Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Ianhill   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sep 25 2015 5:55pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Jul 08 2019 7:04am

Ianhill wrote:
Jul 08 2019 6:58am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 07 2019 7:24pm
Ianhill wrote:
Jul 06 2019 4:30pm
Shove a steam turbine on my wang and I'll doom the energy Into the grid feed me greens and I'll be renewable.
Hmm ? Sounds like just another way for a (small) renewable source to phuk up the grid ! :roll: :roll:

Haha this suckers electrical when i get going I generate 1.21 jizzawatts, I send the lucky girl back in time to they youth lmao mind blown like a fuse.
I never had the small comment on my setup im privaliged for a white man but small reactors can kick a decent punch out to I suppose some woman are happy enough and susccefully power themselfs with them for long durations.
If we don't make light of the past present and future it becomes a serious smash of words back and forth, fingers crossed for the future for the youth of tomorrow i say, the next hundred years is crucial we get the best grip on understanding the processes we exist around.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9853
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 10 2019 7:40am

Hey bill, I hope you still trying to explain this ....
billvon wrote:
Jul 01 2019 5:51pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 01 2019 5:27pm
??? How do they manage to sell stored power from the battery 30% cheaper than the solar power that they are using to charge the battery ?
They don't, of course. But nice try!
So , care to explain what the 1.3c/kWh charge is then ?
....the price for battery storage is not added on top of the solar price. It's a separate power product, sold at 1.3¢.
And whilst you are at it,....
....explain how a 300MW solar install can provide 7% of LAs power demand ?.....even oon a good day !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1143
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 10 2019 11:48am

Resilience.org just posted a new Nate Hagens lecture today from June. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... edicament/

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 10 2019 4:59pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 10 2019 11:48am
Resilience.org just posted a new Nate Hagens lecture today from June. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... edicament/
Wow, great lecture. I think he stole some of my material. :mrgreen:

This is something I would urge people like hillhater to watch and really listen to and try to comprehend. I'm only 16min in right now but he's hitting on the major points. Forget politics and partisanship and just listen to what humans are doing and what kind of impact we are having on this planet.

Humans are addicted to energy. In the last 200 years we have gone from what could only be described as a symbiotic relationship to a parasitic one. 200 years ago most humans relied on the sun, and maybe a couple beasts of burden to live off of. Today our cell phones probably consume almost as many joules in any given day. No blue whale or no dinosaur that ever roamed the planet ever ever consumed as much energy on a day by day basis as the average westernized human does today.

This is why I say regardless of how you "feel" about AGW or climate change, people still need to be on board with the measures that need to be taken to curb emissions. It's almost cliche but we really do take from this planet so much more than we give back. I don't think you need to be a hippie and live like a hippie to get this.

User avatar
ZeroEm   100 mW

100 mW
Posts: 47
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by ZeroEm » Jul 11 2019 6:45pm

by furcifer » Jul 10 2019 4:59pm
This is why I say regardless of how you "feel" about AGW or climate change, people still need to be on board with the measures that need to be taken to curb emissions. It's almost cliche but we really do take from this planet so much more than we give back. I don't think you need to be a hippie and live like a hippie to get this.
I agree and trying all the time to cut down on everything. This brought me to E-bikes and ES. Hillhater would fit right with us Texans. Got to respect his opinion's.
The journey is more important than the destination!
2013 Nissan Leaf S 8 bars 4.9 miles/Kw

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 11 2019 7:09pm

ZeroEm wrote:
Jul 11 2019 6:45pm
I agree and trying all the time to cut down on everything. This brought me to E-bikes and ES. Hillhater would fit right with us Texans. Got to respect his opinion's.
That might be pushing it, but he gets an "A" for effort, even if it is a little misguided.

But yah, the idea that we are taking energy out of the ground 10 million times faster than nature put it in there is mind boggling.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1143
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 11 2019 7:36pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 10 2019 4:59pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 10 2019 11:48am
Resilience.org just posted a new Nate Hagens lecture today from June. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... edicament/
Wow, great lecture.
If you understand that and want to learn more (every wise human should learn these concepts), you should view the short video series that Hagens threw together last winter which is a little more in depth and more accurate (less off the cuff). View on 1.5 speed to save time. 34, eight minute lessons.
.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... zhnozJUsBV
.

User avatar
ZeroEm   100 mW

100 mW
Posts: 47
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by ZeroEm » Jul 11 2019 8:11pm

People here in the US are so wasteful, everyone is so taken in by the bull droppings of corporate greed. It is simple slow down and lighten up, move to newer tech.
The journey is more important than the destination!
2013 Nissan Leaf S 8 bars 4.9 miles/Kw

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 11 2019 9:05pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 11 2019 7:36pm
If you understand that and want to learn more (every wise human should learn these concepts), you should view the short video series that Hagens threw together last winter which is a little more in depth and more accurate (less off the cuff). View on 1.5 speed to save time. 34, eight minute lessons.
.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... zhnozJUsBV
.
Good stuff.

I'm back studying at the U and I have to say there is some emphasis on this. Not a huge one, but peripheral to the hard science they seem to be talking more about globalization, sustainability and energy, what this means moving forward.

Personally I'm fascinated by the whole concept of energy and how it relates to human behaviour and development. People have no idea how energy intensive out existence is. They know it's considerable, but I don't think they realize it's orders of magnitude more than any other living thing on this planet. They know we are out of sync with nature but don't realize to what extent it really is.

I have a lot of "hippie" friends that think they are so much more in tune with how things should be. And to some extent they are, but for the most part in this modern world, they're really more of a burden than they wish to acknowledge. They go off grid, but then they run generators with fuel that was ferried out on a truck instead. When you start looking at what it actually takes in terms of the total energy input, including the use of infrastructure, things start to look a lot less sustainable. If the whole country spread out evenly and grew a few vegetables, raised a few chickens, pooped in a bucket etc. there's no fracking way we could maintain our current standard of living.

When you look at the psychology, and how much we live in the present and have very little concern of the future, it all starts to make sense. We aren't so far removed in an evolutionary sense from the hunter and gathers that came before us. We tend to find the most comfort living day to day, with the only focus, if any, on the future being that of our personal wealth. Even our health seems to be of little concern. No worries if you can't climb a few stairs, 1/2 gallon of gas ought to do the trick.

I'll have to finish those videos when I get a chance. Seems like he's spot on so far.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9853
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 12 2019 7:07pm

Here is something to warm the blood at the next Alarmist cult meeting.. :wink:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
....We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
No need to respond ,...i know you wont accept anything against your beliefs .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1143
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 12 2019 8:55pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 11 2019 9:05pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 11 2019 7:36pm
If you understand that and want to learn more (every wise human should learn these concepts), you should view the short video series that Hagens threw together last winter which is a little more in depth and more accurate (less off the cuff). View on 1.5 speed to save time. 34, eight minute lessons.
.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... zhnozJUsBV
.
Good stuff.

I have a lot of "hippie" friends that think they are so much more in tune with how things should be. And to some extent they are, but for the most part in this modern world, they're really more of a burden than they wish to acknowledge. They go off grid, but then they run generators with fuel that was ferried out on a truck instead. When you start looking at what it actually takes in terms of the total energy input, including the use of infrastructure, things start to look a lot less sustainable.
The big cultural blindspot is embodied energy. People always think their discretionary energy consumption is their energy footprint but even if you move to the country and live off grid, you are still the beneficiary of schools, hospitals, roads, government/ police/ fire responders, stores, food, clothing, ect. All of this, everything manmade that you see around you is made with vast amounts of cheap energy which has replaced all of the work that humans used to do by hand to mine, refine, and build all of this stuff. And grow food for 8 billion people. Vast amount of energy have increased human wellbeing and allowed the population to triple since 1955. We can't humanely just stop. Everything has to change.

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 12 2019 9:44pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 12 2019 8:55pm
The big cultural blindspot is embodied energy. People always think their discretionary energy consumption is their energy footprint but even if you move to the country and live off grid, you are still the beneficiary of schools, hospitals, roads, government/ police/ fire responders, stores, food, clothing, ect. All of this, everything manmade that you see around you is made with vast amounts of cheap energy which has replaced all of the work that humans used to do by hand to mine, refine, and build all of this stuff. And grow food for 8 billion people. Vast amount of energy have increased human wellbeing and allowed the population to triple since 1955. We can't humanely just stop. Everything has to change.
My partner is from a small island off the coast of Vancouver. I've had this debate with her about sustainability, and what it takes for these small islands to live remotely in the modern world. They really don't get the amount of infrastructure, and ultimately energy, that goes into maintaining these small communities. They're under the impression that when the shit hits the fan they will be in a good place because they grow a lot of stuff locally and can live off the land. Natural springs, organic farming, the whole nine yards.

I've tried to explain to her the math just doesn't work out. When fossil fuels start to run out, you just can't get the same amount of energy out of things like solar and biomass as you can out of oil. Yes, you can live off of it, but you just can't expect to maintain anywhere near the same standard of living.

And as much as I hate to think about it, it's going to mean people moving into the city. It seems so backwards to a lot of people. They just assume the "hustle and bustle" of city living is the problem. The reality is as busy as the cities are they are simply more efficient.

This is one of those psychological aspects I find interesting. Sometimes I wonder if these little misconceptions people have play a role in how things are going to play out.

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3514
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 13 2019 7:30am

There was a film some time back called 'Off the Grid' or something like it. It covers just that - the naive and almost selfish attitude of running away from the world's problems to live in a spot where you have the luxury of space and wilderness etc. Great for you, but the world which supplies you with stuff is still on its way to hell in a handbasket.

When I was 17 I'd just finished high school and my folks bought a bush block about 30 km outside of town. I was about to travel 300 km south to go to university (I'm the youngest) so it was a bit of 'empty nesting' on their part. But I also had a beautiful place to go home to over vacations. Lovely spot on a creek which ran almost year round, nestled amongst the basalt mountains of the Main Range.

In 1997 it was a shack in the bush with 2 x 80 W solar panels and a couple of car batteries. It was quite the shock for mum and dad; dad especially. He used to love coming home from work and vegetating in front of the telly for 4 hours - not anymore. It was rough, but he did come around. Eventually at the end of the first year, they saved up enough to install four 80 W panels and an 1100 Ah 12 volt flooded lead acid battery to run the lights and a small inverter so they could do the laundry once a week. They even bought a 4" black and white television :D

As time went by, the solar system was expanded again up to a 24 V system and about 16 x 80 W panels - still tiny by today's standards, but entirely liveable and quite luxurious compared to the initial setup. They were out there for a little over 11 years. I loved it, so was sad to see them sell up and move back into town, but hey, their money, their life.
DSCN1700sml.JPG
DSCN1700sml.JPG (119.69 KiB) Viewed 182 times
Many things about our lifestyle out there were great, even sustainable. We grew most of our food, raised goats, beef, chickens, grew our own food, had an orchard etc. However looking back, lots of this was done off the back of liquid fossil fuels. Water pumping, driving diesel 4x4s into town every second day or more, and running the tractor. They did make bio diesel for a long time too, until the engine seized up and they spend $6k on a new one... But ultimately, while our electricity and heating needs were being met, our transport and water pumping needs were not.

EVs and EV technology today would easily meet our needs for a very comfortable existence, but at the time, we probably poured tens of thousands of dollars into the fuel tanks, and up in smoke after that. A solar pump and battery might have fixed those problems, but again, early 2000s, things were still expensive and my folks were getting old. Only so much wood you can split before you're sick of it.

It was a good life, and arguably more sustainable than many, but it would be fanciful to think it might have been impact free. We still had a rubbish top to take our crap to, and mum and dad had jobs in town to pay for it all.

So what problems did we fix by living out there? Well I planted about 4 hectares of native hardwoods, and we proved to a valley full of redneck Queenslanders that solar power was a viable option. But I guess that's it. The "city problems" didn't go away, and invariably they had to move back to town because that's where the amenities were.

Still miss that place.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1143
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2019 9:56am

The point that i try to get people to understand is the current scale of the human endeavor. Imagine trying to relocate 40 million people from Tokyo to enough land for them each to grow all of their own food, fiber, and firewood.

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 13 2019 12:03pm

jonescg wrote:
Jul 13 2019 7:30am
There was a film some time back called 'Off the Grid' or something like it. It covers just that - the naive and almost selfish attitude of running away from the world's problems to live in a spot where you have the luxury of space and wilderness etc. Great for you, but the world which supplies you with stuff is still on its way to hell in a handbasket.

When I was 17 I'd just finished high school and my folks bought a bush block about 30 km outside of town. I was about to travel 300 km south to go to university (I'm the youngest) so it was a bit of 'empty nesting' on their part. But I also had a beautiful place to go home to over vacations. Lovely spot on a creek which ran almost year round, nestled amongst the basalt mountains of the Main Range.

In 1997 it was a shack in the bush with 2 x 80 W solar panels and a couple of car batteries. It was quite the shock for mum and dad; dad especially. He used to love coming home from work and vegetating in front of the telly for 4 hours - not anymore. It was rough, but he did come around. Eventually at the end of the first year, they saved up enough to install four 80 W panels and an 1100 Ah 12 volt flooded lead acid battery to run the lights and a small inverter so they could do the laundry once a week. They even bought a 4" black and white television :D

As time went by, the solar system was expanded again up to a 24 V system and about 16 x 80 W panels - still tiny by today's standards, but entirely liveable and quite luxurious compared to the initial setup. They were out there for a little over 11 years. I loved it, so was sad to see them sell up and move back into town, but hey, their money, their life.

DSCN1700sml.JPG

Many things about our lifestyle out there were great, even sustainable. We grew most of our food, raised goats, beef, chickens, grew our own food, had an orchard etc. However looking back, lots of this was done off the back of liquid fossil fuels. Water pumping, driving diesel 4x4s into town every second day or more, and running the tractor. They did make bio diesel for a long time too, until the engine seized up and they spend $6k on a new one... But ultimately, while our electricity and heating needs were being met, our transport and water pumping needs were not.

EVs and EV technology today would easily meet our needs for a very comfortable existence, but at the time, we probably poured tens of thousands of dollars into the fuel tanks, and up in smoke after that. A solar pump and battery might have fixed those problems, but again, early 2000s, things were still expensive and my folks were getting old. Only so much wood you can split before you're sick of it.

It was a good life, and arguably more sustainable than many, but it would be fanciful to think it might have been impact free. We still had a rubbish top to take our crap to, and mum and dad had jobs in town to pay for it all.

So what problems did we fix by living out there? Well I planted about 4 hectares of native hardwoods, and we proved to a valley full of redneck Queenslanders that solar power was a viable option. But I guess that's it. The "city problems" didn't go away, and invariably they had to move back to town because that's where the amenities were.

Still miss that place.
I hear yah. Our cottage is going to be up on the chopping block because, lol, the nuclear plant it's near has created an influx of wealthy residents that want some of that sweet sweet hydro. And sewers and gas, and taxes...

Once the baby boomers are gone we are going to see a contraction. It's inevitable. It's unfortunate, but like you mentioned, the older we get the MORE intensive our energy use becomes. The feasibility of living on the fringes, even today, diminishes rapidly with age. In the future that curve will be even steeper.

This is the reality, and to tie it back in to the topic, even if you don't believe in AGW, you have to believe fossil fuels are going to run out (then again, some people...) But saying the move towards alternatives is a waste of money is just shortsighted. It's inevitable and to be honest, I don't want to be on the cusp of the transition where nothing was done and then when reality sets it's we're scrambling to catch up. I mean we're in that phase already to be honest, but there are forces at work currently that could make it even worse. I'm not going to slam Trump for it because I don't mind him that much, but I think there is a serious argument to be made that he may be the most shortsighted of all the presidents that have ever been.

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 13 2019 12:06pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2019 9:56am
The point that i try to get people to understand is the current scale of the human endeavor. Imagine trying to relocate 40 million people from Tokyo to enough land for them each to grow all of their own food, fiber, and firewood.
And even then we're talking House on The Prairie living. I'm just saying, you don't see a lot of Japanese Mennonites. :mrgreen:

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1143
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2019 1:11pm

There isn't that much "prarie" in Japan. And traditional ocean stocks are getting thin.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5127
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 14 2019 5:16am

Arctic burning well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ame-sweden

Probably an early example of a non-linear effect of global warming along with the permafrost melts and other changes in albedo due to ice loss.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9853
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 14 2019 8:20am

The UN, IPCC are becoming more open about their motivation..
global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution:

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/kl ... -1.8373227

Translation:
....Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III:

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, such as with problems of deforestation or the ozone hole.”......
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 14 2019 10:04am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 14 2019 8:20am
The UN, IPCC are becoming more open about their motivation..
global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution:
That's just a "theory". Where's the irrefutable scientific proof? :mrgreen:

I have to ask, what's your point? It's been known for quite some time that energy and GDP are directly correlated. Maybe you see it as a nefarious plot by the West to give money to the struggling countries of the World? Oh the humanity.

What he says in that article is true. About 1 Billion people in the West have a much better standard of living because we've taken advantage of fossil fuels. We have wealth because of it. Moving forward we have absolutely no right to deprive less fortunate countries of the same opportunity. So yah, not only should be paying for our actions, we actually need to subsidize other countries to lessen their growing pains in a globally conscious economy.

That's the whole purpose of the IPCC. To evaluate the science and recommend policy. For some reason I think if the IPCC was saying, "No big deal, business as usual" the same people bitching about them now, would still be bitching about them, using the exact same arguments. I'm not a fan of being told what to do either.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1143
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 14 2019 11:46am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 14 2019 8:20am
The UN, IPCC are becoming more open about their motivation..
Also from the translation:
"The developing countries realize that the causes lie in the north and the consequences in the south. And in the industrialized countries, we realize that for a climate protection target of two degrees, neither purely technical solutions nor lifestyle change are sufficient. "

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9853
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 14 2019 7:11pm

More blood warming discussion material for those chilly Alarmist Cult meetings...
.....IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.....
Edwin X Berry, ... International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 13-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3514
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 14 2019 7:54pm

That paper is a clanger :lol:

Published in a bit of a no-name journal with three volumes to its name. Also, the language used in the paper is not like any journal I've read - it's clearly quite emotive and gunning for a goal.

One blogger's view of the author:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/0 ... y-phd.html

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9853
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 14 2019 8:55pm

Your blogger is an even bigger idiot than he claims Berry to be !
Firstly, he deliberately edits the Abstract Quote to change the base reference of the %calculation..
The IPCC agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent of today’s total..
Then he uses that false base to argue B grade school maths in an attempt to discredit Berry.
All the time , avoiding debating the real facts of the paper regarding the true physics of atmospheric CO2
yes, a real smart critic ! :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9853
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 14 2019 9:02pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 14 2019 11:46am
Also from the translation:
"The developing countries realize that the causes lie in the north and the consequences in the south. And in the industrialized countries, we realize that for a climate protection target of two degrees, neither purely technical solutions nor lifestyle change are sufficient. "
Do you know the origin of that... “ climate protection target of two degrees” ?
It is amusing when you find out !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply