Leaderboard

I'm not so sure. I've observed many open pit surface coal mines that have been reasonably restored to greenfields. Then, mountain tops in West Virginia seem to be scrapped away, which is REALLY expensive to rehabilitate I don't know how you can "rehabilitate" an underground coal mine, since it wasn't "green" to start with. A real "non-green" issue with most coals is "where do you put the residuals" (ash)? Clean ash (such as fly ash) can be useful, and actually sold if the un-burned carbon content is really low. If it is "clean enough", it can be a reasonable substitute for Portland cement. Bottom ash (the "real estate" that falls or drips to the bottom of the firebox), not so much...but some use it for a substitute for more expensive grit blasting media. Wear your PPE when using it! After using it for a grit substitute, it's STILL THERE (plus whatever it strips off a substrate), just much finer.

Hubble's Law is a robust principle in cosmology. There's ongoing refinement in measuring the exact value of H₀ (Hubble's Constant). Different methods provide slightly different results, leading to a current range around 70 (km/s)/Mpc (kilometers per second per megaparsec). One megaparsec (Mpc) is equivalent to roughly 30,856,775,815,000 Astronomical Units (AU). Jupiter is about 5.2 AU distant from the Sun. So, Jupiter is 0.000000000000017 of a Mpc away from the sun. Thus, 0.000000000000017 x 70 Km/sec = 0.000000000012 Km/s. Over a year (which has about 32 billion seconds), Hubble's Law, using the current constant, = about 380 meters/year for Jupiter's "recession" from the Sun, based on a simplified application of Hubble's Law. Observation of Jupiter doesn't provide relevant information to challenge Hubble's Law, due to the vast difference in scale and the nature of the phenomena involved. These are REALLY small angle differences over time in triangulation, particularly with observation of an EXTENDED object, like a planet. For sure, astronomers/cosmologists are famous for "extrapolating on a point" (Hubble's Law is a good example). That's why I never go beyond two significant digits in any astronomical analysis. YMMV about this. Triangulation of Jupiter may be a valid method of challenging Hubble's Law, given enough years of observation and fully considering the orbital mechanics of our Solar System that could interfere with Hubble's Law recession. Earth-based measurements require taking atmospheric effects into consideration, which can EASILY overwhelm small angular measurements. We ain't have had space-based measurements long enough to make use of triangulation of local objects to challenge Hubble's Law. Even then, it's a real challenge to measure such small angular changes due to the orbital mechanics of the space-based platform. Cepheid variable stars represent a very valuable "standard candle" (I hate that term) for distance measurements. They are a remarkable example of how different astronomical tools work together to unveil the "secrets of the universe". "Science as a cult"? Yeah, I'm sure that's how past Popes dealt with it. "Religion as a cult" makes more sense to me. Again, YMMV. . .

Then, this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/us/florida-abortion-law-supreme-court.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.hE0.z-Co.1yVRJdDScaMH&smid=url-share Once again, women are being treated by the GOP not as people with innate rights, but as political pawns with little value other than as incubators! Without the ability to manage reproduction, women simply cannot have equal rights with men. This is what the GOP wants: "traditional" wives, women ousted from workplaces (except for the lowest paying jobs), shaming women for having sex out of wedlock - while admiring a man who has cheated on all three of his wives. Go figure...

SF6 "inside wind turbines"? Typically, dry air (or perhaps vacuum) breakers are used in MV switchgear, with SF6 used "more exclusively" in HV or EHV switchgear. Most land-based wind turbines use MV switchgear, although there can be exceptions with larger machines or challenging locations (such as offshore farms) . It depends on the sizing of conductors ($/ft) required in the "collection grid" from a wind farm. That said, some MV switchgear is indeed insulated with SF6. "Completely environmentally friendly"? Who here EVER said that electricity is COMPLETELY environmentally friendly? Even composting has environmental effects that can be considered "non-friendly". That said, SF6 is most definitely a problem if not handled properly. The EPA identified Sulfur Hexafluoride as a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 23,900 (+/-) times the effect of an equal mass of CO₂, and an atmospheric lifetime of 3200 (+/-) years. Very stable "stuff". Ouch! There are very strict policies and procedures used when servicing SF6 insulated switchgear, not only to minimize releases, but to protect personnel. It can degrade into some nasty stuff (such as HF acid if moisture is involved). And it's MV (and even HV) use will eventually be eliminated. https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-supplies-sf6-free-high-voltage-switchgear-english-wind-farm https://www.siemensgamesa.com/explore/journal/2022/11/sustainability-sf6-greenhouse-gas-climate-positive

Was it not just a few days ago I reminded you of your abject ignorance. Below congressional testimony... “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. Dr. Holtz-Eakin pauses and shakes his head before responding, “I can’t answer because it will depend on what China and India and the globe has done.” “Have you heard from anybody in the Biden administration say how much it will lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy pressed again. Dr. Holtz-Eakin takes another long pause, before answering simply, “No.” “Does anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. When Dr. Holtz-Eakin doesn’t respond, so Kennedy answers himself, “No.” “No one can know for sure,” Dr. Holtz-Eakin finally answers. Kennedy moves on to another witness, asking, “If we spend $50 trillion or however much it takes to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050, how much will it lower world temperatures?” Dr. Robert Litterman, Chair of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, responded, “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world, we’re in this together. It’s one world, we can’t build a wall around the United States…” “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe cooperates, most Western democracies cooperate, but India and China don’t. How much will our $50 trillion lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy asked again. “We’re in this together, Senator, we have to get the world to work together,” Dr. Litterman responds. “I get that.” “Okay.” “How much will it lower world temperatures?” “If China and India do not help?” Dr. Litterman clarifies. “Yes.” “I don’t know.” https://www.johnlocke.org/the-50-trillion-carbon-neutral-plan-that-experts-admit-wont-work/

Take notes here..Marine layer. This phenomenon has caused many very large freeway catastrophes. Never let a crisis go to waste comes to mind.

Utter garbage!

You are used to the way things work using old technology, continuously "tuned" to the market. I have more than enough experience to know that coal is just plain filthy! Have ever stood near a coking unit? I suggest you avoid that "opportunity". Have you ever strolled on the upper stories of an operating pressurized coal-fired furnace? HINT: don't use the elevator unless you have portable breathing apparatus. Do you even know what a sootblower does? Or, where it's "operating product" goes? With regards to "stability" of renewable power, we ain't seen nothin' yet. We haven't even begun to integrate AI into the market. Can renewable generation match and fully displace fossil-fired generation? Certainly, not at this time. It's gonna take decades. One close acquaintance was an early adopter of small wind generation on his ranch. After several years of that, he initially said that if he were to do it all over again, he would buy a diesel generator instead. He switched to solar generation (re-using some of the pre-existing interconnection and other equipment). Last month's electric bill for his ranch was NEGATIVE! And the wind generator tower is now a GREAT flagpole with a HUGE, well-lit American Flag. Remain astounded.

Even ten years ago, there were legitimate climatologists who had rational doubts about climate change, including whether it was caused almost entirely by human activity. However, in that period of time, the science got better and no one, I mean no one in the field believes that warming is not happening and it’s due to climate activity. The meta-study done that showed 97% of papers supported man-made global warming was done by someone who was a skeptic. He stopped being a skeptic after that. The same has happened in many fields. Evolution wasn’t widely accepted in biology until well after Darwin’s death. The expanding universe theory had several serious opponents right up until the early 1970s. The belief that ulcers were caused by stress lasted into this millennium. The evidence of all of these things is now crystal clear. There are no serious scientists who are published in the field that believe otherwise. Right now, if you don’t think human caused warming is a thing, you’re not just in the minority of people in the field, you’re all alone. You’re ignoring evidence. You’re calling into question studies that have been confirmed and re-confirmed. You’re ignoring models from 30 years ago that were actually optimistic. It turned out reality was worse. You’re raising arguments that have already been dealt with over and over and over again. In other words, you’re Fred Hoyle: Fred Hoyle was an expanding universe denier. By 1970 it was clear to anyone with a brain that the theory Hoyle dubbed “The Big Bang” was correct in every important detail. Despite this, Hoyle worked out a theory that made it look like the universe was expanding, but wasn’t. He presented his initial findings (pre-publication) to an audience in London. A young graduate student pointed out his calculations were flawed and his theory couldn’t possibly be right (that young graduate student was Stephen Hawking). Anyone who doesn’t believe the theory that the world is getting warmer and it’s our fault isn’t a “skeptic” or “outsider” or “maverick” or “free thinker”, they’re just denying the evidence. Man-made global warming is as certain as the spherical nature of the earth or the fact that cigarettes immensely increase your risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell something. Most likely oil or coal.

2022 doesn't sound very current. Accept that things are changing fast.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q4-2023-ev-sales J.D. Power now forecasts U.S. electric vehicle market share will hit 12.4% in 2024, up from 7.6% in 2023. While that represents a gain of 63%, the rate is down 0.8 percentage points from the firm's original prediction. Last year, EV sales grew at a 50% pace, hitting one million units for the first time.Mar 5, 2024 Merriam Webster: COLLAPSE : to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely : fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure

Ya Don't Say...

you forgot to post the headline....here, I will help you out Global EV Sales Expected to ....... Increase by 21% in 2024 so much for your decline

I do find that interesting commentary, it would appear that the German Green Party had done as much. Imagine dumping cash into a failed manufacturing facility...wind mails at that. I Leave It With You... Taxes blown in the wind? The Siemens Gamesa bailout Conclusion and Implications Overall, we come to a sobering conclusion: Siemens Gamesa should not have been bailed out, and certainly not on the specific terms of this rescue. Siemens Gamesa likely is not an economically viable firm. Even if it were, it is not a critical firm in the sense that a bankruptcy process would trigger significant negative macroeconomic or geostrategic externalities. And even if a bailout were justified (which it is not), it should not occur without a major contribution from Siemens and the other shareholders of Siemens Energy. The readiness with which the German government was willing to bail out Siemens Gamesa does not bode well for a possible future scenario in which one of Germany’s leading automobile manufacturers experiences a significant downturn or even financial difficulties because its electric vehicles are of lower quality or more expensive than those of its American or Chinese competitors. The subsidies in the Siemens Gamesa case are small change compared to what might be necessary to save the German automotive industry. ----------------------- https://www.ecgi.global/publications/blog/taxes-blown-in-the-wind-the-siemens-gamesa-bailout

did The gas company send you a check for taking their free gas??????? only a dope would be preaching gas is free...........

Strange. Something that is "~free" has a varying and positive monetary price per measure.

Personally I believe that if you dont pay the required 2% of GDP then you arent part of NATO. I know theres strength in numbers and my comment is quite naiive, but there has to be some retribution for those that dont pay their way. Germany, France, Italy and Spain with larger GDP's are the biggest culprits and the ones that bitch and moan the most and try to throw their weight around. There should be an automatic financial penalty equivalent to the amount they are down by otherwise they are thrown out.

No wonder you struggle with math! "If that isn't the definition of ~free I do not know what is." Let me help you I think you'll find the definition of free is $0 How are those tunnels coming along? I bet investors are falling over themselves to be involved 🤡

I agree that EU countries not paying their way should be made to pay, you will find certain countries like my own always do pay their way. To label all European NATO countries as ones that dont pay their way is factually incorrect.

No European country is anti American! They may disagree on US foreign policy in their territory or elsewhere in the world, surely its their right to voice their opinion or are you advocating they arent allowed to have free speech?

guess you regressed to being a 5 year old...............enjoy kindergarten again LNG politics drove it all.........and the distrust of Russia Gas producers in the US lobbied hard for the bill in congress it was 5 years ago Now we need to support Ukraine ... no one in the US supported Russia 5 years ago except......the guy who called for help from Russia..... and no one today supports Russia except the traitor who says Russia can do whatever they want..... Solar and Wind is doing its part in Europe and the dependence on Russian gas today...... Poof and the result electricity production in the EU is no longer relying on Russian gas 2024 will end with little to no more gas out of Russia into the EU

"~free" must mean something along the lines of "less expensive than" something else. It doesn't mean free.

it is not the definition of free it is the definition of an over supplied market or one that is experiencing demand destruction or both you pick price of coal in the US falling hard right now in the end it means the cost of electricity is cheap..... Cheap gas ...cheap electricity Cheap Coal.... cheap electricity Cheap Solar Panels....Cheap electricity Free sun.....Cheap electricity Free wind......Cheap electricity The Electric Age is now going to dominate the energy source everyone relies on for daily home transportation and industrial needs... and solar with battery storage is over 50 percent of new electrical demand/power supply and is slowly taking over Now which one is free???? the Sun or Gas producers giving away Nat gas for free forever and losing their shirts?? the sun will keep shining for free nat gas...........well you do know that lasts for a few moments once in a while Rome was not built overnight and the takeover of the energy markets by electrification will occur over the next 30 years

For those interested in pursuing CCS (like the Wyoming State Legislators), try a 40% to 65% reduction in net generating unit output and a tripling of unit heat rate, all due to the additional house power consumed by common processes. That makes ZERO sense to this guy (who votes for some of those legislators). https://wyofile.com/despite-staggering-costs-and-logistic-challenges-carbon-capture-studies-at-wyoming-coal-plants-advance/ "...Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power’s Wygen II coal plant [about 95 MW], where the utility is working with engineering firm Black & Veatch and others on “novel” approaches to apply carbon capture technology. But there are many logistic, technical and environmental challenges — not the least of which is an estimated 40% to 65% reduction in power generation output due to the parasitic load of powering a carbon capture facility, according to the company".

I agree people are overly focused on CO2, but try not to project that onto me. Yes, I care about CO2, but not even anywhere close to as much as I care about other toxic pollutants. It just happens that the same things that reduce CO2 often tend to reduce things like PM 2.5 in urban air. I am fully for making laws against PM 2.5. ground level ozone, benzene, etc. which completely ignore CO2 and climate change. It just turns out that if you want to make a vehicle with no toxic tailpipe emissions it is going to be an EV. Emissions from a scrubbed smoke stack far from where people live is much different from tailpipe emissions that literally blow exhaust in children's faces. Do you know anyone who has died of cancer? Probably. I don't know anyone who has died from CO2. The nice thing is the CO2 problem would go away on its own if we solved the toxic problem. The answer is simple - stop burning so much shit.

That article had nothing about going green, it was just about wasting a bunch of electricity. You two should try reading.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/russia-ukraine-drone-strike.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.hk0.3k7x.tUY_VBGBFfSV&smid=url-share Ukraine seems to be targeting oil refineries, not crude oil pipelines, not petroleum storage sites. Why? (1) Crude oil pipelines can be repaired fairly quickly. (2) Crude oil transported on pipelines for export is hereby not disrupted. This is important as such disruption would increase crude prices internationally, damaging the economies of Ukraine's allies. Higher international oil prices would likely benefit Russia more than lower export oil volume would hurt Russia - Russia would come out ahead. (3) Refineries, on the other hand, refine crude oil into it's various fractions: gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc. Russia, by and large, does not export these refined products to other countries - these are primarily for the domestic Russian market. Putin's war machine - which means Russia - is the primary target. Putin voters are "collateral damage." (4) The Ukrainians are pinpoint targeting the refinery fractioning columns - not the refined petroleum storage bins. Why? Well - the columns are manufactured in the West (largely South Korea), and are under sanctions - they will be most difficult for Russia to replace. Most difficult for Russia to replace . Tears well in my eyes. (5) Russia will now have export more crude to pay for importing refined petroleum products. It's happening as we speak. Spending more rubles on imported refined petroleum products instead of on arms. (6) Don't ever mess with a Ukrainian.

My company wanted to be ecology wise so we bought 18 LNG trucks instead of all diesel fleet. And you know it is not worth its price. LNG trucks can go for 800 -900 km 550 miles, whereas diesel trucks keeep up to 1000 miles. It was bad investment. I do not even have fantasy about buiyng electric trucks. We have a fleet of 50 some electric last mile delivery small trucks (with 2000-2500 pound capacity) and only for some clients that really pay for this, for each mile driven by electric small trucks. But it is a PR thing, most of our clients stll want us to travel their loads in diesel trucks.

LOL read some of their older commentaries. In 2020 they predicted low oil supply. The same year oil prices went negative due to oversupply. https://www.gorozen.com/commentaries/1q2020 They also predicted a collapse in non-OPEC oil production. How did that go? https://www.gorozen.com/commentaries/2q2018

It's a biased blog using made up numbers. I know you love those made up numbers and pretending to do math. They admit themselves that they are biased and controversial and only want to exploit natural resources. https://www.gorozen.com/about "A fundamental research firm focused exclusively on contrarian natural resource investments with a team with over 49 years of combined resource experience." Try again.

If you are so smart you would know it is "you're." Very amusing! You don't think you have a right to comment on global politics? Of course you do. Meddling in affairs of other countries is the most American thing you can do! You didn't answer the questions. Did the lobbyists or the law win? William Barr is as corrupt as can be. He kissed Trumps ass and lied for him for years, then told the truth upon his resignation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barr "Barr testified that before resigning as attorney general, he had told president Trump that allegations of election fraud were "bullshit." At times during his testimony he could not control his laughter at the absurdity of some fraud allegations, such as the Italygate theory that satellites controlled from Italy had flipped votes from Trump to Biden, and that former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez had orchestrated an election fraud scheme, despite having died seven years earlier. Barr testified Trump never gave "an indication of interest in what the actual facts were," adding the president had "become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.""

So you just choose to ignore all of the EPA best practices to reduce SF6 emissions, and ignore the achievements of the National Grid. Thats fine Eco, its your choice to do so, let me know when you and the other ostriches have had enough of the sandpit. You missed this from the EPA Recycle SF6 gas at equipment servicing or disposal. Using gas cart recovery equipment to off-load and transfer SF6 for maintenance and recycling reduces emissions. It is critical to follow correct procedures when using service carts and to ensure that gas carts are properly maintained And you clearly missed this from the national grid link Achievements to date We have reduced our SF6 emissions by more than 80% since the year 2000. We piloted a non-SF6 69 kilovolt (kV) vacuum circuit breaker in 2012 and have since installed an additional twelve 69 kV vacuum circuit breakers. In vacuum circuit breakers, circuits are broken in a vacuum which helps to interrupt the current and prevent arcing which could damage the equipment. So if SF6 emissions have reduced by 80% in the last 24 years where does that leave your "exponential increased SF6"??

Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016 Analysis reveals many big producers increased output of fossil fuels and related emissions in seven years after Paris climate deal Jonathan Watts Global environment editor Wed 3 Apr 2024 19.01 EDT Share A mere 57 oil, gas, coal and cement producers are directly linked to 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since the 2016 Paris climate agreement, a study has shown. This powerful cohort of state-controlled corporations and shareholder-owned multinationals are the leading drivers of the climate crisis, according to the Carbon Majors Database, which is compiled by world-renowned researchers. Although governments pledged in Paris to cut greenhouse gases, the analysis reveals that most mega-producers increased their output of fossil fuels and related emissions in the seven years after that climate agreement, compared with the seven years before. In the database of 122 of the world’s biggest historical climate polluters, the researchers found that 65% of state entities and 55% of private-sector companies had scaled up production. During this period, the biggest investor-owned contributor to emissions was ExxonMobil of the United States, which was linked to 3.6 gigatonnes of CO2 over seven years, or 1.4% of the global total. Close behind were Shell, BP, Chevron and TotalEnergies, each of which was associated with at least 1% of global emissions. The most striking trend, however, was the surging growth of emissions related to state and state-owned producers, particularly in the Asian coal sector. This expansion, which has continued since, runs contrary to a stark warning by the International Energy Agency that no new oil and gas fields can be opened if the world is to stay within safe limits of global heating. Climate scientists say global temperatures are rapidly approaching the lower Paris target of 1.5C above the pre-industrial era, with potentially dire consequences for people and the rest of nature. “It is morally reprehensible for companies to continue expanding exploration and production of carbon fuels in the face of knowledge now for decades that their products are harmful,” said Richard Heede, who established the Carbon Majors dataset in 2013. “Don’t blame consumers who have been forced to be reliant on oil and gas due to government capture by oil and gas companies.” The Carbon Majors research has helped to change the narrative about responsibility for the climate crisis by apportioning emissions to the entities that profit from taking fossil fuels out of the ground rather than the individuals that later burn and discharge them in the form of emissions. This ongoing study has been cited in climate lawsuits and was the basis for the Guardian’s 2019 series, The Polluters, which named and shamed the 20 companies behind a third of all carbon emissions. The database has now been updated and was relaunched on Thursday on a dedicated public access website, which is hosted by InfluenceMap. It includes a striking comparison between long-term emissions trends dating back to 1854, and more recent developments since the 2016 Paris deal. The historical record encompasses 122 entities linked to 72% of all the fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution, which amounts to 1,421 gigatonnes. In this long-term analysis, Chinese state coal production accounts for 14% of historic global C02, the biggest share by far in the database. This is more than double the proportion of the former Soviet Union, which is in second place, and more than three times higher than that of Saudi Aramco, which is in third. Then comes the big US companies – Chevron (3%) and ExxonMobil (2.8%), followed by Russian’s Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company. After that are two investor-owned European firms: BP and Shell (each with more than 2%) and then Coal India. The 21st century rise of Asia becomes apparent when the historical records are compared with data from 2016-2022. In this recent period, the China coal share leaps to more than a quarter of all CO2 emission, while Saudi Aramco goes up to nearly 5%. The top 10 in this modern era is dominated by Chinese and Russian state entities and filled out with those from India and Iran. Western capitalism does not appear until the 11th placed ExxonMobil with 1.4%, half of its historical average. The picture may change again in the future. The United States is by far the world’s biggest oil and gas producer even if operations are fragmented among many different companies rather than one state behemoth. President Biden has granted licences to multiple new exploration projects. Gulf states are also planning to step up their output. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell all have net zero emissions targets, though their definitions of that goal and methods to achieve it vary. Many of the companies on the list have made some investments in renewable energy. Daan Van Acker, program manager at InfluenceMap, said many of the entities in the Carbon Majors database were moving in the wrong direction for climate stability. “InfluenceMap’s new analysis shows that this group is not slowing down production, with most entities increasing production after the Paris agreement. This research provides a crucial link in holding these energy giants to account on the consequences of their activities.” Heede argues that fossil fuel producers have a moral obligation to pay for the damages they have caused and exacerbated through their delaying tactics. He cites the proposal made by Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, for oil and gas companies to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar to a loss and damage fund. He was also encouraged by actions to hold fossil fuel firms to account. As examples, he cited the billboards that sprang up in Houston, Texas, after a hurricane that declared: “We Know Who Is To Blame” beside the names of oil companies, or the campaign in Vermont to create a climate superfund paid for by polluters that would allay the rising costs from floods, storms and heatwaves. “This is a threat to civilisation as we know it,” he said. “If business as usual continues we won’t have a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. We must collect political, corporate and political will to avoid the worst threat that climate change poses. We can do this.” The Guardian approached Exxon, BP, Chevron, Total Energies, Coal India, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom for comment. A spokesperson for Shell said: “Shell is committed to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, a target we believe supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. We continue to make good progress on our climate targets, and by the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operations by 2030, compared with 2016.”

Lets simplify this shall we. Do you accept that if you burn any FF it causes air pollution? If you say yes then you agree with all the sane people on the planet. If you say no then you are unfortunately one of the mentally challenged on this planet. Lets see which one you are. Catalytic converters on vehicles have made a huge difference to air quality but this does not mean cars produce no pollution, there is no correlation of more cars equals less air pollution, just the opposite.

In the USA the vast majority of electricity and therefore SF6 is produced by burning FF, surely even you can understand that!

Blimey EWO you really are as sharp as a donkey arent you. We were discussing air pollution over cities remember??? or have you got dementia?? How many cargo ships travel through Los Angeles or any other major smog affected cities???

CO2 will also increase with more electrical energy.???? outright wrong as you always are No, the future is not electrical.?????only a Luddite would state stupid comments as you always do tackling methane emmissions and SFP are important and should be done now Peak carbon (CO2) emissions is here now and it is down hill for carbon as the Green Agenda heads uphill RFI World's carbon emissions could start to fall for first time in 2024 Global carbon emissions may have peaked in 2023 – the hottest year in history – as efforts to step up renewable energy and step back from... . Jan 1, 2024 WSJ China's Carbon Emissions Are Set to Decline Years Earlier Than Expected China's rollout of 300 gigawatts of new wind and solar power last year was for the first time enough to cover its new electricity demand. . 1 month ago The Guardian Global carbon emissions from electric power may peak this year, report says Global carbon emissions from electric power may peak this year, report says ... Carbon emissions from the global electricity sector may peak this... . Oct 4, 2023 Energy Post The link between global GDP growth and CO2 emissions is weakening rapidly. Will emissions peak well before 2030? Global CO2 emissions can peak well before 2030 · Rapid growth in clean energy investment. · A growing trend of electrification globally, in... . 1 month ago

Thank God for Senator Kennedy!

EPA’s New Car Emission Standards Doom the Gasoline Car EPA’s New Car Emission Standards Doom the Gasoline Car | OilPrice.com

January 9, 2018 Air pollution linked to risk of premature death When you breathe in high levels of fine particles or ozone, your lungs can become irritated. Outdoor air pollution has been associated with asthma, heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. Studies have shown an association between long-term exposure to air pollution and premature death. Air pollution linked to risk of premature death The team used air pollution prediction models and artificial neural networks to estimate daily air pollution levels for more than 39,000 zip codes, even in unmonitored rural areas of the country. They then looked at pollution levels around the days of death for 22 million adults aged 65 and older based on death records from 2000 to 2012. The air pollution levels on the days of death (for 22 million deaths) were compared with pollution levels during other days (76 million control days). The researchers found that when air pollution from either fine particles or ozone increased intermittently, there was a substantial increase in deaths within a 2-day period. Each intermittent, incremental increase of either 10 micrograms of fine particles per cubic meter or 10 parts per billion of ozone was associated with a rise in deaths. The large dataset also enabled the research team to study effects by age, sex, race, age, and income level. Those most at risk of death associated with air pollution were over 85 years old, female, nonwhite, or economically disadvantaged. “This [is] the most comprehensive study of short-term exposure to pollution and mortality to date,” Dominici says. “We found that the mortality rate increases almost linearly as air pollution increases. Any level of air pollution, no matter how low, is harmful to human health.”

You are not even close to reality. During the last twenty years when fossil fuel usage has drastically increased, the smog problem has drastically decreased. Got it? More fossil fuels, less smog. "Annual emissions estimates are used as one indicator of the effectiveness of our programs. The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2022, gross domestic product increased 196 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 108 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 47 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent. "

That is not the city you showed earlier.???? I did not post the other photos..... Tailings pond did.......... You seem agitated now you do not like looking at Reality You ask for a credible recent photo and you got it Now do you accept the fact that air pollution exists from ICE vehicles???? photo speaks volumes Air quality suffers everywhere because of the use of Fossil Fuels and Green Energy is so much less polluting than your beloved Coal Power Plants ....and EVs on the road.....please crawl under one.....no tailpipe Luddite

You asked us to take a look at the city. You need to identify where and when the photo is. Air quality changes drastically from one time to another, one year to another, one city from another.

https://www.momscleanairforce.org/ Smog in downtown Los Angeles. May 15, 2023. (KTLA)

Are you SURE you want to consider "externalities", such as social cost? That opens up a whole host of arguments that don't treat fossil fuels very favorably. Tread lightly. As for renewable costs, how can any fossil energy source provide "fuel" for free? Heck, you cannot even transport fossil fuels to the point of use for free.

Its quite windy today in the UK which means its cheap powergen and low emissions!

The "proved" reserves are an absurd joke. For 80 years USA had 30Billion barrels of oil "proved reserves" USA to date has pumped over 200Billion barrels of oil. The only "proved reserves" which are ever stated in a companies books are ONLY the minimum reserves they are forced to say they have by law to placate certain bureaucrats. The only reason the USA total "proved" reserves has increased is because the NUMBER of companies with oil reserves has increased due to new blood due to fracking as the old boys were SSLOWWWW to the party. Its an absurd joke. To my knowledge NO ONE has ever pumped LESS than their "proved" reserves of any formation.

https://renews.biz/92052/us-installed-4236mw-of-storage-in-q4-2023/ 'US installed 4.2GW of storage in Q4 2023' Wood Mackenzie and ACP report finds capacity doubled compared to third quarter March 2024 Energy Storage The US energy storage market saw 4236MW installed in the final quarter of 2023, an 100% increase from Q3, according to a new report.For the first time, the grid-scale segment exceeded 3GW deployed in one quarter and nearly topped 4GW, according to Wood Mackenzie and the American Clean Power Association’s (ACP) latest US Energy Storage Monitor report.With 3983MW of new capacity additions, the quarter saw a 358% increase compared to the same period in 2022.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/18/us-automakers-aggressive-language-trump-bloodbath-describe-chinas-electric-vehicle-aspirations/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push US Automakers Have Used More Aggressive Language Than Trump To Describe China’s Aspirations STR/AFP via Getty Images ROBERT MCGREEVYCONTRIBUTOR March 18, 20244:48 PM ET FONT SIZE: U.S. automakers have used far more inflammatory and extreme language than former President Trump’s “bloodbath” comments to describe the threat China poses to their industry. Liberal media decried Trump’s use of the word “bloodbath” while he described the potential state of the U.S. auto industry if he doesn’t win the 2024 election at a Saturday rally in Vandalia, Ohio, casting his comments as authoritarian and extremist. Trump warned China that he would impose a 100 percent tariff — up from the current 27.5 percent tariff currently in place on Chinese-made EVs — if they tried to import cars they manufacture in Mexico using non-American labor to the U.S. He then claimed, in the context of that threat, that there would be a “bloodbath” if he wasn’t elected. (RELATED: Biden Looks To Tariffs To Bolster Struggling Electric Vehicle Market) “We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those guys if I get elected,” Trump said at the rally. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” Leftists across the media landscape cried foul, with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough leading the charge. Scarborough tweeted, then deleted, a scathing rebuke of Trump’s remarks alongside a video of the January 6th riots. “Donald Trump’s America. And he’s proud of it. Promised another ‘bloodbath’ if he loses again,” Scarbourough tweeted Saturday night. The Alliance For American Manufacturing, meanwhile, described China’s cheap labor production in a way that makes bloodbath sound polite. “The introduction of cheap Chinese autos — which are so inexpensive because they are backed with the power and funding of the Chinese government — to the American market could end up being an extinction-level event for the U.S. auto sector,” the Alliance said in a February report. The United Auto Workers, whose President Shawn Fain recently endorsed Joe Biden, also released a 44 page report in 2021 highlighting the danger the Chinese electric vehicle sector poses to the American automotive industry. “China has developed an industrial policy that uses targeted, proactive policies to increase demand for EV batteries and channel that demand toward the purchase of domestic products,” the report claimed. “China is leveraging its position as the world’s largest automotive market and leading the world’s largest automakers to orient their EV strategies toward China,” the report also warned. Even the Big Three automakers themselves have been sounding the alarm. A top official at Ford called Chinese EVs a “colossal strategic threat,” according to Bloomberg. Tags : biden administration china donald j trump donald trump electric vehicles ford ford motor company joe biden joe scarborough morning joe shawn fain united auto workers