human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, September 14, 2026 13:16
VIEWED: 61117
PAGE 4 of 12
Quote:When looking at a pollutant, calculations are usually made on the cost that the pollutant imposes on society v the cost of controlling the pollutant. It's my favorite way of deciding what to do: The risk - or cost- of "doing nothing: v the risk - or cost- of "doing something".
Originally posted by second:Quote:Based on a series of assumptions, the data showed that a Tesla Model 3 in the United States, for example, would need to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla. Lifetime vehicle miles traveled: 173,151.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like Argonne did the EV v gasoline breakeven point for me.
Tesla 3 v Toyota Corolla (33 mpg)
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-
emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
The beauty of a new green energy system, for a Capitalist, is that it is built right next to the old dirty energy system. Both systems are up and running and gouging all the customers by setting prices as high as the market will bear. The sci-fiction TV show The Expanse showed how that works with an air market. Everybody needs air in outer space and the air price goes up month after month so that the workers in outer space can never save money. The air company takes all their cash. Breathing air companies don't exist, yet, but green energy companies can do the same as oil and gas companies have done and the results will be just as beautiful as on The Expanse -- War in the asteroid belt against the owners (who live on Earth) of the breathing air companies. The Belters, as they are called on the Expanse, were dropping asteroids onto Earth to show their displeasure with the wonderful and profitable capitalist system. When the green energy system gets up and running, there will be many Earthers, just like Belters, who will be angry at the cost of energy, just as Belters were angry at the cost of air. Don't take deep breaths. It is too expensive.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Unfortunately, the cost of "doing nothing" about climate change is unreliable bc we're forced to speculate about alternate futures. Do we assume that oceans will be less productive? Or more productive? Or likely less productive for shellfish (ocean acifification) but more productive with jellyfish- a Japanese delicacy.
Some farmland will become less productive due to drought. OTOH northern farmland may become MORE productive if the growing season lengthens and rain shifts northwards.
Will storms become more extreme? If so, by how much? Will clathrates release gigatons of methane?
How do you attach a dollar cost to any of this? Do you use current commodity prices? Maybe nothing of the predicted negative side effects will occur, but something entirely beneficial and unlooked-for will happen.
The calculations are based on climate models which so far haven't been particuary good at predicting the past (feed the parameters in from 1960 and see whether your model reprduces observed climate trends over the next 50 years. With the best of intentions and supercomputers climate models haven't been very successful.)
Just to give an example of an unexpected kink, one would think that cool roofs - white epdm - couldn't POSSIBLY have a negative effect on anything. After all, they simply increase the albedo of city rooftops and reduce the heat dome AND indvdual bldg AC costs. But all that reflected sunlight exposes the overlying air to a double-dose of visible and ultraviolet light, and promotes formation of ozone at ground level.
That's why I prefer to look at the cost of control measure "A" v the cost of control measure "B",and the best you can do after that is try to get a qualitatve sense of secondary effects and whether they're net positive or negative.
Solar panels, if widely distributed, make ene
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since renewable energy production is variable, storage is essential. In the Fast Transition scenario we have allocated so much storage capacity using batteries and P2X** fuels that the entire global energy system could run for a month without any sun or wind (Document S1 section “Energy storage and flexibility requirements”). This is a sensible choice because both batteries and electrolyzers have highly favorable trends for cost and production (Document S1 sections “Batteries” and “Hydrogen and electrolyzers”). From 1995 to 2018 the production of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries increased at 30% per year, while costs dropped at 12% per year, giving an experience curve comparable to that of solar PV. Currently, about 60% of the cost of electrolytic hydrogen is electricity, and hydrogen is around 80% of the cost of ammonia, so these automatically take advantage of the high progress rates for solar PV and wind.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Solar panels, if widely distributed, make energy production more robust, especially if each bldg comes with a battery backup capable of supplying enough emergency power to bring the system back up the next sunny day (solar panels, ironically, need a source of electricity BEFORE they can start converting sunlight to electricity,) OTOH I wouldn't recommend it for northern USA. And at about 25 years the panels will become a significant e-waste problem, like lithium batteries are a problem today.
More at https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065
** Long-duration energy storage (LDES) and all hard-to-electrify applications are served by power-to-X (P2X) fuels, i.e., by using electricity for hydrogen electrolysis and either directly using hydrogen or using it to make other fuels such as ammonia and methane as needed.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
In the Fast Transition scenario we have allocated so much storage capacity using batteries and P2X** fuels that the entire global energy system could run for a month without any sun or wind.
You're dreaming.
In related news, I don't hear Nathan Fillion talking about Solar Freakin' Roadways anymore.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. While arguments for a rapid green transition cite benefits such as the avoidance of climate damages, reduced air pollution, and lower energy price volatility (Document S1 section “Additional benefits from the Fast Transition”), these benefits are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of the transition. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener, healthier, and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper. Updating expectations to better align with historical evidence could fundamentally change the debate about climate policy and dramatically accelerate progress to decarbonize energy systems around the world.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You're dreaming.
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, I don't know why you're so invested in these high-cost technologies. (Maybe bc you're - literally- invested? and maybe you see a gravy train of government money?)
If "market forces" are so favorable for green energy, why hasn't it taken over like yesterday already?
The breakeven point for EV is sooner than I thought, but still dependent on the fuel used to generate electricity, and on the specific models being compared. If coal is the primary fuel in a particular region, the breakeven point doesn't occur until 59,000 miles, IIRC. And don't forget that the typical EV battery only lasts 7 years (84,000 miles on avg), sometimes less.
Like I already posted, hydrogen power make sense for some applications (stationary source, semi-stationary source). I've got nothing intrinsically against it, but it doesn't work for everything. EV can be beneficial is areas where electricity comes from clean(er) sources, but it doesn't work for areas where coal is a large part of the energy mix, and it will probably require a grid upgrade. Distributed solar power ... on rooftops, carports, commercial buildings etc with battery backup is both rugged and environmentally friendly and doesn't require taking up large swaths of wildland, but it should be used in sunny locations and we will have to solve the e-waste problem sooner rather than later.
OTOH planting cover crops and urban trees costs (relatively speaking) virtually nothing and has no envirnmental downside that I know of. Limiting warmaking, ending production of gas guzzlers, and banning private jets costs less than nothing and has no environmental downside either. Forest management and environmental restoration has high labor costs, but low material costs, and if you're looking for a works program to employ those no longer making weapons that fills the bill.
Banning fertilizer is stupid. The crop that encourages over-fertilization most is corn, so stop using corn to make ethanol fuel already.
Somebody should pencil-whip ALL available options options in terms of
1) potential impact (how many million tons of CO2 removed/ prevented) and
2) dollar cost per ton of CO2
3) other probable benefits or costs
If the cost is low or - better yet- saves money, and it has multiple other benefits, why not implement it even if the potential impact is only moderate?
----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me make it simple for you. If America wanted zero CO2 added to the atmosphere and wanted to continue burning synthetic versions of natural gas and gasoline and jet fuel, it could be done, but there would have to be one big change. The carbon for these synthetic fuels would have to come from CO2 pulled from the atmosphere. That means no more wells drilled into the ground for crude and natural gas and no more coal mines and no more tar sand mining and no more burning wood. With that setup, everything stays exactly the same except for the source of the carbon in the fuel. Cars still run on gasoline. Homes are still heated by burning synthetic natural gas. Industry still has huge furnaces burning synthetic natural gas.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, I don't know why you're so invested in these high-cost technologies. (Maybe bc you're - literally- invested? and maybe you see a gravy train of government money?)
None of that has been done because it is easier to not think and just continue to automatically do what has been done for a hundred years: drill holes in the ground for crude and natural gas. The carbon will end up in the atmosphere. Dig up the ground for coal. The carbon in the coal goes into the atmosphere. Cut down forests for lumber and burn what is left. Again, carbon goes into the air.
If you never change anything about where the carbon comes from, nobody has to think carefully about what they are doing. Humanity has 300,000 years of not thinking carefully or not even thinking any deeper than wild animals do and the wild animals prospered for 66 million years since the last major extinction, didn't they? But there is a high likelihood of another major extinction if humanity won't think about what happens to carbon when fuel is burned.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You start with a wrong assumption/ false dilemma that we have to technologically pull carbon from the atmo.
Nature does a pretty good job by itself. If we trim our CO2 emissions and enhance the natural processes that absorb carbon we might reach equilibrium.
BTw, the idea of pulling CO2 from the atmo and turning it into fuel is energetically like pushing a boulder up a hill. The reason why we burn fuel is because oxidation releases energy. You have to use more energy than was released in order to stuff those molecules back together. Where does the energy come from?
Solar?
Wind?
If you're going to harvest that energy then why not use it to make electricity directly? Bc otherwise you lose energy with every conversion.
Unless you're using it for storage, since batteries aren't up to snuff yet. But there are also a lot of potentially more efficient ways to store excess energy, including pumping water uphill for hydro power later, or flywheels. In fact, the flywheel idea is already built into the energy sector's idea of "spinning reserve", since even unpowered turbines still spin and generate electricity.
Again, I have nothing against generating hydrogen (for example) from solar-powered hydrolysis of water, or coal gassification with water, or a methanol economy. (excpet burning methanol creates formaldehyde, so there would have to be controls on that).
My point is that ALL of the options need to be considered because there is NO "one size fits all" answer. You (and the authors you cite) keep polishing one single idea. It may be a good one, but there may be far more effective/less costly ones out there.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's nice, but Capitalism cannot consider all the options to solve excessive CO2 in the air because Capitalism is about making money, not solving problems. The government will have to pick one or more options and then PAY CAPITALISTS to implement them and the government must oversee the Capitalists so that they don't cheat in order to get paid without doing the actual work. If the government is the one in DC, it cannot pick a solution. It can't make up its mind because it is fragmented into hundreds of pieces, each Congressman is unable to join a 2/3rds majority necessary to get a significant decision made AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT DECISION FOR DECADES. Congress is not designed to make complicated decisions. The Presidency can make complicated decisions (see WWII or the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Mission to the Moon or the Interstate Highway system) but Presidents come and go and when a new one arrives, their predecessor's decisions get tossed into the garbage can. That is not conducive to solving problems that take decades to finish.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My point is that ALL of the options need to be considered because there is NO "one size fits all" answer. You (and the authors you cite) keep polishing one single idea. It may be a good one, but there may be far more effective/less costly ones out there.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's nice, but Capitalism cannot consider all the options to solve excessive CO2 in the air because Capitalism is about making money, not solving problems. The government will have to pick one or more options and then PAY CAPITALISTS to implement them and the government must oversee the Capitalists so that they don't cheat in order to get paid without doing the actual work. If the government is the one in DC, it cannot pick a solution. It can't make up its mind because it is fragmented into hundreds of pieces, each Congressman is unable to join a 2/3rds majority necessary to get a significant decision made AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT DECISION FOR DECADES. Congress is not designed to make complicated decisions. The Presidency can make complicated decisions (see WWII or the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Mission to the Moon or the Interstate Highway system) but Presidents come and go and when a new one arrives, their predecessor's decisions get tossed into the garbage can. That is not conducive to solving problems that take decades to finish.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My point is that ALL of the options need to be considered because there is NO "one size fits all" answer. You (and the authors you cite) keep polishing one single idea. It may be a good one, but there may be far more effective/less costly ones out there.
Now if you pick a solution that Capitalists love, it doesn't matter that Presidents come and go or that Congress is full of flighty, foolish dilettantes. The Capitalists will drive the project to completion because it makes them rich. This brings everything back to this quote: The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. While arguments for a rapid green transition cite benefits such as the avoidance of climate damages, reduced air pollution, and lower energy price volatility (Document S1 section “Additional benefits from the Fast Transition”), these benefits are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of the transition. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener, healthier, and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper. Updating expectations to better align with historical evidence could fundamentally change the debate about climate policy and dramatically accelerate progress to decarbonize energy systems around the world.
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?
What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)
It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here is an example of a new fuel instead of trying to build an electric motor-driven jet plane or jet engine burning hydrogen. If the Federal government required airlines to buy this fuel, the Capitalists could get rich manufacturing the fuel. The Capitalists would be racing one another to see who gets the richest quickest. As an unintended side-effect, the price of this special fuel would get cheaper and cheaper per gallon as different Capitalists tried out different processes to manufacture the fuel. Capitalists hate cheaper but too bad for them. The engineers will be racing for cheaper and cheaper as their Capitalistic masters are racing for more and more wealth.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?
What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)
It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner
Clean jet fuel could take off with new climate law
BY: AMY HARDER SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
The U.S. government is for the first time in history singling out and subsidizing cleaner aviation fuel.
Such a move is poised to help clean up one of the most high-profile ways our society contributes to climate change—and one of the most difficult given the sheer dynamics required to keep planes in the sky.
With nearly $370 billion flowing from the federal spigots, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last month supercharges existing tax credits and gives first-ever subsidies to a range of technologies considered essential in helping the U.S. reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Included in that first-ever bucket is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF embodies not one thing but a range of liquid fuels produced from various raw materials through different technologies. The fuel is capable of directly replacing or mixing with traditional fossil-fuel-based jet fuel.
Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, but its impact could be more than 1.5 times that figure given the warming effect of contrails (those innocuous-looking white cloud lines that form at the end of planes), according to 2021 scientific research.
The tax credit applies for about half as long as earlier proposals, but it's nonetheless notable because SAF didn’t get any support from the infrastructure law passed last year, which poured more than $100 billion into a range of other climate technologies.
“The biggest stumbling block is economics,” said Graham Noyes, executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, a group representing a broad cross-section of companies that are somehow involved in the pursuit of low-carbon fuels, including SAF.
“Even though it’s not the 10 years we would have liked to have seen, having five years of the credit will be an enormous boost,” Noyes told Cipher. “It will allow the industry to begin to scale up and deploy new feedstocks and technologies at scale.”
Indeed, like many clean energy technologies, the core challenge for SAF is that it’s simply too expensive compared to its dirtier, fossil fuel counterpart.
The new subsidy may reduce costs for SAF to a point where it would be roughly equal to fossil fuel jet prices, though a wide range exists depending on costs of technology, production and other variables, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. (See chart below).
https://go.breakthroughenergy.org/social/c410003ef13d451727aeff9082c29
a5c.510
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This will all be moot soon.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I already made that point. Congress has hundreds of egotistical drama queens, most of whom don't actually have any ideas in their heads about climate change (but they try very hard to conceal their vast ignorance with far too much talking) which is why Congress can't actually get much done on that subject. You don't get elected by appealing to the most knowledgeable voters in your state. You get elected by appealing to stubborn know-nothings. That's why Congress is what it is. (The situation is not hopeless because the Congressional staff has more knowledge and expertise than their bosses on the Democratic side. On the Republican side? From my experience with the staff of Republicans, the staff is dumber and more stubborn than their bosses. Why? I don't know. Maybe hiring of the donors' favorites?)
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will all be moot soon.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So basically the govt is funding a fuel which may never come to light and there are a dozen speculators at the end of the money pipeline with their mouths wide open ready to swallow up govt largesse.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Here is an example of a new fuel instead of trying to build an electric motor-driven jet plane or jet engine burning hydrogen. If the Federal government required airlines to buy this fuel, the Capitalists could get rich manufacturing the fuel. The Capitalists would be racing one another to see who gets the richest quickest. As an unintended side-effect, the price of this special fuel would get cheaper and cheaper per gallon as different Capitalists tried out different processes to manufacture the fuel. Capitalists hate cheaper but too bad for them. The engineers will be racing for cheaper and cheaper as their Capitalistic masters are racing for more and more wealth.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?
What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)
It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner
Clean jet fuel could take off with new climate law
BY: AMY HARDER SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
The U.S. government is for the first time in history singling out and subsidizing cleaner aviation fuel.
Such a move is poised to help clean up one of the most high-profile ways our society contributes to climate change—and one of the most difficult given the sheer dynamics required to keep planes in the sky.
With nearly $370 billion flowing from the federal spigots, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last month supercharges existing tax credits and gives first-ever subsidies to a range of technologies considered essential in helping the U.S. reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Included in that first-ever bucket is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF embodies not one thing but a range of liquid fuels produced from various raw materials through different technologies. The fuel is capable of directly replacing or mixing with traditional fossil-fuel-based jet fuel.
Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, but its impact could be more than 1.5 times that figure given the warming effect of contrails (those innocuous-looking white cloud lines that form at the end of planes), according to 2021 scientific research.
The tax credit applies for about half as long as earlier proposals, but it's nonetheless notable because SAF didn’t get any support from the infrastructure law passed last year, which poured more than $100 billion into a range of other climate technologies.
“The biggest stumbling block is economics,” said Graham Noyes, executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, a group representing a broad cross-section of companies that are somehow involved in the pursuit of low-carbon fuels, including SAF.
“Even though it’s not the 10 years we would have liked to have seen, having five years of the credit will be an enormous boost,” Noyes told Cipher. “It will allow the industry to begin to scale up and deploy new feedstocks and technologies at scale.”
Indeed, like many clean energy technologies, the core challenge for SAF is that it’s simply too expensive compared to its dirtier, fossil fuel counterpart.
The new subsidy may reduce costs for SAF to a point where it would be roughly equal to fossil fuel jet prices, though a wide range exists depending on costs of technology, production and other variables, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. (See chart below).
https://go.breakthroughenergy.org/social/c410003ef13d451727aeff9082c29
a5c.510
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
That's not capitalism.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I assume you never read "Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances That Stem From Federal Research Support"
Originally posted by SignyM:
So basically the govt is funding a fuel which may never come to light and there are a dozen speculators at the end of the money pipeline with their mouths wide open ready to swallow up govt largesse.
That's not capitalism.
https://www2.itif.org/2014-federally-supported-innovations.pdf
There are not any Bell Labs inventing these ideas because AT&T stopped generously funding research once pure Capitalists took over the company.
Federal R&D funding: the bedrock of national innovation
https://sciencepolicyreview.org/2020/08/federal-rd-funding-the-bedrock
-of-national-innovation/
Article Summary
The U.S. government’s financial commitment to scientific research has significantly declined in the past few decades. Recent research has also revealed a lack of public awareness of the importance of federal research and development (R&D) funding; only one in four Americans believe that the government’s role in science is indispensable. In this paper, we argue that federal funding provides the bedrock for the U.S.’s innovation infrastructure while guiding the national research agenda to benefit society.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.
Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".
That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where did you get your ideas about how Capitalism works? It is as mindless as some blind fish at the bottom of the deepest ocean sucking up decaying food falling from the surface. But in Capitalism's case, it is money it sucks up. If government doesn't give Capitalism a direction and a higher purpose, humanity gets exactly what it is now getting from Capitalism: a huge waste stream of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Capitalism can dispose of its own wastes, but that requires the government to spend money and enforce regulations on carbon dioxide. The choice is up to the government of how much money and what regulations. The Capitalists are NOT thinking ahead about climate change or anything except money. If the government won't think ahead, expecting Capitalists to altruistically save the world from climate change, we are dead.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.
Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".
That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where did you get your ideas about how Capitalism works?
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.
Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".
That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.
I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, I'm refering to the defintion of itself.
There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if they could be used interchangeably.
So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Lawyers and philosophers write like you do as if nothing can be accomplished until a definition of each word is hammered into shape and agreed upon by all involved. That's why there has never been a lawyer or philosopher who changed the physical world as much as the most mediocre Engineer. Engineers DO NOT engage with the world as if words go first and physics/chemistry/metal/concrete trails far behind and the last thing to think about.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, it's the defintion of capitalism itself.
It's like the difference between the defintion of Catholic Church and how the Ctholic Chruch works. The definition of the Catholic Church, strictly speaking, is the Christian religion (ie one that believes in Christ as god) headed by a Pope in Rome. How it actually works is a different story.
You can't just use a word any way you want. If you say "hat" when the definition is "oatmeal", I won't know what you're trying to communicate.
There had to be a an agreed-on definition otherwise communication is impossible.
There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if there weren't any distinctions and you could just use words interchangeably.
So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, engineers, chemists, etc think in words FIRST, and these words have extremely specific definitions. LEARNING the physical sciences involves learning the words and concepts that go with them: what is a cell? What is DNA? what is an alcohol, an amine? what is heat? what is a lever? what is current? Voltage?
Originally posted by second:Quote:Lawyers and philosophers write like you do as if nothing can be accomplished until a definition of each word is hammered into shape and agreed upon by all involved. That's why there has never been a lawyer or philosopher who changed the physical world as much as the most mediocre Engineer. Engineers DO NOT engage with the world as if words go first and physics/chemistry/metal/concrete trails far behind and the last thing to think about.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, it's the defintion of capitalism itself.
It's like the difference between the defintion of Catholic Church and how the Ctholic Chruch works. The definition of the Catholic Church, strictly speaking, is the Christian religion (ie one that believes in Christ as god) headed by a Pope in Rome. How it actually works is a different story.
You can't just use a word any way you want. If you say "hat" when the definition is "oatmeal", I won't know what you're trying to communicate.
There had to be a an agreed-on definition otherwise communication is impossible.
There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if there weren't any distinctions and you could just use words interchangeably.
So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
And, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't change the world? and laws... the're just words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements and subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?
WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)
People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't understand and haven't even defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... capitalism, communism ... they don't know where the defintion begins and where it ends.
So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are far too impressed with vocabulary, just as every lawyer I have known and every philosopher I have read is impressed with what they do best, which is talk and write. The lawyers and philosophers denigrate as inferior what they are worst at, which are all the things engineers do for a living.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't chnage the world? and laws... the're jus words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements an subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?
You can't transmit communicate discoveries and knowledge to others for them to build on unless you can attach a name to it. WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)
People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't nderstand and haven'teven defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... they don'y know where the defintion begins and where it ends.
So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
If legislatures want to solve the excess CO2 problem in the atmosphere (and I doubt legislatures do want a solution because it will cost money, just as sewage treatment plants cost money) the legislatures should hire some engineers to write the legislation and rules in a way that engineers can understand what the legislature wants.
By the way, somebody had to pay for the engineers and their construction projects. If nobody pays, CO2 will rise and rise until it kills all.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A more relevant topic:
Quote:that is, CARBON...
Cover Crops
Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.
These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matter
Quote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.
https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's lovely and utopian when one farmer out of a thousand does this, but if the other 999 farmers do NOT, CO2 will keep rising until it kills all. If you think most farmers will voluntarily do right, you will be wrong.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A more relevant topic:Quote:that is, CARBON...
Cover Crops
Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.
These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matterQuote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.
https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I'm not either of them. But as a retired chemist, I understand that the words that I used to make my living were all important and tightly defined.
by SIGNYM:
So, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't chnage the world? and laws... the're jus words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements an subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?
You can't transmit communicate discoveries and knowledge to others for them to build on unless you can attach a name to it. WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)
People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't nderstand and haven'teven defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... they don'y know where the defintion begins and where it ends.
So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
SECOND :You are far too impressed with vocabulary, just as every lawyer I have known and every philosopher I have read is impressed with what they do best,
So we didn't use the word "mass" when we wanted to say "density", or "liquid" when we needed to say "fluid", or "alcohol" when the word we were looking for was "amine".
And I bet when you were an engineer you didn't use "power" when you meant "temperature" and "exchange" when you meant "pressure".
You're far too careless with words you don't understand bc you don't respect the concepts behind them. So why should I bother to read what you write?
Oh yeah, that's right ... I rarely do.
Maybe if you were more disciplined with your definitions you'd make more sense, not just to us but to yourself as well.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage tthe practice.
Originally posted by second:Quote:That's lovely and utopian when one farmer out of a thousand does this, but if the other 999 farmers do NOT, CO2 will keep rising until it kills all. If you think most farmers will voluntarily do right, you will be wrong.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A more relevant topic:Quote:that is, CARBON...
Cover Crops
Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.
These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matterQuote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.
https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The clean jet fuel problem can be "solved" by shutting down aviation in the USA. See how easily the CO2 emissions could go to zero with just the passage of one law?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage the practice.
You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
Farmers' problems can be solved by Americans fasting until CO2 drops to safe levels. Agricultural subsidies will let farmers' fields lay fallow for a few years while absorbing CO2. Plow the crops under to increase carbon in the soil. If the crops are harvested, the food will become more CO2 after people digest the food. Instead, America can import food from Canada and Mexico. It is the perfect solution to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Alternatively, high-tech solutions to excessive CO2 exist that don't require hundreds of millions of Americans to change how they live. These solutions allow aviation to continue in the United States without inventing hydrogen-burning jet engines or electric motors to turn airplane propellers. And millions of farmworkers can continue to farm however incompetently they please without ever learning new techniques. Almost forgot that the high-tech solutions also allow Americans to get fat eating like gluttons.
https://www.google.com/search?q=agricultural+subsidies
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The clean jet fuel problem can be "solved" by shutting down aviation in the USA. See how easily the CO2 emissions could go to zero with just the passage of one law?
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage the practice.
You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
Farmers' problems can be solved by Americans fasting until CO2 drops to safe levels. Agricultural subsidies will let farmers' fields lay fallow for a few years while absorbing CO2. Plow the crops under to increase carbon in the soil. If the crops are harvested, the food will become more CO2 after people digest the food. Instead, America can import food from Canada and Mexico. It is the perfect solution to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Alternatively, high-tech solutions to excessive CO2 exist that don't require hundreds of millions of Americans to change how they live.
Cover crops don't require anyone to change how they live, either. EVs would require more change than methane powered vehicles, bc people have to worry about range, charging stations, and changing out a $12,000 battery every 5-7 years. And, yanno, MOST people don't fly regularly. I think the thing YOU'RE worried about is your ginormous fancy truck and your private jet.
I've spent way too much time on you. So why don't you ponder the definition of capitalism for a while?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fossil Fuel Industry Seeks to Expand Free Speech for Corporations and Limit It for Citizens
by Amy Westervelt / September 16, 2022 at 12:41PM
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/16/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-free-
speech/
Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Katie Porter, D-Calif., probably didn’t plan for their committee hearings to run at the exact same time this week, but the hearings sure were talking to each other.
In her Committee on Natural Resources hearing, Porter highlighted the role PR firms play in blocking climate policy. Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, and his selected witness, Amy Cooke, CEO of the conservative John Locke Foundation, expressed concern that preventing companies and their hired PR firms from spreading misinformation about climate change would have a chilling effect on free speech.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, chaired by Raskin, focused on free speech attacks against environmentalists, digging into the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to curb citizens’ speech rights via strategic litigation and laws that criminalize protest. Taken together, the two are a perfect illustration of the industry’s First Amendment strategy: expand free speech for corporations, curb it for citizens.
Raskin’s free speech hearing focused on two key tactics: the increased filing of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs — defamation suits aimed at penalizing citizens or citizen groups for exercising their First Amendment rights — and the proliferation of so-called critical infrastructure bills, which pile on fines and criminal sentences for those caught trespassing or vandalizing near pipelines, power plants, railroads, or other infrastructure. These anti-protest bills were a direct industry backlash to the Standing Rock protests in 2016 and 2017. Starting with a law passed in Oklahoma in 2017, they proliferated with the help of the industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts and disseminates pro-corporate model legislation for adoption by state governments. Seventeen states now have critical infrastructure laws on the books, with several more considering proposals.
“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin,” said Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel for Greenpeace and a witness at Raskin’s hearing. “They’re tactics used by the same corporate actors to quash dissent. They’re pushing legislation to silence us, to criminalize our critiques through anti-protest bills. And they’re also filing SLAPP suits to silence dissent.”
Greenpeace has dealt with both. Greenpeace USA activists were arrested in 2019 under Texas’s felony critical infrastructure law for unfurling banners on a bridge, which temporarily blocked shipping. The goal of the action was to highlight the connection between the oil industry and climate change.
Greenpeace is engaged in active litigation in a couple of SLAPP suits too. In one, Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued the organization for its role in the Standing Rock protests. The suit was initially filed in federal court and invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, a law designed to prosecute organized crime. “Energy Transfer was alleging that our advocacy work to uplift Indigenous voices at Standing Rock constituted organized crime,” Padmanabha said.
Because RICO allows for damages to be tripled if a defendant is found guilty, Greenpeace faced a $1 billion fine. Losing that suit would have had a truly chilling effect on free speech. A federal judge threw out the case, but Energy Transfer filed again in North Dakota (minus the RICO charge), a state that doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law on the books.
“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin.”
Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants a quick way to get SLAPP suits dismissed, minimizing the time and money spent on meritless cases. Currently, 31 states and the District of Columbia ha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe I should check your claim? You will not be replacing a battery if Tesla is an example:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Cover crops don't require anyone to change how they live, either. EVs would require more change than methane powered vehicles, bc people have to worry about range, charging stations, and changing out a $12,000 battery every 5-7 years. And, yanno, MOST people don't fly regularly. I think the thing YOU'RE worried about is your ginormous fancy truck and your private jet.
I've spent way too much time on you. So why don't you ponder the definition of capitalism for a while?
Quote:https://www.howtogeek.com/830513/how-much-does-it-cost-to-replace-a-te
Tesla will even cover the battery replacement cost if charge capacity falls below 70% during the warranty period—something that’s also very rare. EV batteries tend to retain most of their charge capacity even hundreds of thousands of miles into their lifespan.
In fact, Tesla claims their EVs can retain 90% of their charge capacity even 200,000 miles in. Data from UK research firm NimbleFins seems to back that claim up—the company studied over 500 models, with those at the 150,000-mile mark retaining 90% charge capacity and those over 200,000 still holding about 80% capacity.
sla-battery/
This is going completely beyond what you can understand, but the dumping of hundreds of gigatonness of CO2 required a major industrial effort over more than two hundred years. That dumping will not be undone by a million farmers, or even all farmers, planting cover crops to withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere. It will require another major industrial effort to reduce CO2.
As of 2018, CO2 constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) which corresponds to approximately 3210 gigatonnes of CO2. Since there are 8 giga-humans, that is a lot of tonnes of CO2 per human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regenerative grazing
Cattle Farmer Says New Livestock Grazing Method Could Save Grasslands, Reverse Desertification
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cattle-farmer-says-new-livestock-grazing
-method-could-save-grasslands-reverse-desertification_4733016.html
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your statistic for CO2 in the air is flawed, SECOND. There was CO2 in the air BEFORE industrialization. if you plan on stripping the air entirely of CO2 you'll kill all plant life.
The previous non-industrial concentration of CO2 in the air was about 250 ppm. For simplicity slightly more than half of today's amount, but cut your figure in half and it'll be close enough.
*****
According to this study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70224-6
and this statistic
https://www.statista.com/statistics/196104/total-area-of-land-in-farms
-in-the-us-since-2000/
and using the highest measurement of soil carbon sequestration, cover crops in the USA alone have the potential to store 8 gigatons of carbon, or 26 gigatons of equivalent CO2, in the soil.
Not all studies show such great success so cover crop practices need to be optimized.
But multiply half of that that by the amount of land across the globe currently under cultivation and the potential is significant. When combined with better forest management, better grazing practices, conservation, green energy, better land use planning, and technological improvements this should be a solvable problem.
Nobody is dismissing techno fixes, but some of them are too far in the future (hydrogen cars) and they're not the ONLY solution. ALL options should be on the table.
I think I've said that three or four times by now, but apparently it hasn't sunk into your brain yet.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As far as I can tell, the world had 40 years to handle this CO2 waste problem and work out all the kinks but didn't do the work. Well, a few people did the work because free energy from wind and sun could make them very rich, but most people did not get involved, other than buying electricity from the people who were getting rich.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
using the lowest measurement of soil carbon sequestration, cover crops in the USA alone have the potential to store 4 gigatons of carbon, or 13 gigatons of equivalent CO2, in the soil.
Not all studies show such great success. Multiply that by the amount of land across the globe currently under cultivation and the potential is significant. When combined with better forest management, better grazing practices, conservation, green energy, and technological improvements this should be a solvable problem
Nobody is dismissing techno fixes, but they're not the ONLY solution. ALL options should be on the table.
I think I've said that three or four times by now, but apparently it hasn't sunk into your brain yet.
Maybe next month most of humanity will get its large and very lazy ass in gear by NOT buying fossil fuel. Or maybe next year. Or the year after that. But probably most won't change how they do anything and would much rather burn fossil fuel than try something new. But I do know those good old ways of doing things will dump 35 gigatonnes per year into the atmosphere because that is the easiest, dumbest thing to do since any dopey fool can understand fire, humanity's oldest technology from 1,000,000 years ago. Until I checked just now, I was thinking cooking fires were discovered 300,000 years ago. How swiftly time flies when you are inventing advanced technology. Tonight is steak night cooked on an electric grill powered by a windmill in the Texas Panhandle. Your average caveman can't match that for their cooking fire.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Human Ancestors Tamed Fire Earlier Than Thought
https://www.history.com/news/human-ancestors-tamed-fire-earlier-than-t
hought
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, who's supposed to be saving the day, SIX? "Capitalism" (as you call it) and "capitalists" who got u into this mess in the first place?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
using the lowest measurement of soil carbon sequestration, cover crops in the USA alone have the potential to store 4 gigatons of carbon, or 13 gigatons of equivalent CO2, in the soil.
Not all studies show such great success. Multiply that by the amount of land across the globe currently under cultivation and the potential is significant. When combined with better forest management, better grazing practices, conservation, green energy, and technological improvements this should be a solvable problem
Nobody is dismissing techno fixes, but they're not the ONLY solution. ALL options should be on the table.
I think I've said that three or four times by now, but apparently it hasn't sunk into your brain yet.
SECOND: As far as I can tell, the world had 40 years to handle this CO2 waste problem and work out all the kinks but didn't do the work. Well, a few people did the work because free energy from wind and sun could make them very rich, but most people did not get involved, other than buying electricity from the people who were getting rich.
Yanno, greedy people make the MOST money by flogging old infrastructure bc no new investment is needed. THAT'S YOUR VERSION OF CAPITALISM, INNIT? Grab the most money that you can as fast as you can without regard for anybody or anything?
Quote:You despise "humanity" but it's not "humanity" setting up the rules of the game, is it?
SECOND:Maybe next month most of humanity will get its large and very lazy ass in gear by NOT buying fossil fuel.
Is the subsistence farmer hoeing her field in Africa or hand-gathering wheat in northern India lazy, fat? Is the sheepherder in N Africa or the family farmer in Haiti or the illegal cobalt miner in the Congo to blame?
The poorer someone is, the shorter their view of the future. Sometimes it's as short as the next rainfall, the next harvest and, in the extreme, the next meal or the next sip of water.
Only people who have their basic needs met have the luxury of worrying about the future of their children. But under CAPITALISM (as you call it) those that have freedom of action can't have the luxury of conscience, lest they be eaten by those less principled than themselves.
So let's turn our attention to those who are truly to blame.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
New device pulls water from air to make H2
The system can harvest water from low humidity air and use solar power to drive electrolysis
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/New-device-pulls-water
-air/100/web/2022/09
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Old Capitalists won't switch to new tech unless the fuel for the new tech is cheaper, climate change be damned. At long last, H2 fuel might be cheaper than diesel fuel, overcoming at least one of many prejudices held by old Capitalists who own the trucking industry:
Canada-based Loop Energy unveiled its new hydrogen fuel cell at the IAA Transportation 2022 conference in Germany this week, saying it marks “a milestone” for the transport industry’s transition to clean energies.
At current fuel price levels, a commercial truck equipped with the S1200 hydrogen fuel cell could travel 179km (111 miles) with $100 worth of fuel, compared to 175km for a diesel truck with the same amount of fuel.
Several leading vehicle makers have invested heavily in the technology for use in freight trucks, as they seek to transition to zero-emission transport.
Alternative battery technologies are currently seen as too heavy for medium- to heavy-duty commercial vehicles, though automakers like Tesla have built fully battery-powered trucks.
By making it a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels, the new system developed by Loop Energy overcomes one of the main challenges to mass adoption of hydrogen fuel cell technology.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hydrogen-fuel-cell-breakthro
ugh-is-more-efficient-than-diesel-engines/ar-AA125g2u
Special note for Signym: If diesel fuel becomes less expensive than H2 in the future, old Capitalists would switch back, once again, to diesel engines for their newest trucks. Assuming that H2 became more common than diesel, diesel fuel refineries would drop the price to hold onto customers, climate change be damned. This is how Capitalism works, Signym. External costs like destroying the world do NOT figure into a Capitalist's calculations, unless the Capitalist is forced by government to change fuels, regardless of fuel prices. Capitalists always whine about going bankrupt unless the government allows the Capitalist to choose the cheapest way, be it fuel or wages or safety. This is why truck drivers' wages are under downward pressure (unless there is a driver's union) and why trucking companies cut corners on safety (unless there are police stopping trucks that are not being maintained).
Loop Energy’s zero-emission solution for the heavy-duty transportation sector.
https://loopenergy.com/s1200/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Climate change threatens up to 100% of trees in Australian cities, and most urban species worldwide
Study published in Nature Climate Change found climate change will put 90-100% of the trees and shrubs planted in Australian capital cities at risk by 2050. Without action, two-thirds of trees and shrubs in cities worldwide will be at potential risk from climate change.
We have also identified steps people can take to help their local trees survive, thrive and keep on cooling.
https://attentiontotheunseen.com/2022/09/20/climate-change-threatens-u
p-to-100-of-trees-in-australian-cities-and-most-urban-species-worldwide/
Climate change threatens the health and survival of urban trees and the various benefits they deliver to urban inhabitants. Here, we show that 56% and 65% of species in 164 cities across 78 countries are currently exceeding temperature and precipitation conditions experienced in their geographic range, respectively. We assessed 3,129 tree and shrub species, using three metrics related to climate vulnerability: exposure, safety margin and risk. By 2050 under Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0, 2,387 (76%) and 2,220 (70%) species will be at risk from projected changes in mean annual temperature and annual precipitation, respectively. Risk is predicted to be greatest in cities at low latitudes—such as New Delhi and Singapore—where all urban tree species are vulnerable to climate change. These findings aid the evaluation of the impacts of climate change to secure long-term benefits provided by urban forests.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01465-8
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exclusive: Shell plans $1.48B Bio-refinery in Louisiana as Part of Transition away from Fossil Fuels
The plan is the first in a series of projects Shell is considering at its chemicals facilities along the Gulf Coast to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels. The regional spending plan, which is still in flux, could cost as much as $10 billion.
The company is also considering new projects at facilities in Deer Park, east of Houston, and Geismar and Norco in Lousiana to help the company reduce emissions and provide reduced-carbon products and chemicals needed to advance the energy transition.
Shell is prioritizing projects in the region based on the low-carbon products that are most in demand, Lewis said, which now include biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel. Shell is one of the main suppliers of traditional aviation fuel, so it has strong relationships with airlines.
https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/exclusive-shell-plans-1-48b-bio-refin
ery-in-louisiana-as-part-of-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
New device pulls water from air to make H2
The system can harvest water from low humidity air and use solar power to drive electrolysis
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/New-device-pulls-water
-air/100/web/2022/09
I'll believe this one when I see it. I've been hearing about these magic water getters for years now. Every one of them have been lucrative scams run on kickstarter platforms. Don't donate any money if they're asking for donations at least until there is irrefutable proof that they have a working prototype.
Honestly, it drives me crazy how many people have reinvented the dehumidifier, put a solar panel on it, and the media has danced around like they've just saved the world! ~Thunderf00t
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can we make air travel "green"? Yes, but "green" liquid fuel is more expensive than fuel made from crude oil.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As the US Department of Energy (DoE) continues to look for ways to improve molten salt nuclear reactors (MSRs), a team from Brigham Young University in Utah has designed one it says can fit safely in the bed of a 40-foot truck.
The molten salt micro-nuclear reactor, which will be built by Professor Matthew Memmott and his team, has a chamber that measures just four by seven feet (1.2 x 2.1 metres), has no risk of a meltdown, and can produce enough energy to power 1,000 homes, the university said. Prof Memmott separately told The Register the reactor's output should be around 10MWe.
"For the last 60 years, people have had the gut reaction that nuclear is bad, it's big, it's dangerous," the professor said. "Those perceptions are based on potential issues for generation one, but having the molten salt reactor is the equivalent of having a silicon chip. We can have smaller, safer, cheaper reactors and get rid of those problems."
Unlike traditional light-water reactors, which typically store uranium fuel in solid rods that have to be kept cool with liquid water to avoid a meltdown, MSRs instead dissolve fissile material into a molten salt that also acts as the reactor's primary coolant. Treating the fuel and primary coolant as one, and not relying on keeping water coolant flowing and below boiling point, is seen as one safety advantage, among others, for MSRs.
In a typical MSR, the primary fuel salt, with its high melting point of 1022°F (550°C), moves through the reactor and transfers its heat to non-radioactive secondary coolant salt, which can pass on its heat to other things, such as traditional steam-turbine-driven electricity generators.
According to Prof Memmott, nuclear power, and molten salt in particular, is an ideal solution to the world's current energy conundrum because it is safe and stable, the core reaction doesn't produce carbon emissions, and it generates valuable elements accessible for reprocessing after the reaction is complete.
According to his university, the waste generated by an MSR reactor would allow companies to extract Molybdenum-99, an expensive element used in medical imaging; Cobalt-60; gold; platinum; neodymium; and other elements that could be sold for other applications.
Additionally, Prof Memmott said his team were able to pull oxygen and hydrogen from the salts as well. "Through this process, we can make the salt fully clean again and reuse it. We can recycle the salt indefinitely," he said.
Have we entered a molten salt renaissance?
Molten salt reactors were developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and were billed as an alternative to light-water reactors due to their touted smaller size and improved safety. The designs at the time ultimately proved unusable for their original purposes. The Dept of Energy lately launched a $9.25 million study led by Los Alamos National Laboratory to address MSR shortcomings and determine what's needed to make them practical.
During last century's MSR experiments, Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that fluoride salts were incredibly corrosive to metals and other materials used to build reactors – even for a specialized alloy built in the lab to reduce corrosion at high temperatures.
While the DoE is still investigating ways to get around these showstopping corrosion issues, Prof Memmott said that his team, along with Alpha Tech Research Corp (the commercializing partner for the BYU MSR, and of which Memmott is director and senior technical advisor), believe they have solved the problem by removing water and oxygen from the salt, massively reducing the corrosion issue.
The Department of Energy, incidentally, gave Prof Memmott and two other Brigham Young University (BYU) engineering professors, Stella Nickerson and Troy Munro nearly $800,000 in grants in 2019 to determine the physical properties of molten salt.
That particular study was funded by the DoE's Nuclear Energy University Program. The team looked into the density, viscosity, heat
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GMC's new Hummer costs $90,000 and takes 4 days to charge.
SCAM.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Animal populations shrunk an average of 69% over the last half-century, a report says
October 14, 2022
That's the upshot of a new report from the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, which analyzed years of data on thousands of wildlife populations across the world and found a downward trend in the Earth's biodiversity.
According to the Living Planet Index, a metric that's been in existence for five decades, animal populations across the world shrunk by an average of 69% between 1970 and 2018.
Not all animal populations dwindled, and some parts of the world saw more drastic changes than others. But experts say the steep loss of biodiversity is a stark and worrying sign of what's to come for the natural world.
"The message is clear and the lights are flashing red," said WWF International Director General Marco Lambertini.
According to the report's authors, the main cause of biodiversity loss is land-use changes driven by human activity, such as infrastructure development, energy production and deforestation.
Climate change may become the leading cause of biodiversity loss
But the report suggests that climate change — which is already unleashing wide-ranging effects on plant and animal species globally — could become the leading cause of biodiversity loss if rising temperatures aren't limited to 1.5°C.
Lambertini said the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are already responsible for a raft of problems for humans, including death and displacement from extreme weather, a lack of access to food and water and a spike in the spread of zoonotic diseases.
He said world leaders gathering at the U.N. Biodiversity Conference in Montreal in December should take major steps to reverse environmental damage.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/14/1128858953/animal-populations-are-shrin
king-drastically
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/in_overheated_ec
onomy_dems_forced_to_cool_climate_messaging_148319.html
That means you.
And nobody else in the world wants to talk about it right now either.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I remember dozens of people, all dead now from smoking, who were angry at Democrats for condemning smoking. They are not angry anymore. They are not anything anymore. There are people who will die because of global climate change, but they don't want to hear about it from politicians because they want low price gasoline and low price coal fired electric power. They don't want to know that they can't have what they want. And they sure don't want to know that if they got what they wanted, it would kill them.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/in_overheated_ec
onomy_dems_forced_to_cool_climate_messaging_148319.html
That means you.
And nobody else in the world wants to talk about it right now either.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I remember dozens of people, all dead now from smoking, who were angry at Democrats for condemning smoking. They are not angry anymore. They are not anything anymore. There are people who will die because of global climate change, but they don't want to hear about it from politicians because they want low price gasoline and low price coal fired electric power. They don't want to know that they can't have what they want. And they sure don't want to know that if they got what they wanted, it would kill them.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/in_overheated_ec
onomy_dems_forced_to_cool_climate_messaging_148319.html
That means you.
And nobody else in the world wants to talk about it right now either.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
False Equivalency King.
Take your worthless opinions as well as your vices that we all know you have and bounce on them until your brains leak out of your ears.
It won't take long. Trust me.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In Alaska, the Republican fishermen are telling themselves that once Trump is back in the White House the fishermen can catch as many snow crabs and king crabs as they want. All the fishermen will be rich, Rich, RICH! In reality, climate change is killing off the industry because the water is getting too hot for the crabs to reproduce. But being Republicans, the fishermen say it is Fake News. Just wait until Trump is President when we can sell all the crabs all the time. There are no limits when Trump is President! Everything is possible! Nothing is forbidden!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
False Equivalency King.
Take your worthless opinions as well as your vices that we all know you have and bounce on them until your brains leak out of your ears.
It won't take long. Trust me.
Billions of snow crabs have disappeared from the waters around Alaska. Scientists say overfishing is not the cause
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/16/us/alaska-snow-crab-harvest-canceled-cl
imate/index.html
Vote for Republicans because they will repeal the laws of nature! Democrats foolishly obey laws that limit Republicans' Freedom!
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Words of a man who knows that he's already lost.
Just pout then.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Didn't you know that climate change is a hoax? Once the Republicans get partial control of Congress, they will hold hearings to make sure the whole world is aware of how Greta Thunberg is the mastermind behind the hoax.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Words of a man who knows that he's already lost.
Just pout then.
Climate change is a Chinese Hoax! - Trump
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709051001/https://time.com/5622374/do
nald-trump-climate-change-hoax-event/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cement is an extremely emissions-generating material, currently accounting for about eight percent of the world's global carbon emissions.
But Seratech carbon-neutral concrete wins the Obel Award 2022 because it stores CO2, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
The raw materials needed for Seratch's technology – carbon dioxide from industry and olivine, a magnesium iron silicate – are abundant around the globe. If industry cannot supply the carbon dioxide, then Draper says that Seratech could use an affordable direct air capture technology instead, drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/10/17/carbon-neutral-concrete-seratech-obe
l-award-2022/#
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Didn't you know that climate change is a hoax? Once the Republicans get partial control of Congress, they will hold hearings to make sure the whole world is aware of how Greta Thunberg is the mastermind behind the hoax.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Words of a man who knows that he's already lost.
Just pout then.
Climate change is a Chinese Hoax! - Trump
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709051001/https://time.com/5622374/do
nald-trump-climate-change-hoax-event/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Greta who?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Cement is an extremely emissions-generating material, currently accounting for about eight percent of the world's global carbon emissions.
But Seratech carbon-neutral concrete wins the Obel Award 2022 because it stores CO2, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
The raw materials needed for Seratch's technology – carbon dioxide from industry and olivine, a magnesium iron silicate – are abundant around the globe. If industry cannot supply the carbon dioxide, then Draper says that Seratech could use an affordable direct air capture technology instead, drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/10/17/carbon-neutral-concrete-seratech-obe
l-award-2022/#
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Yup.
The only problem is that any time somebody claimed they can do that it ended up being a Kickstarter scam that ran away with millions.
And none of the "news" agencies reporting on their scam products ever apologized to anyone who funded the campaigns.
Good luck.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Until Seratech, or somebody, sells this product by the millions of tons per week, it won't make much difference.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Cement is an extremely emissions-generating material, currently accounting for about eight percent of the world's global carbon emissions.
But Seratech carbon-neutral concrete wins the Obel Award 2022 because it stores CO2, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
The raw materials needed for Seratch's technology – carbon dioxide from industry and olivine, a magnesium iron silicate – are abundant around the globe. If industry cannot supply the carbon dioxide, then Draper says that Seratech could use an affordable direct air capture technology instead, drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/10/17/carbon-neutral-concrete-seratech-obe
l-award-2022/#
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Yup.
The only problem is that any time somebody claimed they can do that it ended up being a Kickstarter scam that ran away with millions.
And none of the "news" agencies reporting on their scam products ever apologized to anyone who funded the campaigns.
Good luck.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
Quote:https://www.seratechcement.com/our-technology
Seratech has developed a process that consumes olivine and waste CO2 from flue gases and produces two products which both have significant value in construction.
Silica is produced which can be used as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in concrete meaning the amount of Portland cement in the concrete can be reduced by up to 40%. As the silica comes from a process that captures CO2 it is “carbon negative” and the concrete can become carbon neutral.
Magnesium carbonate is produced that can be used to make a range of zero carbon construction materials and consumer products, including alternatives to building blocks and plasterboard.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If industry cannot supply the carbon dioxide, then Draper says that Seratech could use an affordable direct air capture technology instead, drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
This is the part I was talking about though.
No. They can't do that.
I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I simply can't imagine any scenario where the technology would ever become cheap enough to be viable. Not for corporations like Seratech, and certainly not for regular users like you an me.
If they could actually do what Draper claimed they could do and make it work economically for their own firm, they would simply be able to ditch any single other thing they were ever working on and sell that technology to the world.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When talk about price comes up, the argument against global climate change is lost. The price for dumping CO2 directly into the air is always $0.00 per ton. No industrial product can compete with that price. And the price of $133.80 per ton of portland cement is so low that Seratech can't compete with that, either. Why pay $200.00 per ton for a substitute for portland cement?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I simply can't imagine any scenario where the technology would ever become cheap enough to be viable. Not for corporations like Seratech, and certainly not for regular users like you and me.
https://www.ibisworld.com/us/bed/price-of-cement/190/
But there are other prices to pay, like $446.66 per metric ton of wheat in March 2022. Wheat will get very expensive if CO2 continues at always higher concentrations. Droughts and floods ruin wheat crops.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/World/wheat_price/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
When talk about price comes up, the argument against global climate change is lost. The price for dumping CO2 directly into the air is always $0.00 per ton. No industrial product can compete with that price. And the price of $133.80 per ton of portland cement is so low that Seratech can't compete with that, either. Why pay $200.00 per ton for a substitute for portland cement?
https://www.ibisworld.com/us/bed/price-of-cement/190/
Here's an idea. Give the companies that use the $73 per ton for the new product tax breaks for using it for "X" amount of years until it becomes standard with the dumb-ass Inflation Reduction Act instead of $7,000 tax credits for people buying EVs that don't work. Ford, GM and everybody else already raised the prices of their EVs $7,000 immediately after that bill was passed, so the only people making out on that deal are the executives at the car companies.
I guess then we just sit back and pray that the new product does what they claim it to do and we don't see buildings and bridges falling out from under people every day 10 or 20 years from now because we stopped using a tried and true product we've used forever because you're scared that the environment is going to die.
Quote:
But there are other prices to pay, like $446.66 per metric ton of wheat in March 2022. Wheat will get very expensive if CO2 continues at always higher concentrations. Droughts and floods ruin wheat crops.
I'm sure you and most people in the world could use a little less gluten in your diet, fatty.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nuclear Fusion and Climate Change: 'We Need Every Technology We Can Get'
https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-climate-change-pollution-carbo
n-1752330
Merkel says no regrets over Germany’s Russia gas deals
https://www.thelocal.de/20221013/merkel-says-no-regrets-over-germanys-
russia-gas-deals/
France sets course for a nuclear renaissance
https://www.ft.com/content/ce27b34a-b6d3-4bb3-840b-f4b1c8436641
Extraordinary first images emerge of mangled Nord Stream: 165ft of blown-up Baltic Sea gas pipe is 'either missing or buried
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11326855/Extraordinary-images
-emerge-mangled-Nord-Stream-attacked-extreme-force.html
Germany set to backtrack on nuclear phaseout
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-set-to-extend-nuclear-power-du
e-to-much-worse-energy-situation-in-france/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Merkel says no regrets over Germany’s Russia gas deals
Easy for her to say. She raped the country like a Pelosi while she was in power. She's not going to be the one paying for her mistakes while the German girls are being raped in back alleys by the Muslims Merkel unleashed on her people this winter while they're out trying to find shit to throw into the oil drum their family is using to heat their homes.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Corpus Christi New Harbor bridge construction was stopped because the Trumptards who designed it didn't calculate the concrete flexing when stressed during a hurricane. Things fail because average people lack imagination about ordinary, concrete, real things such as CO2 and hurricanes. Instead, they imagine unreal dangers and fear displeasing the supernatural and their long-dead ancestors.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I guess then we just sit back and pray that the new product does what they claim it to do and we don't see buildings and bridges falling out from under people every day 10 or 20 years from now because we stopped using a tried and true product we've used forever because you're scared that the environment is going to die.
It took 300,000 years to go from a genius discovering fire to the technology level in the year 2200 B.C. when another genius discovered the wheel. Wheels were too complex to even imagine before then. Nowadays, some geniuses have discovered how to prevent CO2 from destroying the climate and very average people can't imagine what it is all about since it's too complex for them, making them fearful about bridges and buildings falling down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel#History
What Really Happened at the New Harbor Bridge Project?
1,209,343 views Sep 20, 2022 -An overview of the drama unfolding over the ship channel in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:The Corpus Christi New Harbor bridge construction was stopped because the Trumptards who designed it didn't calculate the concrete flexing when stressed during a hurricane. Things fail because average people lack imagination about ordinary, concrete, real things such as CO2 and hurricanes. Instead, they imagine unreal dangers and fear displeasing the supernatural and their long-dead ancestors.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I guess then we just sit back and pray that the new product does what they claim it to do and we don't see buildings and bridges falling out from under people every day 10 or 20 years from now because we stopped using a tried and true product we've used forever because you're scared that the environment is going to die.
It took 300,000 years to go from a genius discovering fire to the technology level in the year 2200 B.C. when another genius discovered the wheel. Wheels were too complex to even imagine before then. Nowadays, some geniuses have discovered how to prevent CO2 from destroying the climate and very average people can't imagine what it is all about since it's too complex for them, making them fearful about bridges and buildings falling down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel#History
What Really Happened at the New Harbor Bridge Project?
1,209,343 views Sep 20, 2022 -An overview of the drama unfolding over the ship channel in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
I never said you shouldn't use it. Have at it. I also never said that the new product won't work.
I'm just saying that the people in charge of the Science narrative have been wrong about a lot
recently and can't tell you what a Woman is anymore.
I also personally don't give a shit if it does or doesn't work since I'll never be using it
for any of my projects and it will be tested in states like California and New York long before
it ever makes its way into the infrastructure in the flyover states.
Good luck with the new product. Hopefully you're not driving on a bridge that's made of it 10
years from now in your Ford F-150 Lightning that can't haul anything when it collapses on you
because it was rushed into use faster than a covid shot that will make your heart explode while
doing chores.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Romans were using volcanic ash in their cement to make roadways and aquaducts, Pieces are still standing today. It's a durable material that doesn't need reinforcement rods when used for compresional load and for some applications that need shearing strength.
we have tons and tons of the equivalent of volcani ash already at-hand, it's called flyash: the tiny spherical particles that remain when the carbon from a piece of pulverized coal is burned off. Coal-burning power plants generate mountains of it.
It can be used to replace some portion of traditional portland cement (calcined limestone, sand, and other matrials) to produce a product with slower set times but superior strength.
https://gccassociation.org/cement-and-concrete-innovation/clinker-subs
titutes/fly-ash/
Another useful material for making cement: old tires. The carbon in the tires is good fuel, and the sulfur (used to harden rubber) and iron (from steel-belted radials) are useful additions to cement.
https://www.wasterecyclingmag.ca/feature/making-cement-with-tires/
In addition, ground-up tires make durable roadway surfaces and flexible cement
https://www.familyhandyman.com/article/can-recycled-tires-make-durable
-concrete/
By up-cycling, you can make a second use of the energy and water needed to [roduce the original material and save yourself a disposal headache.
Interesting info about cement, SECOND. For various reasons I wound up looking deeply into cement-making chemistry. It's a complex product of limestone (calcium carbonate >>> calcium oxide) and silica literally melted together, along with iron, sulfur and other additions. There are five different common types for different uses, but it's a complex material and its gel-forming chemistry is still a bit of a mystery.
SIX: carbon dioxide can be recovered most economically from flue-gases. I'm not sure what process would be used, but since CO2 is considered an "acid gas" in can be absorbed into a basic solution like one of the ethanolamines (which absorb SO2 and CO2 but let nitrogen and oxygen through) and then released from solution with a little bit of heat as almost-pure CO2.
But you can recover it from the atmo: companies that produce specialty gases like liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen use atmospheric gas as their starting material and compress/refigerate it. The first compression drops out water and many impurities, the second compresion drops out CO2. (And then O2/argon, and then N2) Anyway, there are half-dozen ways that I can think of to capture CO2 for later use.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.
Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.
Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.
If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, there is. It's called forestry and cover crops. But nobody wants to bother with it bc it's detailed work.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.
Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.
Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.
If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno SECOND, instead of slagging SIX all the time you should be promoting his lifestyle.
If we all (including you) lived like SIX ... buying only what is necessary, conserving and upgrading what exists, upcycling and re-using as necessary - we wouldn't have as much of a CO2 problem.
I'm all for technical innovation, but there are also tried and true fixes for our various environmental disasters, and if we look in our trash cans and landfills (and Pentagon stockpiles) we can see part of the problem right there. There are no magic (technical) wands for that.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know I can't get you to pay attention because price and profit are the only things you care about, but Climate change is a threat to civilization while the high price of gasoline is not.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.
Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.
Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.
If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.
Daniel Steel, C. Tyler DesRoches, and Kian Mintz-Woo write:
In a speech about climate change from April 4th of this year, UN General Secretary António Guterres lambasted “the empty pledges that put us on track to an unlivable world” and warned that “we are on a fast track to climate disaster”. Although stark, Guterres’ statements were not novel. Guterres has made similar remarks on previous occasions, as have other public figures, including Sir David Attenborough, who warned in 2018 that inaction on climate change could lead to “the collapse of our civilizations”. In their article, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021”—which now has more than 14,700 signatories from 158 countries—William J. Ripple and colleagues state that climate change could “cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable”.
Because civilization cannot exist in unlivable or uninhabitable places, all of the above warnings can be understood as asserting the potential for anthropogenic climate change to cause civilization collapse (or “climate collapse”) to a greater or lesser extent. Yet despite discussing many adverse impacts, climate science literature, as synthesized for instance by assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has little at all to say about whether or under which conditions climate change might threaten civilization. Although a body of scientific research exists on historical and archeological cases of collapse, discussions of mechanisms whereby climate change might cause the collapse of current civilizations has mostly been the province of journalists, philosophers, novelists, and filmmakers. We believe that this should change.
Here we call for treating the mechanisms and uncertainties associated with climate collapse as a critically important topic for scientific inquiry. Doing so requires clarifying what “civilization collapse” means and explaining how it connects to topics addressed in climate science, such as increased risks from both fast- and slow-onset extreme weather events. This kind of information, we claim, is crucial for the public and for policymakers alike, for whom climate collapse may be a serious concern. Our analysis builds on the latest research, including Kemp et al.’s PNAS Perspective, which drew attention to the importance of scientifically exploring the ways that climate outcomes can impact complex socioeconomic systems. We go further by providing greater detail about societal collapse, for instance, distinguishing three progressively more severe scenarios. Moreover, we emphasize avoiding doom-saying bias and recommend studying collapse mechanisms in conjunction with successful adaptation and resilience, seeing these as two sides of the same coin. [Continue reading… at https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2210525119 ]
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I keep wondering what the hell is wrong with you, but I never will find out why you can't understand simple things. The simple thing, which I doubt you can understand, is that the important numbers are how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. Those numbers need to go downward, and very fast, but it seems like most people think those numbers will go downward if and only if they emit fewer tonnes of CO2 per year. You could make your daily emissions zero and it would not lower the numbers that need lowering, which is the percent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those are the ONLY numbers that count.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno SECOND, instead of slagging SIX all the time you should be promoting his lifestyle.
If we all (including you) lived like SIX ... buying only what is necessary, conserving and upgrading what exists, upcycling and re-using as necessary - we wouldn't have as much of a CO2 problem.
I'm all for technical innovation, but there are also tried and true fixes for our various environmental disasters, and if we look in our trash cans and landfills (and Pentagon stockpiles) we can see part of the problem right there. There are no magic (technical) wands for that.
I live a very downscale lifestyle. But by selling natural gas, I'm serving people who live a very proliferate lifestyle, with hundreds of tonnes (or even thousands) per year per person of CO2 emissions. Before that, I was building petrochemical plants that emit gigatonnes of CO2. I'm one of the guys who made the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, and the only way to make the numbers decrease is to run the industrial process that guys like me started in reverse, where the industry takes greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and puts those gases back into the ground. If industry does not take its waste gases, which are greenhouse gases, out of the atmosphere, we are going to be cooked.
Yes, I know some people dream of reflecting sunlight back into outer space by geoengineering and other people dream of forests and oceans "naturally" absorbing greenhouse gases. Good luck with those dreams, but you better wake up fast and make those dreams into reality pretty damn quick.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I know I can't get you to pay attention because price and profit are the only things you care about,
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.
Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.
Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.
If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.
... Says the guy who lies every day about being a rich business man who owns cattle one day and natural gas the next day depending on what lie of the day he wants to tell to the guy who hasn't worked for somebody else since the summer of 2019.
Quote:
but Climate change is a threat to civilization while the high price of gasoline is not.
We'll see about that once the printing presses stop going BRRRRRRRRR, the PayDay loans dry up, the jobs disappear, the evictions spike and the poor people start coming into your neighborhoods and start looting, burning and raping those who can still afford to eat the food that won't stop increasing in price, largely due to the gas prices.
I've seen feral before. At one point, I was damn near feral myself.
We had police forces that worked back in 2009. We also benefited from low interest rates and comparatively low inflation the last time everything crashed.
Winter is coming.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:CO2 is at about 400 ppm in the atmosphere, up from about 250-300 ppm pre-industrial levels. We measure it all the time.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno SECOND, instead of slagging SIX all the time you should be promoting his lifestyle.
If we all (including you) lived like SIX ... buying only what is necessary, conserving and upgrading what exists, upcycling and re-using as necessary - we wouldn't have as much of a CO2 problem.
I'm all for technical innovation, but there are also tried and true fixes for our various environmental disasters, and if we look in our trash cans and landfills (and Pentagon stockpiles) we can see part of the problem right there. There are no magic (technical) wands for that.
SECOND: I keep wondering what the hell is wrong with you, but I never will find out why you can't understand simple things. The simple thing, which I doubt you can understand, is that the important numbers are how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere.
Quote:They will go down with lower emissions. Plants and algae absorb CO2 every day, as does the ocean. If that were not happening, CO2 would go up continuously eon over eon until it was in the high percent level.
SECOND Those numbers need to go downward, and very fast, but it seems like most people think those numbers will go downward if and only if they emit fewer tonnes of CO2 per year.
Quote:ppm, ppb
SECOND: You could make your daily emissions zero and it would not lower the numbers that need lowering, which is the percent
Quote:Yanno, NATURE produces CO2. Animals, rotting vegetation, soil bacteria, fires, volcanoes ... even plants... produce CO2. If that were not the case, there would be no CO2 in the atmosphere and all plant life would die of starvation and the earth wuld be one giant snowball.
SECOND: of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those are the ONLY numbers that count.
It's an equilibrium of production and absorption. That's why they call it a carbon cycle.
The question is: where do we want the equilibrium to be?
In higher CO2 atmospheres, plants absorb more. It's one of their critical foods and a negative feedback on atmospheric CO2. If our emissions were to go to zero, the CO2 in the atmosphere would gradually fall. If we were to ENHANCE the absorption capacity... with better forestry management using biochar (the thing that makes reforestation immediately carbon-negative) and cover cropping then the CO2 would fall even faster.
The thing we have to be prepared for is that higher temperatures will set off positive feedbacks: melting permafrost releasing methane, warming oceans releasing the CO2 that they absorbed.
Quote:Do you fly on airplanes? Support war? Both are profligate sources of greenhouse gases
SECOND I live a very downscale lifestyle.
Quote:Dont look at poor people. The wealthy and war emit most of the CO2 emissions
SECOND: But by selling natural gas, I'm serving people who live a very proliferate lifestyle, with hundreds of tonnes (or even thousands) per year per person of CO2 emissions.
Quote:Industry can run full-tilt absorbing CO2, and it would probably not hold a candle to what nature can do. But by all means, let's do ALL THREE things: conserve/reduce emissions, promote natural absorption, and remove CO2 industrially. (Altho I have to say, looking at the energetics of CO2 absorption, it seems to me that absorbing CO2 would take more energy than its
SECOND: Before that, I was building petrochemical plants that emit gigatonnes of CO2. I'm one of the guys who made the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, and the only way to make the numbers decrease is to run the industrial process that guys like me started in reverse, where the industry takes greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and puts those gases back into the ground. If industry does not take its waste gases, which are greenhouse gases, out of the atmosphere, we are going to be cooked.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What we COULD do is replace our dark asphalt-based rooftops with white ones and increase the albedo of our cities. Planting urban trees would also make cities more liveable by reducing temperatures and AC usage.
Lets' just make sure we're not doing it with soft maple garbage trees this time, m-kay?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hahaha!!!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What we COULD do is replace our dark asphalt-based rooftops with white ones and increase the albedo of our cities. Planting urban trees would also make cities more liveable by reducing temperatures and AC usage.
Lets' just make sure we're not doing it with soft maple garbage trees this time, m-kay?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
There are such things as "urban foresters" who can help select trees that don't buckle sidewalks/foundations or invade sewer lines or drop fruit that stains cars, that are also (hopefully) friendly to birds and pollinators and tolerates dust and smog.
Bad decisions have been made in the past. Ficus trees buckle sidewalks, palm trees harbor rats. I look at the freeway plantings - all exotics- acacia, eucalyptus, plumbago, "California pepper" (which is not a pepper tree and not Californian) and I have to wonder "why?"
With so many native trees and shrubs to choose from - a half dozen oaks, sycamore, ash, toyon, lemonade berry, coffeeberry, all kinds if sages and buckwheat, native sunflowers... seems like there would be something suitable for every situation.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did anybody today tell Signym and 6ix they are worthless? For two valueless assholes, they certainly have as high an opinion about themselves as Trump and Putin have about themselves. Trump will be fine? Putin will win? That wouldn't happen if God wasn't indifferent, shrugging off responsibility. Even some children act more responsible, until adults teach them the craftiness of shirking and lying, than the God in the Old Testament Bible. It is no wonder that people who profess belief in Gods are just as fundamentally irresponsible as their Gods are. If you're sensing that I think people want in a leader and a god a bigger version of their sorry selves, one that will forgive them for being worthless assholes who don't try, you would see why I think people choose sadly inadequate leaders, religions and gods.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hahaha!!!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
State of NJ Files Suit Against Five Oil and Gas Companies And Trade Group Of Misleading the Public About Their Products and Climate Change
The suit filed today in New Jersey Superior Court in Mercer County names as defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Chevron Corporation, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the trade group in which these defendants were members — American Petroleum Institute (API).
October 18, 2022
TRENTON, NJ (MERCER)–Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Environmental Protection today filed a lawsuit on behalf of New Jersey residents against five oil and gas companies and a petroleum trade association, alleging they knowingly made false claims to deceive the public about the existence of climate change and the degree to which their fossil fuels products have been acerbating anthropogenic global warming.
The suit filed today in New Jersey Superior Court in Mercer County names as defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Chevron Corporation, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the trade group in which these defendants were members — American Petroleum Institute (API). The State is seeking to hold the defendants accountable for systematically concealing and denying their knowledge that fossil fuel consumption could have a catastrophic impact on the climate, causing the devastating consequences of fossil fuel overconsumption: the significant sea level rise, flooding, and extreme weather that have battered New Jersey’s citizens and businesses, requiring the State and its residents to shoulder the enormous costs of rebuilding, hardening New Jersey’s defenses against severe weather and making the necessary transition away from reliance on fossil fuels to a more sustainable clean-energy future. API is accused of playing a key role in orchestrating and implementing climate denial campaigns on behalf of and under the supervision of the fossil fuel defendants.
The State alleges that the defendant oil and gas producers and API have known for decades that use of fossil fuels is a major cause of climate change, but instead of warning the public or the State about the danger, they launched public-relations campaigns to sow doubts about the existence, causes, and effects of climate change with the goal of confusing the public, delaying the transition to a lower carbon economy and future, increasing their own profits, and further deepening dependence on their products.
“Based on their own research, these companies understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change and would have devastating environmental impacts down the road,” said Attorney General Platkin. “They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey, and the world. In short, these companies put their profits ahead of our safety. It’s long overdue that the facts be aired in a New Jersey court, and the perpetrators of the disinformation campaign pay for the harms they’ve caused.”
“New Jersey is ground zero for some of the worst impacts of climate c
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Did anybody today tell Signym and 6ix they are worthless? For two valueless assholes, they certainly have as high an opinion about themselves as Trump and Putin have about themselves.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hahaha!!!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
Awwwwwwwww...
Somebody sounds salty that they've lost.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't see what SECOND's so mad about.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Did anybody today tell Signym and 6ix they are worthless? For two valueless assholes, they certainly have as high an opinion about themselves as Trump and Putin have about themselves.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hahaha!!!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
Awwwwwwwww...
Somebody sounds salty that they've lost.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
I even agreed with him that we should be looking at ways to capture CO2 from the air ... or at least, from flue gases. My only caveat is that since that takes energy, the only way that makes sense is uing SOLAR energy or possibly nuclear energy, since solar (and nuclear) energy are the only potentially carbon -free sources of energy for this capture process.
And since plants already use solar energy to capture CO2 from the air.... well, it just seems like one place to start. But certainly not the only one.
But jeez... SECOND can't take "yes" for an answer?
I'm beginning to think you're right, SIX. I think SECOND is REAVREBOT.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You and 6ix might be saying "yes", but in reality, you are actually capable of doing nothing which makes you no different than someone saying any variation of the following: "No! Never! Not gonna happen! Climate change is a Chinese Hoax! If the new energy sources are not cheaper than the old ones, I refuse to buy them! Wind turbines cause cancer! Green energy makes electricity less reliable! Electric cars are charged by coal-burning power plants! Lithium is unavailable in quantities needed to convert all cars to electric vehicles!" I think I could write thousands of words, either half-truths or complete lies, justifying doing nothing because I have been listening to Trumptards all my life, even before they knew Trump and Putin, the Russian variant for people who would be Trumptards if born in America, existed.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I don't see what SECOND's so mad about.
I even agreed with him that we should be looking at ways to capture CO2 from the air ... or at least, from flue gases. My only caveat is that since that takes energy, the only way that makes sense is uing SOLAR energy or possibly nuclear energy, since solar (and nuclear) energy are the only potentially carbon -free sources of energy for this capture process.
And since plants already use solar energy to capture CO2 from the air.... well, it just seems like one place to start. But certainly not the only one.
But jeez... SECOND can't take "yes" for an answer?
I'm beginning to think you're right, SIX. I think SECOND is REAVREBOT.
The Netherlands will pull out of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which has come under fire for protecting investments in the oil and gas sector, the country’s energy ministry said on Wednesday (19 October).
In force since 1998, the treaty, which has more than 50 signatories including the European Union, allows investors to sue governments over policies that jeopardise their investments.
But in recent years it has been used by fossil fuel and renewable energy companies to sue governments for regulatory changes that threaten returns on specific investments.
In announcing the decision, Dutch Minister for Climate and Energy Policy Rob Jetten told parliament that the treaty is not in line with the Paris climate accord and that efforts to re-negotiate it have been unsuccessful.
“The mandate for the European Commission was to bring the ECT in line with the Paris climate agreement. Despite many of the modernisations that are now in the negotiation outcome, we do not see how the ECT has been sufficiently aligned with the Paris Agreement,” Jetten told the Dutch parliament on Tuesday.
A government spokesperson later confirmed the move on Wednesday, saying the lack of guarantees on climate in the revamped treaty was the main motive for the decision to leave.
“For that reason, the Netherlands, preferably with the entire EU, will leave the ECT. When the Netherlands will officially leave is still to be determined,” the spokesperson said.
Italy withdrew from the treaty in 2016 and Spain announced its intention to pull out last week. In September, Poland initiated formal proceedings to withdraw as well.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/netherlands-follows-spain
-in-quitting-energy-charter-treaty/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I don't see what SECOND's so mad about.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Did anybody today tell Signym and 6ix they are worthless? For two valueless assholes, they certainly have as high an opinion about themselves as Trump and Putin have about themselves.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hahaha!!!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
Awwwwwwwww...
Somebody sounds salty that they've lost.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
I even agreed with him that we should be looking at ways to capture CO2 from the air ... or at least, from flue gases. My only caveat is that since that takes energy, the only way that makes sense is uing SOLAR energy or possibly nuclear energy, since solar (and nuclear) energy are the only potentially carbon -free sources of energy for this capture process.
And since plants already use solar energy to capture CO2 from the air.... well, it just seems like one place to start. But certainly not the only one.
But jeez... SECOND can't take "yes" for an answer?
I'm beginning to think you're right, SIX. I think SECOND is REAVREBOT.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
Yup.
He's peddling scams and thinking he's saving the world.
Meanwhile, Reaverfan's got himself an electric pickup truck that can't haul anything.
Good news for him is that once he realizes this and admits it to himself, there should be no shortage of overpaid soy-boy college graduates that won't actually use that bed to haul anything that he should be able to con into buying it from him without losing too much money. He might have to sell it out of state though. I can't imagine many men in Texas want to drive around a glorified Power Wheels toy.
I'll bet Reaverfan looks real cute in it while wearing his cowboy hat and matching boots in his Lightning. He should find himself some tumbleweed to throw in the bed so it doesn't look so sad and useless. Just one or two of them though. If he puts 3 in the back he's pushing almost 50lbs and he'll be recharging that truck up every 750 feet.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Big boom in carbon capture projects . . . according to a new report from think tank Global CCS Institute, which advocates for carbon capture and storage (CCS).
https://status22.globalccsinstitute.com/
That includes projects to scrub CO2 out of smokestack emissions from a veritable pantheon of the most notorious pollution sources: power plants, natural gas processing plants, oil refineries, hydrogen producers, cement and steel factories, and petrochemical and synthetic fertilizer manufacturers.
Right now, there are only 30 CCS facilities operating and 11 under construction. But 153 more carbon capture and storage projects are in development, according to the Global CCS Institute. Of the 196 projects in the pipeline globally, 61 new projects got started in 2022 alone.
Looking at the report’s list of CCS facilities either operating or in the works in 2022, The Verge found that a majority of projects are tangled up with oil and gas. Roughly 60 percent of the projects are either backed by fossil fuel companies and / or aim to capture emissions from fossil fuel power plants, petrochemical facilities, and fossil fuel-adjacent industries like industrial fertilizer and hydrogen production that are major gas consumers. And 30 of the facilities already use or plan to use the captured carbon for a process called enhanced oil recovery, in which fossil fuel companies shoot the CO2 into the ground to push up hard-to-reach oil.
With those numbers, it’s no wonder that some environmental groups are skeptical of carbon capture as a climate fix. Many are worried that the technology will only deepen economies’ reliance on fossil fuels rather than help to usher in an age of cleaner energy sources. In the US, that includes Food & Water Watch, The Indigenous Environmental Network, and Friends of the Earth.
There are several reasons why groups like these say carbon capture tech isn’t a cure-all for fossil fuels. For starters, it doesn’t typically capture 100 percent of the CO2 a pollution source like an industrial plant generates. For instance, a plan to build a carbon capture facility at Louisiana’s biggest source of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, an ammonia plant, is supposed to capture 2 million metric tons of CO2 annually when complete — even though the plant produced 10 million metric tons of the greenhouse gas in a single year.
More at https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/18/23410755/global-boom-carbon-captur
e-storage-ccs-pipeline-oil-gas-industry
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am going out to lunch with my frienemy from the industry. He asked if I was gonna drive us there in "The Corporation Jet", meaning my pickup. He is exactly right which is why I go to lunch with him. I love my Lightning as a status symbol. It actually has a trailer hitch and Ford claims it can tow 7,000 pounds but I never tried.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup.
He's peddling scams and thinking he's saving the world.
Meanwhile, Reaverfan's got himself an electric pickup truck that can't haul anything.
Good news for him is that once he realizes this and admits it to himself, there should be no shortage of overpaid soy-boy college graduates that won't actually use that bed to haul anything that he should be able to con into buying it from him without losing too much money. He might have to sell it out of state though. I can't imagine many men in Texas want to drive around a glorified Power Wheels toy.
I'll bet Reaverfan looks real cute in it while wearing his cowboy hat and matching boots in his Lightning. He should find himself some tumbleweed to throw in the bed so it doesn't look so sad and useless. Just one or two of them though. If he puts 3 in the back he's pushing almost 50lbs and he'll be recharging that truck up every 750 feet.
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I am going out to lunch with my frienemy from the industry. He asked if I was gonna drive us there in "The Corporation Jet", meaning my pickup. He is exactly right which is why I go to lunch with him. I love my Lightning as a status symbol. It actually has a trailer hitch and Ford claims it can tow 7,000 pounds but I never tried.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup.
He's peddling scams and thinking he's saving the world.
Meanwhile, Reaverfan's got himself an electric pickup truck that can't haul anything.
Good news for him is that once he realizes this and admits it to himself, there should be no shortage of overpaid soy-boy college graduates that won't actually use that bed to haul anything that he should be able to con into buying it from him without losing too much money. He might have to sell it out of state though. I can't imagine many men in Texas want to drive around a glorified Power Wheels toy.
I'll bet Reaverfan looks real cute in it while wearing his cowboy hat and matching boots in his Lightning. He should find himself some tumbleweed to throw in the bed so it doesn't look so sad and useless. Just one or two of them though. If he puts 3 in the back he's pushing almost 50lbs and he'll be recharging that truck up every 750 feet.
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
The only thing believable from the above paragraph is that you're stupid enough to own a Ford Lightning and you love smelling your own farts when you drive it.
You don't have friends, let alone frienemies. You don't own a business. And Ford is certainly lying to you about being able to tow 7,000lbs.
Go ahead and try it and see if you can make it to the next charging station before you're calling AAA for a tow.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One of the reasons why I promote carbon dioxide capture .. by plants.
Originally posted by second:
Big boom in carbon capture projects . . . according to a new report from think tank Global CCS Institute, which advocates for carbon capture and storage (CCS).
https://status22.globalccsinstitute.com/
That includes projects to scrub CO2 out of smokestack emissions from a veritable pantheon of the most notorious pollution sources: power plants, natural gas processing plants, oil refineries, hydrogen producers, cement and steel factories, and petrochemical and synthetic fertilizer manufacturers.
Right now, there are only 30 CCS facilities operating and 11 under construction. But 153 more carbon capture and storage projects are in development, according to the Global CCS Institute. Of the 196 projects in the pipeline globally, 61 new projects got started in 2022 alone.
Looking at the report’s list of CCS facilities either operating or in the works in 2022, The Verge found that a majority of projects are tangled up with oil and gas. Roughly 60 percent of the projects are either backed by fossil fuel companies and / or aim to capture emissions from fossil fuel power plants, petrochemical facilities, and fossil fuel-adjacent industries like industrial fertilizer and hydrogen production that are major gas consumers. And 30 of the facilities already use or plan to use the captured carbon for a process called enhanced oil recovery, in which fossil fuel companies shoot the CO2 into the ground to push up hard-to-reach oil.
With those numbers, it’s no wonder that some environmental groups are skeptical of carbon capture as a climate fix. Many are worried that the technology will only deepen economies’ reliance on fossil fuels rather than help to usher in an age of cleaner energy sources. In the US, that includes Food & Water Watch, The Indigenous Environmental Network, and Friends of the Earth.
There are several reasons why groups like these say carbon capture tech isn’t a cure-all for fossil fuels. For starters, it doesn’t typically capture 100 percent of the CO2 a pollution source like an industrial plant generates. For instance, a plan to build a carbon capture facility at Louisiana’s biggest source of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, an ammonia plant, is supposed to capture 2 million metric tons of CO2 annually when complete — even though the plant produced 10 million metric tons of the greenhouse gas in a single year.
More at https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/18/23410755/global-boom-carbon-captur
e-storage-ccs-pipeline-oil-gas-industry
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That won't work as well as you imagine because climate change releases the greenhouse gases stored by plants.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
One of the reasons why I promote carbon dioxide capture .. by plants.
The first example is the Amazon Rain Forest burns down, releasing greenhouse gases. The Amazon is estimated to contain about 123 billion tons of carbon above and below ground, and is one of Earth's most important terrestrial carbon reserves.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2778/Deforestat
ion-warming-flip-part-of-Amazon-forest-from-carbon-sink-to-source
The second example is climate change releases the stored carbon in permafrost in the form of methane produced by decayed plants. There's a huge amount of carbon stored in permafrost — an estimated 1,500 gigatons, or twice as much as the atmosphere contains. This carbon is the remnant of plants and other organic matter that didn't fully decompose in the frozen soils over thousands of years.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/permafrost
Engineers have started the process of releasing carbon into the air (by designing chainsaws and logging trucks for the Amazon rain forest and designing drilling equipment for natural gas) because it is very profitable to sell these tools to people who are unwise, such as Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil and Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobile. The release of carbon into the atmosphere will just keep on increasing unless others kick the hell out of those engineers to stop them from doing that. There is no possibility that Bolsonaro or Woods can understand that they should stop releasing carbon. These guys have a long record of NOT understanding what they are doing. They aren't changing their ways.
Signym, there is no way trillions of green plants can take carbon out of the atmosphere as fast as a few people (Bolsonaro or Woods) are adding carbon. But there are people who could stop Bolsonaro or Woods.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, I already addressed the issues of forest fire and permafrost. Try to keep up.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yours was Don't burn forests. Don't melt the permafrost. That is NOT a solution. It is wishful thinking. A solution shows how to recapture the carbon when the forests burn and the permafrost melts because those unfortunate events will keep happening. Planting more trees is NOT a solution, especially when the rich will decide the forest would be of more use if it was sold as lumber, plywood, and fuel instead of used only as a place to store carbon. Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, won't be President forever, but somebody just like him will have the same stupid plans for the Amazon Rain forest that Bolsonaro has -- sell all the trees and burn what is leftover. In Russia, somebody like Putin will decide Siberia would be better if it was hotter, therefore all the permafrost should be melted in order to release the methane to increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over Siberia. Tough luck if you want Siberia to remain frozen.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I already addressed the issues of forest fire and permafrost. Try to keep up.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:wrong. I was posting about (among other things) increasing the carbon content if the soil. You can do that with cover crops/green manure. But there is also a thing called "black soil" discovered in the Amazon, created by pyrolization of shrubs/understory which has not only remained for thousands of years, it is also incredibly fertile compared to the surrounding leached Amazonian soil. A study of reforestation -which I previously posted and linked- looked at the carbon balance of reforestation including the fuel needed to truck in the trees etc, and found that reforestation became a carbon sink after five years, but became an IMMEDIATE carbon sink if the trees were planted with pyrolized plant matter.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Yours was Don't burn forests. Don't melt the permafrost. That is NOT a solution. It is wishful thinking. A solution shows how to recapture the carbon when the forests burn and the permafrost melts because those unfortunate events will keep happening. Planting more trees is NOT a solution, especially when the rich will decide the forest would be of more use if it was sold as lumber, plywood, and fuel instead of used only as a place to store carbon. Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, won't be President forever, but somebody just like him will have the same stupid plans for the Amazon Rain forest that Bolsonaro has -- sell all the trees and burn what is leftover. In Russia, somebody like Putin will decide Siberia would be better if it was hotter, therefore all the permafrost should be melted in order to release the methane to increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over Siberia. Tough luck if you want Siberia to remain frozen.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I already addressed the issues of forest fire and permafrost. Try to keep up.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Plants DO have the capacity to store carbon, for millenia. Eons, even. Where do you think the coal beds and oil and gas fields came from in the first place?
BTW, trees used as lumber is still a storage of carbon.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I assume transportation is the highest.
California Wildfires Cancel-Out Two Decades Of Emissions Reductions
In 2020, greenhouse gas emission reductions by California were negated by the CO2 from wildfires.
That’s according to a new study by researchers from UCLA and the University of Chicago, “Up in smoke: California’s greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020 wildfires.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749122011022#bi
b1
*“Wildfire emissions in 2020 essentially negate 18 years of reductions in GHG emissions from other sectors,” the study’s authors concluded.*
Yet, comprehensive sensible policies could mitigate the wildfires. These policies include, especially, undergrounding power lines, which often spark onto dry wood, starting conflagrations.
According to the study, “We estimate that California’s wildfire carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from 2020 are approximately two times higher than California’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions since 2003. Without considering future vegetation regrowth, CO2e emissions from the 2020 wildfires could be the second most important source in the state above either industry or electrical power generation.”
Quote:
Their solution: “Our analysis suggests that significant societal benefits could accrue from larger investments in improved forest management and stricter controls on new development in fire-prone areas at the wildland-urban interface.” Those things would help.
But the state has lagged in dealing with its aging electricity infrastructure—a problem made worse, ironically, as more electric vehicles hit the road and need more juice from already overloaded power lines.
MORE AT
https://www.theepochtimes.com/study-wildfires-canceled-californias-co2
-gains_4813274.html
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not that I've seen. There were some university projects trying to grow algae under accelerated conditions (in seawater sandwiched between transparent plates and fed with CO2) harvested abd turned into oil but the capital costs far outweigh the product.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Not that I've seen. There were some university projects trying to grow algae under accelerated conditions (in seawater sandwiched between transparent plates and fed with CO2) harvested abd turned into oil but the capital costs far outweigh the product.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
Oh... You wouldn't see it. If you did, they'd have to kill you.
The NDAs the employees who did know have to sign include the lines "you are an employee for life", "if you tell anyone we will kill you, your family, everyone you've ever met and all of their families.", and "now that you've been given this offer and seen this NDA your two choices are to sign it or die immediately."
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
SIGNY: Not that I've seen. There were some university projects trying to grow algae under accelerated conditions (in seawater sandwiched between transparent plates and fed with CO2) harvested abd turned into oil but the capital costs far outweigh the product.
SIX: Oh... You wouldn't see it. If you did, they'd have to kill you.
The NDAs the employees who did know have to sign include the lines "you are an employee for life", "if you tell anyone we will kill you, your family, everyone you've ever met and all of their families.", and "now that you've been given this offer and seen this NDA your two choices are to sign it or die immediately."
Hahaha!
Well I'm still alive so clearly I haven't been let in on the secret!
Anyway I don't see the point of trying to recapitulate 110 million years of history just to obtain a product that needs a lot of ADDITIONAL processing just to make it useful.
How old is oil?
https://phys.org/news/2005-05-world-age-oil.html
They'd be a lot farther ahead sticking with simpler chemistry.
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy
George Olah and two others
The author gave hubby the book. One of these days I'm going to read it.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's like Beyond Meat, but it's Beyond Oil.
Just don't tell your fiancee you paid 50 to 70 percent less for that lab grown diamond than you would have for the ones that De Beers had black people half a world away killed for or the wedding is off. What she doesn't' know won't hurt her. There's nearly zero actual value in the diamond whether it's real or not since just about the only material on earth that's more common than diamonds is sand, and the lab grown diamonds are probably actually worth more in reality. And, yanno... black people half a world away didn't die before it got to your local Helzburg diamonds.
You would probably do a lot better buying stock in Beyond Oil than you would if you were a poor sucker who bought Beyond Meat stock in January, but there will never be an IPO for it because you're never going to get a slice of that pie.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Consumption of fossil fuels is growing faster than ever.
Last year, according to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in both the US, and the world as a whole, the growth in hydrocarbons — oil, natural gas, and coal — far exceeded the growth of wind and solar by huge margins.
Let’s start with a look at what is happening in the US. According to updated figures from BP’s Statistical Review, in 2021, US oil use grew by 2.8 exajoules (EJ).
(An exajoule, EJ, is roughly equal to one quadrillion Btu, or the energy contained in 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.)
For comparison, solar energy use grew by 0.3 EJ, and wind energy increased by 0.4 EJ, for a total increase of 0.7 EJ. Thus, last year, US oil use grew four times faster times than the growth seen in wind and solar combined. Meanwhile, coal use jumped by 1.4 exajoules, or twice the growth in wind and solar. Even with a slight decline in natural gas use, the BP numbers show that US hydrocarbon use increased by 4 EJ last year, that’s more than five times the growth seen in wind and solar.
An almost identical trend can be seen in the global data. Last year, the use of oil, gas, and coal grew by 10.5, 7.7, and 8.7 EJ respectively, resulting in a total one-year increase in hydrocarbon consumption of 26.9 EJ. Meanwhile, in 2021, wind and solar grew by 3.4 and 2.1 EJ, respectively, for a total of 5.5 EJ. Thus, in 2021, global hydrocarbon use grew nearly five times faster than the growth in wind and solar combined.
Here’s another way to think about those numbers: Last year, just the increase in global hydrocarbon use — which as I mentioned above totaled 26.9 EJ — was roughly equal to the output of all of the wind and solar projects on Earth. Last year, global wind output was 17.5 EJ and solar contributed 9.7 EJ — for a total of 27.2 EJ. If you think last year was an anomaly, think again. The same trends can be seen in data going back to the mid-1980s. Between 1985 and 2021, global hydrocarbon use jumped by 224 EJ, that’s more than eight times the increase seen in wind and solar, which as I mentioned above, now provide about 27.2 EJ to the global energy mix.
The undeniable takeaway from the BP numbers is that wind and solar energy are not displacing hydrocarbons. Instead, they are being added to our existing energy mix. Why aren’t they making more headway? The reasons are readily apparent: wind and solar simply cannot provide the staggering scale of energy the world needs at prices consumers can afford. Furthermore, large-scale wind and solar projects are being rejected all around the world. As I have documented in the Renewable Rejection Database, since 2015, more than 370 communities across the US have rejected or restricted wind projects. And more than 90 have rejected solar projects. Over the last year alone, about 40 townships in Ohio have banned the construction of wind and solar projects.
More at https://quillette.com/2022/10/18/hyping-the-energy-transition/
BP Statistical Review of World Energy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-re
view-of-world-energy.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Consumption of fossil fuels is growing faster than ever.
Last year, according to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in both the US, and the world as a whole, the growth in hydrocarbons — oil, natural gas, and coal — far exceeded the growth of wind and solar by huge margins.
Let’s start with a look at what is happening in the US. According to updated figures from BP’s Statistical Review, in 2021, US oil use grew by 2.8 exajoules (EJ).
(An exajoule, EJ, is roughly equal to one quadrillion Btu, or the energy contained in 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.)
For comparison, solar energy use grew by 0.3 EJ, and wind energy increased by 0.4 EJ, for a total increase of 0.7 EJ. Thus, last year, US oil use grew four times faster times than the growth seen in wind and solar combined. Meanwhile, coal use jumped by 1.4 exajoules, or twice the growth in wind and solar. Even with a slight decline in natural gas use, the BP numbers show that US hydrocarbon use increased by 4 EJ last year, that’s more than five times the growth seen in wind and solar.
An almost identical trend can be seen in the global data. Last year, the use of oil, gas, and coal grew by 10.5, 7.7, and 8.7 EJ respectively, resulting in a total one-year increase in hydrocarbon consumption of 26.9 EJ. Meanwhile, in 2021, wind and solar grew by 3.4 and 2.1 EJ, respectively, for a total of 5.5 EJ. Thus, in 2021, global hydrocarbon use grew nearly five times faster than the growth in wind and solar combined.
Here’s another way to think about those numbers: Last year, just the increase in global hydrocarbon use — which as I mentioned above totaled 26.9 EJ — was roughly equal to the output of all of the wind and solar projects on Earth. Last year, global wind output was 17.5 EJ and solar contributed 9.7 EJ — for a total of 27.2 EJ. If you think last year was an anomaly, think again. The same trends can be seen in data going back to the mid-1980s. Between 1985 and 2021, global hydrocarbon use jumped by 224 EJ, that’s more than eight times the increase seen in wind and solar, which as I mentioned above, now provide about 27.2 EJ to the global energy mix.
The undeniable takeaway from the BP numbers is that wind and solar energy are not displacing hydrocarbons. Instead, they are being added to our existing energy mix. Why aren’t they making more headway? The reasons are readily apparent: wind and solar simply cannot provide the staggering scale of energy the world needs at prices consumers can afford. Furthermore, large-scale wind and solar projects are being rejected all around the world. As I have documented in the Renewable Rejection Database, since 2015, more than 370 communities across the US have rejected or restricted wind projects. And more than 90 have rejected solar projects. Over the last year alone, about 40 townships in Ohio have banned the construction of wind and solar projects.
More at https://quillette.com/2022/10/18/hyping-the-energy-transition/
BP Statistical Review of World Energy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-re
view-of-world-energy.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
These are fake numbers.
This is the same thing as Joe Biden* claiming he created all those millions and millions of new jobs when it was just people getting back to work after a 2 year shutdown by Democrats. Or when he cut the deficit by 1.6 Trillion by not giving away 1.6 Trillion in Covid handouts (and then later giving away most of what he was claiming to have cut).
Driving was awesome 2 years ago. Even a year ago it wasn't terrible. Now it sucks again.
Quote:
Here’s another way to think about those numbers: Last year, just the increase in global hydrocarbon use — which as I mentioned above totaled 26.9 EJ — was roughly equal to the output of all of the wind and solar projects on Earth. Last year, global wind output was 17.5 EJ
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Phantom Forests: Why Ambitious Tree Planting Projects Are Failing
Or, why carbon credits are a scam
Quote:
High-profile initiatives to plant millions of trees are being touted by governments around the world as major contributions to fighting climate change. But scientists say many of these projects are ill-conceived and poorly managed and often fail to grow any forests at all.
By Fred Pearce October 6, 2022
It was perhaps the most spectacular failed tree planting project ever. Certainly the fastest. On March 8, 2012, teams of village volunteers in Camarines Sur province on the Filipino island of Luzon sunk over a million mangrove seedlings into coastal mud in just an hour of frenzied activity. The governor declared it a resounding success for his continuing efforts to green the province. At a hasty ceremony on dry land, an official adjudicator from Guinness World Records declared that nobody had ever planted so many trees in such a short time and handed the governor a certificate proclaiming the world record. Plenty of headlines followed.
But look today at the coastline where most of the trees were planted. There is no sign of the mangroves that, after a decade of growth, should be close to maturity. An on-the-ground study published in 2020 by British mangrove restoration researcher Dominic Wodehouse, then of Bangor University in Wales, found that fewer than 2 percent of them had survived. The other 98 percent had died or were washed away.
“I walked, boated, and swam through this entire site. The survivors only managed to cling on because they were sheltered behind a sandbank at the mouth of a river. Everything else disappeared,” one mangrove rehabilitation expert wrote in a letter to the Guinness inspectors this year, which he shared with Yale Environment 360 on the condition of anonymity. The outcome was “entirely predictable,” he wrote. The muddy planting sites were washed by storms and waves and were otherwise “ecologically unsuited to mangrove establishment, because they are too waterlogged and there is no oxygen for them to breathe.”
“It was a complete disaster,” agrees Jim Enright, former Asia coordinator of the U.S.-based nonprofit Mangrove Action Project. “But no one that we know of from Guinness or the record-planting proponents have carried out follow-up monitoring.” Guinness has not responded to requests for comment.
Such debacles are not unusual. Forest scientists say they are surprisingly frequent, and they warn that failed afforestation projects around the world threaten to undermine efforts to make planting a credible means of countering climate change by reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or generating carbon credits for sale to companies to offset their emissions.
In another high-profile case, in November 2019, the Turkish government claimed to have planted more trees on dry land than anyone else in a single hour — 300,000, in the central province of Çorum. It beat a record, also confirmed by Guinness inspectors, set four years before in the Himalayan state of Bhutan. The Çorum planting was part of a National Afforestation Day, when volunteers planted 11 million trees at 2,000 sites across Turkey. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was among those wielding a spade.
But two months later, the head of the country’s union of forestry workers reported that a survey by its members had found that as many as 90 percent of the national plantings had died. The government denies this, but experts said its counter-claim that 95 percent of the trees had survived and continued to grow was improbably high. No independent audit has yet been carried out.
In an investigation published last year into extensive government-organized tree planting over several decades in the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, Eric Coleman of Florida State University and colleagues found little evidence that it had resulted in more tree cover, carbon uptake, or community benefits. Typically, tree species growing on common land that were useful to local people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Occidental Petroleum hopes to bring its bold plan of developing direct air carbon capture to a famous ranch in South Texas, the Houston-based company said this week.
Oxy and 1PointFive, its subsidiary focused on carbon capture, said they’ve agreed to lease more than 100,000 acres in Kleberg County for potential development of up to 30 direct air capture plants. The lease is with King Ranch, the 825,000 acre historic ranch south of Corpus Christi, and includes access to land to store captured carbon underground in geologic reservoirs.
Occidental said the direct air capture facilities at King Ranch could remove up to 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The leased land has the potential to store up to 3 billion metric tons of CO2 in geologic reservoirs, according to the company.
Oxy broke ground on its first direct air capture plant in the Permian Basin in West Texas over the summer. The project is expected to be operational by the end of 2024 with the ability to capture up to 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20221102212849/https://www.houstonchronicl
e.com/business/energy/article/Oxy-continues-aggressive-carbon-capture-plans-17552044.php
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Peatlands store twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests -- UN Environment Programme
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/peatlands-store-twice-much
-carbon-all-worlds-forests
In her latest book Fen, Bog and Swamp (Scribner), Annie Proulx delves into the history of peatland destruction and its role in the climate crisis.
At the dawn of the third millennium, the American novelist Annie Proulx was living in Wyoming and saw a perfect but terrible storm brewing. Extended droughts and warmer winters were providing the optimal conditions for the mountain pine beetle to thrive, and its ongoing infestation — as well as wildfires continuing to ravage the state’s old dense forests, including those of Yellowstone National Park — was turning towering lodgepole pines into ashen tombstones. “That was the first moment when it really sank in that something momentous is going on,” Proulx, who is 87, recently told me over the phone. “I’m a great believer in keeping notes on what you see from year to year. Repetitive observation is my idea of the way to live. This is not a once-in-a-lifetime chance, but a once-in-a-species' existence, to observe these huge changes.”
And so began her transition from fiction to writing about ecological issues.
More at https://www.vogue.com/article/annie-proulx-fen-bog-and-swamp-interview
Free download of Annie Proulx's book from the mirrors at https://libgen.unblockit.nz/search.php?req=Annie+Proulx+Bog
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Call for Public Comment: Fifth National Climate Assessment
https://www.globalchange.gov/content/call-public-comment-fifth-nationa
l-climate-assessment
Climate change threatening ‘things Americans value most,’ U.S. report says
Since 1970, the authors state, the continental United States has experienced 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, well above the average for the planet. (In Alaska, at Utqiagvik, annual temperature has increased by more than 12°F since 1976. https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/ak/ )
The study highlights how the frequency of billion-dollar disasters has now increased from once every four months in the 1980s to once every three weeks in the present. It finds that the United States is experiencing some of the most severe sea-level rises on the planet.
And it details the ever-greater certainty that rainfall and heat extremes are proliferating, as are damaging wildfires and crippling floods.
Over the long term, the only real solution is for humanity to muster the political and technological will to stop polluting the atmosphere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/11/07/cop27-cl
imate-change-report-us/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is a little complicated, but it shows the sources of California electricity throughout the day. During daylight hours, solar and wind provide about 18,000 megawatts of power, far more than any other source. From dawn to midafternoon excess solar power is stored in the battery network. When it gets dark, the wind keeps blowing but we lose 12,000 megawatts of solar power. This is currently replaced by 8,000 megawatts of natural gas, 5,000 megawatts of imports from other states, and 2,000 megawatts of battery storage in order to meet peak demand during the hours of 7pm-10pm. Meanwhile, nuclear baseload chugs along at a constant 2,000 megawatts all day.
Today, battery storage provides about 7% of peak demand, but the plan is to keep building massive battery capacity to reduce the use of natural gas plants during the evening.
NOTE: California is by far the biggest user of battery storage in the country. It has about twice the capacity of the #2 state, Texas, and five times as much as #3, Illinois.
https://jabberwocking.com/battery/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A major paper released on the sidelines of the COP27 climate summit in Egypt has started a countdown. At the current rate of global emissions, the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will likely be permanently out of reach in nine years.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This jet fuel is made from CO2 pulled from the atmosphere
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/11/09/air-company-co2-derived
-jet-fuel-jg-orig.cnn-business
Electricity splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen then goes into a reactor with carbon dioxide to make jet fuel. The same technology uses a different catalyst in the reactor to make vodka and the waste stream is pure oxygen.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How Should We Think About the End of the World as We Know it?
“Yes, it’s a catastrophe,” Elizabeth Weil writes of climate change. “And no, you would not be better off if you continued to tell yourself otherwise.”
By Kiley Bense, November 19, 2022
Anthropologists Cymene Howe and Dominic Boyer in Iceland 2019 installed a plaque, titled “A letter to the future,” with this message:
This monument is to acknowledge
that we know what is happening
and what needs to be done.
Only you know if we did it.
Knowing what needs to be done is one thing; having the will to do it is another.
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20221119235904/https://insideclimatenews.o
rg/news/19112022/warming-trends-how-should-we-think-about-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Middle East and US global power: Fossil Fuel- Lifeblood of the American Empire
by Phillyguy for The Saker Blog
...
6. Military– The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of fossil fuel and polluter in the world. To give this some perspective, on average, the US military consumes 12,600,000 gallons (48,000,000 L) of fuel per day. One F-16 fighter jet consumes over 20K gallons of Kerosene per hour (333 gal/min) [32].
http://thesaker.is/the-middle-east-and-us-global-power-fossil-fuel-lif
eblood-of-the-american-empire/
That's about 4.6 billion gallons per year. By comparison, the USA uses about 135 billion gallons of gasoline per year. So US DoD represents about 3.5 pct of civilian auto fuel usage.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Airbus has announced it is developing a hydrogen-powered fuel cell engine -- and that it plans to test it on the largest commercial airplane ever to take to the skies.
The French aviation giant revealed at Airbus Summit 2022 on November 30 that it will mount the engine between the wings and the tail of a modified A380 superjumbo. Test flights are estimated for 2026, as part of the Airbus ZEROe initiative to launch a zero-emission aircraft by 2035.
"In terms of aerodynamics, the A380 is a very stable aircraft. So the pod attached to the rear fuselage via the stub doesn't pose much of an issue," said Mathias Andriamisaina, head of ZEROe demonstrators and tests at Airbus, in a statement.
Airbus had previously revealed concept designs for an aircraft utilizing liquid hydrogen fuel and combustion engines, but vice president of Zero-Emission Aircraft Glenn Llewellyn suggested fuel cells alone might be sufficient to power smaller commercial aircraft.
The engine uses fuel cells to convert the hydrogen into electricity, which then powers a propeller. "At scale, and if the technology targets were achieved, fuel cell engines may be able to power a 100-passenger aircraft with a range of approximately 1,000 nautical miles," he said.
The journey to decarbonize air travel
Hydrogen has long been touted as a sustainable alternative to traditional jet fuel, either as a combustible fuel or used to generate electricity via fuel cells. The aviation industry produces 2.8% of global CO2 emissions but it faces harder challenges than other sectors in decarbonizing itself, and progress has been slow.
While hydrogen-powered aircraft have been in development since the mid-20th Century, they have faced significant obstacles, mainly hydrogen's low energy density compared to kerosene, and the latter's availability and historically low price.
The infrastructure required to produce and distribute hydrogen is also an issue. At Airbus Summit, Airbus boss Guillaume Faury warned that this was "a big concern" and it could derail the company's plans to introduce a hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035.
But hydrogen could become a key asset in commercial aviation even before entirely new aircraft based around it are developed. Days before Airbus' announcement, Rolls-Royce and budget airline EasyJet said they had successfully converted a regular airplane engine to run on liquid hydrogen fuel — a world first, they claim.
The ground test involved a type of Rolls-Royce engine currently used in commercial and military airplanes, and a second test is already planned. Next, the trial will expand to a Rolls-Royce Pearl 15 engine, which is used to power Bombardier business jets capable of long-haul flight.
Future fuel
The fuel for Rolls-Royce's test was sourced from wind and tidal energy, an example of "green" hydrogen.
Green hydrogen is commonly derived via the electrolysis of water -- using electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen -- and using renewably sourced electricity to do so. "Gray" hydrogen uses non-renewable electricity, while "blue" hydrogen is similar to gray, but captures most of the carbon emitted in production. Green hydrogen is considered the cleanest option.
How the hydrogen is utilized also creates a different footprint. Burning liquid hydrogen in the open-air releases a small amount of greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Using green hydrogen to generate electricity in a fuel cell, however, emits only water and warm air.
The next decade will reveal which of the hydrogen technologies will take off. Either would be a positive step in securing the long-term viability of low-carbon air travel.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/airbus-fuel-cell-engine-rolls-royce
-easyjet-engine-c2e-spc-intl/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME