   LOL.  Ok then.  It’s been the view in Alberta 3 days after the election!   Clearly they were going to think this regardless of the facts.  Trudeau could grab a shovel and start digging his own pipeline and Albertans would still think this. 

2nd, this gov’t has pushed the trans-Mountain expansion harder than the Harper gov’t.  They nationalized the pipeline!   Of course, that has no effect on Albertan’s long-held views...    ::)
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #172 on: November 22, 2018, 03:17:02 pm »
So... yeah, about that great push for renewable energy and getting rid of the fossil fuel industry...
It doesn't seem to be working.

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

The WEO report, yet again, projects that global fossil fuel use — and related emissions — will grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture. But it is also struggles to put a positive spin on wind and solar. Solar had a “record-setting” year in 2017. The Chinese solar business is “booming.” New wind and solar additions “outpaced those of fossil fuels in 2017, driven by policy support and declining costs.

“Policy support” means subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As for declining costs, solar is at least twice as expensive a generator as coal and almost twice as expensive as gas.


https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-another-report-reluctantly-admits-that-green-energy-is-a-disastrous-flop

Meanwhile in Canada, home of virtue signalling.

There’s long been a view in Alberta that the Trudeau government is intentionally winding down Alberta’s oilsands, and ultimately the entire fossil fuel industry.

This belief has a basis in fact. Indeed, you could say it’s not a fake fact, but an honest-to-goodness fact fact.
It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself who said in January 2017: “We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

“That is going to take time. And, in the meantime, we have to manage that transition.”


https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/braid-liberal-no-oil-plan-for-alberta-is-working-just-a-little-early/wcm/3de8ad98-046c-462e-bcbf-35518d294ec9

Sounds like the similar type of narrow minded thinking that arose after someone suggested and invented the horseless carriage.

In 1930, Alexander Winton, by then one of the legends of the auto industry, wrote this article for the Post about the wild early days when even promoting the idea of a self-propelling machine would make you the object of ridicule. Winton was a bicycle maker, and as he writes below, he soon became infatuated with the idea of a bicycle that “a rider wouldn’t have to push and keep pushing.” In 1896, he founded the Winton Motor Carriage company, and soon began turning out cars at the dizzying rate of four per year. He would sell his first car in 1897 — arguably the first automobile sold in the U.S. — for the princely sum of $1,000.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse-americas-skepticism-toward-first-automobiles/

Hey argus, what's your suggestion for when we run out of dinosaur bones, back to horses?
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #173 on: November 22, 2018, 04:47:54 pm »
Hey argus, what's your suggestion for when we run out of dinosaur bones, back to horses?

Well, according to the report the oil and gas industry will be expanding for the next 22 years (at least).
After that, we'll see where technology has gone, hmm? Maybe we'll be better at nuclear by then. Maybe we'll have nuclear fusion by then. Maybe we'll have better batteries by then. Who knows?
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

guest7

  • Guest
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #174 on: November 23, 2018, 09:48:56 am »
Hey argus, what's your suggestion for when we run out of dinosaur bones, back to horses?

The Japanese are working on the more difficult stuff.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181119-why-flammable-ice-could-be-the-future-of-energy

Honestly, you fantasists...
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #175 on: November 23, 2018, 03:14:13 pm »
So... yeah, about that great push for renewable energy and getting rid of the fossil fuel industry... It doesn't seem to be working.

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

Peter Foster - yet another from NP's/FP's stable of climate deniers! Nice parlor-trick in bundling all sectors... in particular, leveraging the transport sector to weasel out his (unsubstantiated) per cent figure.

From the IEA 2018 WEO:

Quote
The share of renewables in meeting global energy demand is expected to grow by one-fifth in the next five years to reach 12.4% in 2023.

Renewables will have the fastest growth in the electricity sector, providing almost 30% of power demand in 2023, up from 24% in 2017. During this period, renewables are forecast to meet more than 70% of global electricity generation growth, led by solar PV and followed by wind, hydropower, and bioenergy. Hydropower remains the largest renewable source, meeting 16% of global electricity demand by 2023, followed by wind (6%), solar PV (4%), and bioenergy (3%).

While growing more slowly than the power sector, the heat sector – which includes heating for buildings or industry – will account for the biggest overall share of renewables in meeting energy demand in 2023. Renewable heat consumption is expected to increase by 20% over the forecast period to reach a share of 12% of the heating sector demand by 2023. However, a modest increase in the share of renewable heat is foreseen, as robust growth in total heat demand is expected to result from continuous economic and population growth.

Renewables in transport have the lowest contribution of all three sectors, with their share growing only minimally from 3.4% in 2017 to 3.8% in 2023. Although they expand by almost one-fifth over the forecast period, renewables cover only a small portion of all energy demand in transport because of ongoing petroleum product consumption. Renewables in transport mostly comes from biofuels, and although renewable electricity consumption in road (such as electric cars, two- and- three wheelers, and buses) and rail transport modes increases 65% over the forecast period, this is from a low base.



Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #176 on: November 23, 2018, 03:51:12 pm »
Peter Foster - yet another from NP's/FP's stable of climate deniers! Nice parlor-trick in bundling all sectors... in particular, leveraging the transport sector to weasel out his (unsubstantiated) per cent figure.

From the IEA 2018 WEO:

Yes, well, it's still energy use, right? And I don't think we really count hydro electricity. It's renewable, but it's not what we're talking about. If we could eaisily introduce more hydro we'd do so instead of expensive and less reliable solar and wind power.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #177 on: November 23, 2018, 04:01:05 pm »
Yes, well, it's still energy use, right? And I don't think we really count hydro electricity. It's renewable, but it's not what we're talking about. If we could eaisily introduce more hydro we'd do so instead of expensive and less reliable solar and wind power.

Well Germany now produces slightly over half of it's daily electrical needs from solar power. There sun must be more reliable than ours.

guest7

  • Guest
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #178 on: November 23, 2018, 04:09:04 pm »
Well Germany now produces slightly over half of it's daily electrical needs from solar power. There sun must be more reliable than ours.

Last I heard they were cutting down a forest to build a coal mine.  It can't be that reliable.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #179 on: November 23, 2018, 04:13:10 pm »
Well Germany now produces slightly over half of it's daily electrical needs from solar power. There sun must be more reliable than ours.
A shell game only made possible because they maintain enough fossil fuel production capability to cover the gaps and force these fossil fuel plants to curtail production when renewable production is high (at great cost). This allows politicians to pretend that a large portion of power was produced by renewable when coal plants are really what keep the lights on.

If you look at TOTAL energy consumption wind and solar are less than 5% despite massive subsidies and preferential regulations: