America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Michael Sanches + 187]

The problem with the pro climate change people is that they don't want to adapt. 

Acreage becoming unfarmable, but millions of square miles will become farmable in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia? They refuse to adjust. Their motto is, "I refuse to adapt and I am willing to bankrupt everyone trying."

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Well what's not been said is added  clouds and rain fall Dehumidify and Cool. That directly fights added heat and co2/humidity in atmosphere.  And the earth changes we can all agree on that. 

When water vapour condenses into a liquid it has to release the heat of vaporization. So while the rain water is cool the excess heat is not really destroyed.

Yes, clouds themselves cool by reflecting sunlight back into space. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Enthalpic

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

It doesn't make the extra energy disappear though - to do that it needs to be reflected back into space. 

Good grief, How many KW does humanity burn each year?  Easy to find out and calculate with a nice safety fudge factor.  You know the area of the earth facing away from the sun...  Easy enough to plug into Stephan Boltzmann black body radiation equations.  Big hint: Radiation Delta T is based on T to the 4th power and space is a perfect black body therefore you can get an easy Delta T from energy burned irrespective of any additional partial pressure due to density of atmosphere increase due to increased CO2.  AKA... why Venus is so hot.  Density of its atmosphere

EDIT: PS: About half a year ago, I calculated it for another discussion topic so if you want to search through my old posts...

Edited October 9, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Good grief, How many KW does humanity burn each year?  Easy to find out and calculate with a nice safety fudge factor.  You know the area of the earth facing away from the sun...  Easy enough to plug into Stephan Boltzmann black body radiation equations.  Big hint: Radiation Delta T is based on T to the 4th power and space is a perfect black body therefore you can get an easy Delta T from energy burned irrespective of any additional partial pressure due to density of atmosphere increase due to increased CO2.  AKA... why Venus is so hot.  Density of its atmosphere

EDIT: PS: About half a year ago, I calculated it for another discussion topic so if you want to search through my old posts...

180 degrees off the mark again.

The extra energy is from radiative forcing not what mankind produces from FF combustion. 

[specinho + 467]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:38 PM, Wombat said:

OK Ward, time you give us your theory as to why winters are getting shorter, ice-caps are melting, corals are bleaching, hurricanes growing in intensity, droughts and floods getting more severe etc etc?

 

pardon me....... I know you are not asking me... but......

according to one of the latest cult beliefs, ice caps are melting because we allow it to. When all ice melted, sea level is expected to rise into a new height. Coastal zones are going to change. So is Exclusive Economic Zones of countries. Many offshore platforms might be expected to be up for grabs............. A New World would begin........... 🤭

In addition, polar bears will not need to starve for four months or more in winter before they are able to find food again............ The changes would accidentally save famine driven and near extinct polar bears... and many other living things........

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

On 10/8/2020 at 12:46 PM, Enthalpic said:

Fake news.  I've decided you have no degree.  See how easy making false claims is?  I'm learning from you and trump!

 

We were not discussing math so proofs are impossible to provide.  Brush up on the scientific method.

 

 

 

While i cannot fathom some of your reasoning....Ive finally been able to visualize your reactions to Mr. Smiths articulate and well founded posting's....Odd is it not how TDS manifests itself with so much consistency...."Such Is Life" as one extremely well reasoned individual has pointed out so many times...

Edited October 10, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[Wombat + 1,028]

Getting back to the topic for a minute:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-trader-mitsui-co-exclusive-idUSKBN26X0B8?taid=5f840981482cc900012d7ddb&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

Getting back to the topic for a minute:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-trader-mitsui-co-exclusive-idUSKBN26X0B8?taid=5f840981482cc900012d7ddb&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

IMHO, what a load of crap.  They are getting out of the coal powered powerplants businesses because they are no longer the smart way to achieve long term profits.  That is quite different from the stated reasons of how it is to achieve zero emissions, on balance.  One may achieve the other, but the reasons are not as stated.  IF GE had done the same 10 years ago, along with making other smart decisions where it (read CEO Jeff Immelt) did not, GE would not be in the predicament it finds itself in today.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 10/9/2020 at 4:10 PM, NickW said:

180 degrees off the mark again.

The extra energy is from radiative forcing not what mankind produces from FF combustion. 

Energy(heat) creates itself in your universe...  About time to dump you back on ignore...

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Energy(heat) creates itself in your universe...  About time to dump you back on ignore...

Another comment that completely misses the point. Do you have any level of understanding of what radiative forcing is? 

As for your last comment (the hallmark of a forum loser) 

 

 

[Michael Sanches + 187]

To stop global warming, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

USA used 21.9 Tw in 2019 at per capita of 66.5 Mw.

China used 33.5 Tw in 2019 at per capita of 23.4 Mw.

India used 8.6 Tw in 2019 at per capita of 6.3 Mw.

If China increases it's fossil fuel use by only 50% per capita and stays at half of USA per capita, this will increase fossil fuel usage by 16.7 Tw.

If India increases it's fossil fuel use by only 200% so it stays at one-third of USA per capita, this will increase fossil fuel usage by 17.2 Tw.

So, to compensate the increase of fossil fuel use by only China and India, the USA will need to reduce its fossil fuel use by 33.9 Tw, thus producing a negative 12 Tw per year.

If we kill every American, we are still stuck with an increase of 12 Tw per year in the world, a 9% increase in today's fossil fuel usage. So, that won't work.

So, what is the best way to decrease USA fossil fuel use by 33.9 Tw?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/10/2020 at 1:53 AM, Ward Smith said:

Geologists tell us what? Climate has changed tens of thousands of times in the past. Where I live used to be under almost 2 kilometers of ice, while CO2 levels were much higher than today. These facts are all well known. We can theorise all we want, but it's a complex system with lots of inputs and variations. You should look up the Lorenz attractor. Even with simple inputs, over enough cycles things appear chaotic. 

My guess? Our climate change is most highly correlated to that big yellow object in the sky. We've only just begun to study its output properly so don't have sufficient data to back  correlate to known events, such as ice ages and epochs of climate much warmer than today. If I dig down deep enough, I'll find fossils of tropical ferns, a bit deeper and I'll find fossils of wooly mammoths. Same place, totally different climate. Why is that? 

Here is some reading for you Ward:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm#:~:text=Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in,output was about 4% less than current levels.

Don't forget to look up "Maunder Minimum". Once the current one is over, the Earth will warm up even faster. By the way, ice ages are generally believed to be associated with pole shifts. The North Pole is wandering around like a drunken sailor at the moment, so it is possible that global warming could even lead to a new ice age. When you rapidly melt ice from the land and it runs into the oceans, you distort the pressure distribution on the Earth's mantle, and perhaps that could flip the poles? I hope so, because an Ice Age would be much better than runaway warming IMHO. I am biased because I live in sub-tropical SE Queensland  Every time I here North Americans whinge about their "polar vortexes", and ask where global warming is, I chuckle to myself in the knowledge that those polar vortexes are actually caused by the warming of the planet. It has distorted the jet stream and I view it as Mother Nature's way of releasing excess heat. I just hope she has some more tricks up her sleeve. The oceans can absorb fantastic amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature, and that has been found recently to be precisely what is going on to some degree. Problem with that, is it means the methane calthrates could be released one day and that would certainly lead to runaway warming and mass extinction on a scale like never before. Whichever way you cut it, the smart thing to do is cut greenhouse emissions and give Mother Nature a chance to keep our climate "just right"  for as long as possible?

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

To stop global warming, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

USA used 21.9 Tw in 2019 at per capita of 66.5 Mw.

China used 33.5 Tw in 2019 at per capita of 23.4 Mw.

India used 8.6 Tw in 2019 at per capita of 6.3 Mw.

If China increases it's fossil fuel use by only 50% per capita and stays at half of USA per capita, this will increase fossil fuel usage by 16.7 Tw.

If India increases it's fossil fuel use by only 200% so it stays at one-third of USA per capita, this will increase fossil fuel usage by 17.2 Tw.

So, to compensate the increase of fossil fuel use by only China and India, the USA will need to reduce its fossil fuel use by 33.9 Tw, thus producing a negative 12 Tw per year.

If we kill every American, we are still stuck with an increase of 12 Tw per year in the world, a 9% increase in today's fossil fuel usage. So, that won't work.

So, what is the best way to decrease USA fossil fuel use by 33.9 Tw?

You are getting power and energy confused. USA consumed 4222 TWH in 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

Your figures make no sense at all. You need to talk in MW HOURS and GW HOURS to find total consumption per annum. Even then, retail consumers only use about a quarter of a country's total consumption. Where on Earth did you get your figures from? Please provide a link and understand that you do not need to kill all Americans to get their use of fossil fuels down to zero.

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 minutes ago, Wombat said:

You are getting power and energy confused. USA consumed 4222 TWH in 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

Your figures make no sense at all. You need to talk in MW HOURS and GW HOURS to find total consumption per annum. Even then, retail consumers only use about a quarter of a country's total consumption. Where on Earth did you get your figures from? Please provide a link and understand that you do not need to kill all Americans to get their use of fossil fuels down to zero.

PS: You may also be interested in these articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/carbon-emissions-by-country.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 minutes ago, Wombat said:

PS: You may also be interested in these articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/carbon-emissions-by-country.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

PSS: If you care about climate change, you are clearly better off killing all Chinese than all Americans? As time goes on, that will be more true than ever?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 hours ago, Wombat said:

My guess? Our climate change is most highly correlated to that big yellow object in the sky.

 

12 hours ago, Wombat said:

Here is some reading for you Ward:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm#:~:text=Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in,output was about 4% less than current levels.

Don't forget to look up "Maunder Minimum". Once the current one is over, the Earth will warm up even faster. By the way, ice ages are generally believed to be associated with pole shifts. The North Pole is wandering around like a drunken sailor at the moment, so it is possible that global warming could even lead to a new ice age. When you rapidly melt ice from the land and it runs into the oceans, you distort the pressure distribution on the Earth's mantle, and perhaps that could flip the poles? I hope so, because an Ice Age would be much better than runaway warming IMHO. I am biased because I live in sub-tropical SE Queensland  Every time I here North Americans whinge about their "polar vortexes", and ask where global warming is, I chuckle to myself in the knowledge that those polar vortexes are actually caused by the warming of the planet. It has distorted the jet stream and I view it as Mother Nature's way of releasing excess heat. I just hope she has some more tricks up her sleeve. The oceans can absorb fantastic amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature, and that has been found recently to be precisely what is going on to some degree. Problem with that, is it means the methane calthrates could be released one day and that would certainly lead to runaway warming and mass extinction on a scale like never before. Whichever way you cut it, the smart thing to do is cut greenhouse emissions and give Mother Nature a chance to keep our climate "just right"  for as long as possible?

Know all about it, hence my shortcut point at the top, highlighted in case you missed it. 

Magnetic Pole movement is certainly a big deal, and for none of the reasons you name. As a physicist you should understand the repulsive effect of that magnetic field on the solar flux heading our way. Why so called climate scientists focus on visible light and a very few infrared frequencies while ignoring the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum is beyond me. 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

26 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 

Why so called climate scientists focus on visible light and a very few infrared frequencies while ignoring the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum is beyond me. 

 

 

Ward is anti-science.   Non-visible light (UV, IR, microwave, etc.) is highly investigated; he even acknowledges this in his self-contradictory post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational–vibrational_spectroscopy

Edited October 15, 2020 by Enthalpic

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 9/4/2020 at 5:43 PM, Rob Kramer said:

Do you mind posting costs? And I get DIY but most cant nor is it legal for non electricians to install in many places so estimate a quote for install.

You can go 2 routes.  You can buy standard panels new/used and do it yourself/hire it out, Or if you are worried about kow-towing to government bureaucrats, then go with 12 Volt panels as you are hopping through batteries/inverter to 240V, so stay below 48V in batteries/panel runs and avoid permits/bureaucrats entirely as you stay low voltage(below 48V no permits required) and likewise will not kill yourself, uh hem, kill YOURSELF, if you screw the pooch(not that I have ever done that... 🤣🙄😎).  This does mean larger power cables required, or running lots of smaller, but then the terminal adapter cost adds up quick and time, and the panels etc are slightly more expensive and hard to find especially used, but the inverters are cheaper.  VASTLY cheaper as the number of silicon diodes is far fewer.  So are the MPPT controllers as there are gobs and gobs of boats, RV's, camper trailers with solar than there are Homes with solar on them currently.  Likewise this means you can easily go 100% off grid and you can make your own battery.  Now obtaining a good BMS for 48V or 12V over a large number of batteries which will properly balance the batteries is still problematic, but if you are using LiFePo as I am and only use less than 20%--50% then balancing is not much of an issue and I have never had to do it as I used to when my battery bank was smaller and I used nearly 90% of capacity.  Yes, this means a more expensive battery and upfront cost, but I have yet to have a LiFePo battery go out on me.  I have had BMS's die, inverters die, panels die, even power breakers/switches die, but not the actual LiFePo batteries themselves.  One problem: going lower voltage, overall efficiency will be lower so you will need ~10%-->20% more panel for same power load. 

And no, you will never get a quote from anyone other than standard installers who all want to lease(fleece) you panels etc.  Never sign a lease, they are all scams.  But, it helps the DIY community get dirt cheap panels/inverters from idiots who leased and try selling their homes...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 10/15/2020 at 1:05 AM, Wombat said:

Every time I here North Americans whinge about their "polar vortexes", and ask where global warming is, I chuckle to myself in the knowledge that those polar vortexes are actually caused by the warming of the planet. It has distorted the jet stream

Not true, just depends which side of the Arctic ocean is piling up ice via cyclic wind.  If N. America is getting a polar vortex, Siberia is warm and the end of the world is nigh according to global warmist religion and if Siberia is getting a polar vortex N. America is warm and the end of the world is nigh according to the global warmist religion who have forgotten what the word

SCIENTIFIC METHOD means AKA, science... 

Steps of the Scientific Method.

• 1. Ask a Question. The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
• 2. Do Background Research.
• 3. Construct a Hypothesis.
• 4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
• 5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Anthropogenic Global warmist religion stops at step 3... Of course they already did the whole scientific method... asked their question, made a hypothesis(warming above tropics in upper atmosphere due to CO2), did testing above the Tropics and found next to no warming or high levels of CO2 to force heat north/south... so much for "analyzing data".  Test came back in slight positive by 10X lower than predicted, ah, damn science!  Let the Religious dogma roll! 

Edited October 17, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 10/15/2020 at 3:58 PM, Enthalpic said:

Ward is anti-science.   Non-visible light (UV, IR, microwave, etc.) is highly investigated; he even acknowledges this in his self-contradictory post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational–vibrational_spectroscopy

Give you a big hint from your own link which I am sure you perused "carefully" creating a well informed, thought out position: ...

Water vapor green, blue line ice,

Or ....

And why spectra of CO2 as a driver: is a joke.  Epic joke. 

And why the CO2 to warm the earth MUST be over the equator as ICE absorbs the whole spectrum of CO2... oh by the way why ice crystals in clouds also absorb everything... and why CO2 increasing % MUST be in far upper atmosphere... and why the "experiment" of AGW initially proposed higher CO2 over the equator(no damned ice) and push that extra heat North/South... ooopsies, they were only off by a factor of 10 in their predictions... but lets keep running with man made climate change... yea... go team sci.... uh, dogma nature religion...

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Have these Assclown’s explain that petroleum and natural gas supply the charging stations! 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Give you a big hint from your own link which I am sure you perused "carefully" creating a well informed, thought out position: ...

 

And why spectra of CO2 as a driver: is a joke.  Epic joke. 

 

That was covered in university (quantum / computational chemistry). 

If there is a positive feedback loop even small drivers can become powerful over time (think compound interest).

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ward is anti-science.   Non-visible light (UV, IR, microwave, etc.) is highly investigated; he even acknowledges this in his self-contradictory post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational–vibrational_spectroscopy

Another bug in the software, since I'm looking at the @Enthalpic quote and it attributes it to @footeab@yahoo.com 

As usual Mr Eejit can't look at real science. He thunk wiki be gud enuf 

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not true, just depends which side of the Arctic ocean is piling up ice via cyclic wind.  If N. America is getting a polar vortex, Siberia is warm and the end of the world is nigh according to global warmist religion and if Siberia is getting a polar vortex N. America is warm and the end of the world is nigh according to the global warmist religion who have forgotten what the word

SCIENTIFIC METHOD means AKA, science... 

Steps of the Scientific Method.

• 1. Ask a Question. The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
• 2. Do Background Research.
• 3. Construct a Hypothesis.
• 4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
• 5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Anthropogenic Global warmist religion stops at step 3... Of course they already did the whole scientific method... asked their question, made a hypothesis(warming above tropics in upper atmosphere due to CO2), did testing above the Tropics and found next to no warming or high levels of CO2 to force heat north/south... so much for "analyzing data".  Test came back in slight positive by 10X lower than predicted, ah, damn science!  Let the Religious dogma roll! 

pfffft.... 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/9/2020 at 10:26 PM, NickW said:

The Uk Government have provided Rolls Royce with £2bn of support to develop their modular reactors. I really hope this gets off the ground as it will get us (UK) of the Chinese hook we have jumped on and also offer Countries like Oz the option of a small Nuc reactor which would work well in a relatively small grid and built to western safety standards. Not some Chinese shyte or South korean compromised design ( APR1400 with no Core catcher) 

Here is one for you Nick:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Canada-Government-Invests-In-Mini-Nuclear-Reactors.html