Cephalotus
10 kW
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 755
furcifer said:Cephalotus said:Making steel: Can be done
etc...
Lol.
http://www.hybritdevelopment.com/
furcifer said:Cephalotus said:Making steel: Can be done
etc...
Lol.
Cephalotus said:sendler2112 said:Not at anywhere close to this scale that supports modern civilization now. 17.5 TW average.
From that 7 TW is waste heat from power plants and 4 TW is waste heat from combustion engines in vehicles. And we didn't talk about losses from buildings and inefficient industries yet.
The Megapack will be utilized for an upcoming energy storage project hosted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Moss Landing, California once final approval from the state’s Public Utilities Commission is received. Under the project, Tesla’s battery-powered utility installation will store 182.5 megawatts of excess solar or wind energy to provide supplemental power during peak grid times for up to 4 hours at a time. It will take the place of natural gas “peaker” power plants, offering a much more efficient and clean alternative for Moss Landing’s energy needs.
Exactly.Cephalotus said:From that 7 TW is waste heat from power plants and 4 TW is waste heat from combustion engines in vehicles. And we didn't talk about losses from buildings and inefficient industries yet.
30 Jul: Reuters: China Belt and Road power investments surge from 2014-2019: study
by David Stanway
SHANGHAI – Chinese equity investment in solar, wind and coal power projects in Belt and Road countries has surged from 2014 to 2019, with planned capacity up more than tenfold compared to the previous five-year period, environmental group Greenpeace said…
According to a study published by Greenpeace on Monday, China’s wind and solar power investments in Belt and Road countries amounted to 12.6 gigawatts (GW) since the initiative was launched in 2014. It had invested in just 0.45 GW of solar prior to 2014…
The country has also invested in 67.9 gigawatts of new coal-fired power in Belt and Road countries since 2014, but Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Liu Junyan said the increase in the share of renewables should be welcomed.
“Chinese investors’ ratio of coal to solar is now the same at home and abroad – both are still six-to-one (in favor of)coal, unfortunately, but I’m amazed to see what five years of equity investment in solar made possible,” Liu said…
China’s total coal-fired capacity also expected to rise by another 45 GW this year, with the total eventually expected to peak at around 1,300 GW, up from 1,140 GW at the end of last year, researchers from China’s State Grid said this month.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables-silkroad/china-belt-and-road-power-investments-surge-from-2014-2019-study-idUSKCN1UP093.
Cephalotus said:http://www.hybritdevelopment.com/
billvon said:Just wait until he sees his first refrigerator! His mind will be BLOWN!
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.
Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?jimw1960 said:It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
wuz talkin bout waste, not transferrence.jimw1960 said:Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.
It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
Wikpedia said:A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:an asteroid strike (a big wun, which is inevitable) would also transfer all that carbon into the atmosphere (along with everything/one else).
Hillhater said:Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?jimw1960 said:It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
It’s. pretty obvious you do not have a clue what the actual figure really is !
billvon said:Fun new source of CO2 - burning permafrost! Over 2 million acres of (former) permafrost is burning in Russia. As the climate warms, the tundra dries out and starts burning. The now-warm permafrost then melts, and the organics in the permafrost starts to burn as well, liberating their carbon into the atmosphere.
Perhaps we should change the name "permafrost." Tempafrost? Permacarbon?
A hundred years ago it was less than 1.0 Gtjimw1960 said:Hillhater said:Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?jimw1960 said:It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
It’s. pretty obvious you do not have a clue what the actual figure really is !
35 billion tons of fossil co2 emissions each year amounts to about 10 billion tons carbon. Multiply that by 100 years and what do you get, genius?
furcifer said:I'm not sure I'd call it a "source", it's kind of borderline. I believe most of that carbon is still part of the active carbon cycle and not really sequestered.
That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).Punx0r said:No guessing required. Take the current mass of the atmosphere and multiply by the current CO2 concentration (w/w) to get total tonnes of CO2. Divide by the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 100 or 150 years to get the mass of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes, it makes a difference whether you talk CO2 or just C and whether you talk total emitted (just by fossil fuels or all human activities) or total remaining in the atmosphere (ignoring that taken by the oceans and forests) but the, which a 30 second google search would tell you, is roughly the same: 1 trillion tonnes. Or in simpler terms "a lot".
If it's going to refreeze and return to the ice I'd agree with you. I don't know if that's a given in the timeframe we are looking at here (hundreds of years.)furcifer said:I'm not sure I'd call it a "source", it's kind of borderline. I believe most of that carbon is still part of the active carbon cycle and not really sequestered.
Let him keep digging; it's fun to watch.Punx0r said:Oh man, you just can't stop embarrassing yourself
Punx0r said:We consider forests as sequestring CO2 and they're probably less permanent than permafrost.
Hillhater said:That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
Hillhater said:That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
Since the question was about CARBON...try searching that instead !Punx0r said:Hillhater said:That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
Type "total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" into google and click the top link.
jimw1960 said:We are on track to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration before the end of this century if no action is taking. That's adding a over trillion tons since pre-industrial. As to guessing how much is still in the atmosphere, I don't have to guess. People a lot smarter than you have already done the math and it will take thousands of years to get back to preindustrial levels even if we stop emitting today: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
When you are getting deeper and deeper into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. That applies to both CO2 emissions and your misinformed opinions on the subject.
And why dont you state that figure for remaining ANTHROPOGENIC carbon in the atmosphere if you are so familiar with it ?Aug 01 2019 3:43am
jimw1960 wrote: ↑Aug 01 2019 12:19am
It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.