OK seems like its all going to be about co2 for a while until that wears out..
Even though I have brought it up multiple times and even shown google maps satellite url/views of new HELE coal stations being built I will point it out again. New HELE coal power-station being built in the UAE https://goo.gl/maps/Drgyx1ns6Kn https://goo.gl/maps/hUjWahD9aho
When those of you arguing that coal is killing everyone while drinking a can of coke and eating junk food please understand that HELE coal power-stations, by default, the cheapest versions of them, only emit co2 as everything else is filtered out (up to 99%).
So its no different than you breathing out 40,000ppm co2.
The more expensive HELE coal power-station versions can capture and store the co2, but the cost per MWh is more expensive of course.
https://www.worldcoal.org/sites/default/files/resources_files/WCA_Coal%20and%20air%20quality_2%20pages.pdf
Producing electricity from coal can result in the release of trace elements, such as mercury, selenium and arsenic and varying degrees of oxides of sulphur (SOx) and nitrogen (NOx), which can be harmful to human health and the environment. Cleaner coal technologies, such as electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, selective catalytic reduction systems, wet and dry scrubbers, sorbents and activated carbon injection can reduce the emissions of pollutants from coal combustion by between 90% and 99.9% by stripping out the pollutants before they are emitted in the atmosphere through the smokestack.
*Add/Edit*
I made a meme, "Let's Make Coal Cool Again". I know this may sound amusing, but I had this silly idea that if the government could pay GnR a billion dollars to be the ambassador of clean coal, GNR would accept it. This could make coal more accepted and keep the world going until more practical long-term technologies arrive like the Bill Gates Nuclear reactor, which uses nuclear waste as fuel and is cheaper than coal. Even though paying GnR a billion dollars seems like a waste of money I think its cheaper in the long run and will reduce economic burden and pain than what renewables are causing in states. ( States like South Australia where they cant afford to even recycle stuff because electricity to process it is too expensive http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/businesses-brace-for-crippling-energy-bill-increases/news-story/b8c6a673b3938b765d7df0f72faec181 )
I think GnR being quite a popular group from a wide audience age range, they would be the best choice to be the ambassador of clean coal.
https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2017.oct.the-role-of-hele-coal-plants-i
https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2-emissions/high-efficiency-low-emission-coal
The reason why co2 ppm levels can be
10 times higher inside than outside is because of
YOU and your "pollutant" co2 generating lungs. Humans are carbon-based, because carbon is one of the most abundant elements in the universe, oxygen binds to your carbon as it processed in your body and pass out of your lungs, generating co2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life
The whole "what about the carbon cycle" argument is really just a red-herring/chewbacca-defense used to complicate the argument ( https://youtu.be/clKi92j6eLE ), its totally
moronic, because with carbon and oxygen being the 3 and 4th most abundant elements in the entire universe, where these elements sit really doesn't matter, just as carbon base humans merely breathing generates an incredible amount of co2. Two Oxygen atoms easily to bind to a single atom of carbon and become a gas, that's why co2 gas is so easily created.
Its the generation of co2 that is the biggest factor, that is what is important to atmospheric co2 ppm readings.
As this video shows, you exhale 100x more co2 than you inhaled with every breath.
https://youtu.be/ozgROE1xCM4
[youtube]ozgROE1xCM4[/youtube]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Human_physiology
The body produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person,[121] containing 0.63 pounds (290 g) of carbon.
290grams of carbon atoms, 710grams of oxygen atoms.
We are at just under 8 billion people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
8billion x 1kg = 8 billion kilos of co2 per day from breathing. 8 million tons per day.
8million x 365_days_per_year = 2,920,000,000 tons annual or
2.92billion tons co2 annual.
How everyones breathing co2 emissions compares to coal emissions is quite interesting. Again I can't stress it enough, the location of carbon atoms whether sitting on the ground or inside someone's body makes no difference until those carbon atoms get attached to 2 oxygen atoms creating co2 gas. The argument of were carbon atoms come from is a complete distraction from the relevant or important issue, its a red-herring. If water vapor suddenly increased in the atmosphere by 10 times, would it matter where it came from considering the world is mostly ocean,
or would it matter more how the 10 times increase got there??? These carbon-cycle morons are trying to argue its the location of the water thats the problem.
In this chart you can see India has only begun with its fossil fuel burning to catch up to China, and because its a 3rd world country its free under international rules to build as many coal power-stations as it wants. There is no logical reason why India wont eventually consume more electricity than China, especially since its a warmer country, Queensland uses a considerably larger amount of electricity than Victoria simply because its warmer and requires more air conditioners.
Cold water holds 5x more co2 than warm water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9H3_sMheKk
How Classrooms Slow Your Brain Down due to co2 ppm buildup in rooms
https://youtu.be/as0WDl7lGvU
There might well be co2 attributing to warming but we have had an epic increase in co2 ppm levels and we can't see any more accelerating warming than what has happened over the last 10,000 years, it just continues on at its incredibly slow natural pace. It's a perfect situation for ever lasting scientific debate. I think once we hit 800ppm or at least close and folks cant for the life of them see any difference in their eye based sea level markers the alarmism will be over. But Al Gore will be ultra rich by then and electric flying cars will be exclusive to the rich only because the price of electricity will be too much for the average person, at least if the current trends with renewables continue.
The last 10,000 years have caused the sea level rises, they have marrooned the aboriginals in Tasmania from the mainland as I was saying before with the Wikipedia links, but these movements are ignoring co2 charts because its a movement out of an ice-age.
The science screams you are going to have to wait 1000s of years for sea levels to become a problem and the science says looking back over the 10,000 years that there was nothing you can do about it, controlling co2 levels didn't mean anything over the last 10,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tasmanians#Before_European_settlement
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=1825#p1374036
The well-respected science behind Woolly Mammoth is that the last one died about 3600 years ago, of course, due to global warming, not related to co2 levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth
The reason why Russia keeps building bigger and bigger nuclear-powered ice-breaker ships is because the ice keeps getting
thicker vertically rather than horizontally/sea ice extent measurements, this fact doesn't sell well on alarmist news sites.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20564/heres-what-we-know-about-russias-new-floating-nuclear-power-plant-heading-to-the-arctic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker#Russian_nuclear_icebreakers
The only clear and easily visible destructive effects we have seen for sure on the environment from the climate change alarmism is from the destruction of forests and other landscapes for the deployment of renewable energy.
Like I pointed out before Germany has removed, probably into the 1,000s, patches of forest for Solar panels that deliver around 10% of the claimed capacity, those lost trees could have helped with co2 sequestration which the NASA models show helps a lot. https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04?t=1m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgROE1xCM4
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=1725#p1366356
https://goo.gl/maps/WFdC3pmvGjt
The latest "real-world" data shows the world is only getting better with new records of polar bears in the world etc.
https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-numbers-increase-gwpf-calls-for-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/
Video by Dr Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, documents the latest findings about rising polar bear numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0
[youtube]z6bcCTFnGZ0[/youtube]
Instead of looking at NASA/NOAA sea level charts that can show the difference of a millionth of a millimeter, just look at the real world. Look at the polar bears and look at the missing trees from Solar panels.
Islands are getting bigger, not smaller. This should all be basic common knowledge, less some folks are deliberately refusing it look at the real-world and are instead strictly sticking to media outlets that are based on profiting from their vulnerability to alarmist information. All these articles are great.
Pacific islands 'growing not shrinking' due to climate change
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html
https://inhabitat.com/sinking-island-nation-of-tuvalu-is-actually-growing/
Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: study
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/pacific-island-nation-expected-to-sink-is-getting-bigger
When there is so much money and power at stake I am surprised a mob behind Al Gore hasn't funded exploding a low yield nuclear device or conventional MOAB bomb under a small island just to sink it and use the footage for climate change doom, I really don't think it's beneath them. I guess the difficulty and deniability of doing such a thing keeps the islands safe.
I like this guys youtube channels videos on the topic, he uses NASA and NOAA to undermine the arguments a bit like how anyone can use crappy performing realworld/EIA.gov energy generation stats of renewables to undermine renewables.
This is his latest video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzFx_tTx0ms
[youtube]mzFx_tTx0ms[/youtube]
Dauntless said:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/africa/congo-cobalt-dirty-energy-intl/
Thanks for that, that was really interesting, I like the video where the kid gets whacked for accidentally stumbling out in front of the camera when he was clearly told to stay away. I guess that kid can be proud hes making the world a better place.
Back to energy. Here is a reasonably new whacky renewable energy idea. Alge for transportable fuel. Says it requires 40 times less land than terrestrial biofuels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExOXF1x3N1g
One of the things thats easily notable when looking on Electricitrymap is seeing the wind go down to Zero MW generation or at something close and seeing constantly the Biomass generation at near 100% 24/7 which is a world of difference. If you could directly attach cost of outages of wind energy like the countless $14,000MWh spot prices in SA for example, to the LCOE charts, wind would look a lot different on overall cost.
The biomass LCOE numbers look quite fair and can produce the power when you want it and even be portable forms from algae, in the potential future doomsday world where fossil fuels just don't exist it would look quite practical to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States
Talking about reliable energy reminded me of this I saw a few days ago.
When looking at news on the web I came across this, where the main Airport for the Netherlands had proudly announced to start running from %100 renewables from the start of 2018 was shut down due to a massive power failure and the wind happened to be near dead for the Dutch. Maybe if it was all biofuels they would have fared better, but I assume it was a combined effect of complexities failure, probably not much power around, in general, couldn't be diverted, intermediate local fossil fuel generator backups ran out.
Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport was temporarily closed early on Sunday as a large power outage hit all operations at one of Europe’s busiest airports.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-airport/power-outage-disrupts-amsterdams-schiphol-airport-idUSKBN1I0053
http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/29/power-failure-closes-amsterdam-s-schiphol-airport
https://news.schiphol.com/royal-schiphol-group-fully-powered-by-dutch-wind-farms-from-2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5QCQBNJ62g
[youtube]u5QCQBNJ62g[/youtube]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbyzGAtUwAAFLnr.jpg
Its easy to find the Netherlands wind generation bobbing in and out of 0-1% capacity
sendler2112 said:
Sorry. Somehow I ended up here.
.
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Another great article Sendler.
Frankly, I think it's impossible to read articles like that and choose to believe CO2 is a serious problem.
And to me, it reminds me of how similar the issue is to the sugar industry where they fight the claims sugar is bad for you for money.
This episode from ABC Four Corners, called "Tipping The Scales" shows the greed/influence money causes people to do.
They don't upload it to Youtube for some reason, so new convenient bookmark/time URLs on the most interesting bits.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BdGYRAAZjAJX
There is a bit about how honest doctor who was trying to give diet help to reduce sugar to his patients has received "anonymous complains" to the medical board (from the sugar industry) that he's technically not allowed to give such advice and only a full-time dietician is technically allowed to give such advice..
And how the health sector deliberately chose to do unhelpful procedures on people simply because of the money they get paid doing it or to prescribe drugs that don't help. Watch it all or watch this bit to glean what it's about..
https://youtu.be/H4uVNywg848?t=11m56s
To me I find it truly remarkable some folks don't see how traditional industries that are well known to be influenced by money like big tobacco, sugar, and big pharma can't include Al Gores fight on co2 / the fight of forcing people to buy renewable energy that wouldn't have a hope in hell in a free energy market.
As the final similarity with renewables and big pharma is, as Germany has well and truly proven, (despite still having quite a large nuclear deployment themselves) is that despite having a Wind/solar capacity installation technically capable of providing as much as 100% of their energy requirements at times, it doesn't really do much at all in actually lowing overall co2 emissions compared to the Nuclear based France.
To me, it's like taking statins vs exercise and healthy eating.
What will be great is when Germany shuts down the rest of its Nuclear, then its total CO2 emissions vs France should blast higher to as much as 20 times more CO2 overall than France.