Recommended Posts

(edited)

It seems that the scientific communities in other nations outside U.S., Canada, Europe are not necessarily on board with the official funded-science view here. Asian countries seem to have a more pluralistic scientific consensus regarding the causes of global warming/cooling. I cited the work of a Russian scientist earlier in this thread. 

Here is a recent critique of the Western scientific consensus from a Finnish scientist, one who has thousands of citations for his published work in climate research.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

The approach outlined by this Finnish scientist is consistent with recent research from Japan,

https://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html

Here is the published article from the Japanese team,

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Here is a California (YES! California!) research team and some further evidence of climate change related to solar variables. This is the new frontier for climate change research.

Published in November 2020, recent material indeed.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/8/11/130/htm

Consistent with the work of the Russian scientist cited earlier, this study anticipates an imminent cooling phase, which will settle the argument conclusively against the Anthropogenic hypothesis of global warming, and in favor of natural climate cycles related to solar variables.

Time to call off the panic attack, buy some good mittens and ear-muffs, and break out those new model SUV's with thick rubber tires (over 60% carbon sourced).

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

We have to do a better job of analyzing the actual costs and benefits of the petrochemical and oil and NG industries. What we are getting now in the media and in political circles is mostly hyperbolic agenda-driven panic-inducing rhetoric. That is not helpful to designing a rational policy to address suspected problems or finding a model to explain the possible outcomes of alternative approaches. Shutting down international airports, which appears to be an initial approach by the Green Crusaders in Michigan, is a panic-driven irrational response. There should be a rational debate and a considered policy creation before we go rushing around in a chaotic and unfocused mania.


I don't think it's productive to block international airports. Ultimately, it is war of ideas and flexible ideologies, and capitalism is the best demonstrated way to efficiently raise and allocate capital (kind of by definition). That being said, capitalism also has its flaws and that does mean we can't improve the practice of capitalism. For example, noted capitalist Adam Smith wrote quite a bit about economic rents, which can cause inefficiencies in the spend of capital stocks by reducing either short term or long run "productivity" gains.  One type of rent seeking behavior these days has been observed as hotelling's rule (at least to many modern day economists, many of who agree that there should be some sort of price on the historically "free" carbon dioxide: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/). These type of resource rents can stifle substitutive economic ecosystems (even ecosystems that are somewhat orthogonal to the resource in question) from growing in the first place by promoting the status quo or taking on future "debt" (in the form of things like pollution or GHG). Never mind that the status quo was (rightfully) subsidized by the public in decades past. 

Keep in mind by necessity, capitalism is a dynamic term - what does it look like in the 21st century. The major CEOs of the country, who tend to have an effect on corporate culture (kind of by definition), have at least one partial answer: https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans


Now, more directly to your point, some accepted methodologies for doing what you proposed are modeling some sort of technoeconomic analysis (you analyze the technology and capital structure at the same time) and lifecycle analysis (you plan for the total costs of something, including reuse/recyclability and costs to society of an economic activity). Note that you can vary the assumptions made in the capital structure and processes so that a full gamut of optimistic to pessimistic assumptions are varied (of whatever is relevant). This kind of analysis is not unlike what is also common in the oil/gas industry when there is some decision making under uncertainty type of situations, usually when large capital outlays are at stake. 

For example, this study did this for greener aviation fuels:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56408603

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, surrept33 said:


I don't think it's productive to block international airports. Ultimately, it is war of ideas and flexible ideologies, and capitalism is the best demonstrated way to efficiently raise and allocate capital (kind of by definition). That being said, capitalism also has its flaws and that does mean we can't improve the practice of capitalism. For example, noted capitalist Adam Smith wrote quite a bit about economic rents, which can cause inefficiencies in the spend of capital stocks by reducing either short term or long run "productivity" gains.  One type of rent seeking behavior these days has been observed as hotelling's rule (at least to many modern day economists, many of who agree that there should be some sort of price on the historically "free" carbon dioxide: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/). These type of resource rents can stifle substitutive economic ecosystems (even ecosystems that are somewhat orthogonal to the resource in question) from growing in the first place by promoting the status quo or taking on future "debt" (in the form of things like pollution or GHG). Never mind that the status quo was (rightfully) subsidized by the public in decades past. 

Keep in mind by necessity, capitalism is a dynamic term - what does it look like in the 21st century. The major CEOs of the country, who tend to have an effect on corporate culture (kind of by definition), have at least one partial answer: https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans


Now, more directly to your point, some accepted methodologies for doing what you proposed are modeling some sort of technoeconomic analysis (you analyze the technology and capital structure at the same time) and lifecycle analysis (you plan for the total costs of something, including reuse/recyclability and costs to society of an economic activity). Note that you can vary the assumptions made in the capital structure and processes so that a full gamut of optimistic to pessimistic assumptions are varied (of whatever is relevant). This kind of analysis is not unlike what is also common in the oil/gas industry when there is some decision making under uncertainty type of situations, usually when large capital outlays are at stake. 

For example, this study did this for greener aviation fuels:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56408603

 

First of all, we need to assess the real costs of CO2.  CO2 has a positive role for humanity, it is actually essential for human life, it is a fundamental input to maintaining our food supply. The greenhouse effect may or may not have a negative impact on climate, but the recent studies cited above suggest that solar variables are predominant and overwhelm the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect. The entire cost/benefit analysis of climate policy needs to be overhauled.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Nikki Haley outburst was distributing, she had a lot potential..Well let's just say my wish list was blown up when Trump ran with Pence for re-election.  Trump-Haley 2020 would have not only won the 2020 election  but could have very well started a 16 yr dominating party trend..

It could have destroyed any possibility of conservatism ever winning in the long run. That may be lost but there is still hope. Nikki Haley is an opportunist with nor core values IMHO. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2021 at 6:55 AM, Symmetry said:

This guy is priceless! 

You might like to know that my approach to this critical issue has been taken up by Indian and US governments.

This is a quote from "Wolfpack IN" on Twitter:

A top US Navy Admiral on India's S-400 ADS purchase says "we will have to work through this and encourage India to consider US eqipment". Says "encouragement angle & providing alternatives" likely better than sanctions.

Damn right I am priceless, worth a million times my considerable weight in gold!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2021 at 3:21 PM, Ecocharger said:

The recent Texas disaster is causing a problem with the petrochemical industry, and the industries which depend on petrochemicals, including autos and EV autos, computer casings, housing....the oil industry creates so many industries apart from auto and airline fuels. The threatened shutdown of Line 5 by Michigan Green Crusaders could ground the airlines at Detroit International Airport. This is a revolution, not an economic or environmental discussion. It has gone beyond the "talking" phase of operations. Insanity has prevailed in the minds of some revolutionary leaders. They refuse to talk or reason, just panic.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Texas-Freeze-Creates-Global-Plastics-Shortage.html

Yes, the idiots won't even allow the development of Yellow Hydrogen. My mission is to help cut Greenhouse Gases but I am a scientist with a business degree as well, and the average "greenie" has the same IQ as the carrots they eat :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 1:01 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

They're trying to reduce methane production in multiple stomachs of cows--it's like seaweed, contains something called asparagoptosis, or something like that. Currently, the burps are pure methane and are currently responsible for about 20% of worldwide greenhouse gases. 

Here's an interesting question: Since there is now evidence that the dinosaurs also had multiple stomachs, and since they grew to such giant sizes, was it dinosaur burps that actually wiped out life on earth? 

I doubt that, but when you look at the insane frenzy going on, especially balanced against the calculations of the Norwegian Bjorn Lomborg (one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people) re' the very small difference in global climate change that EV's and renewables will make, I suppose you have to consider anything to do with methane. 

You have missed the point Gerry. Ron asked about using CO2 for a commercial purpose rather than go to the enormous expense of capturing it to just to pump it underground. Food for livestock, such as fishmeal etc, is very expensive. If it is cheaper to produce protein artificially, both the farmer and the planet will benefit. Likewise, Australian research into seaweed that eliminates methane from cow burps has now gone from the lab to the paddock. We are trialing the seaweed on beef and sheep properties to see whether it positively impacts the yield a farmer earns on their livestock. The theory is that all the energy that would have gone to creating methane will instead go to fattening up the cow/sheep faster for a given amount of food. If the experiments prove this correct, then the central issue of who should pay to stop the ruminants from belching methane becomes a non-issue. It will become self-funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 1:27 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

This is still releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere. It just passes through a chemical process and then a cow. It does not reduce the amount of carbon being converted to CO2 and added to the atmosphere.  It also does not do anything to solve the Texas rolling blackouts.

Don't be silly Dan, I hope you are not an accountant! Would you prefer to have TWO industries both emitting CO2 into the atmosphere or would you at least prefer one of those industries to recycle once their CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere, which cuts the problem in half? And yes, it would also solve the rolling blackouts coz it would force Texas to develop a Hydrogen industry to feed their livestock. No blackout problems in a H2 economy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 7:49 AM, surrept33 said:

Capitalism is all about (collective) creative destruction and creation, but that doesn't mean that simultaneous new efficiencies and sources of economic activity can't be found, they are everywhere these days, it depends on how people focus their attention (and play the game of life). 

For example, replacing radiators with radiant heat, the substitution of coal plants with other forms of primary energy generation, or the juxtaposition of incandescent bulbs with diodes were huge wins in being less wasteful (people in general got free lunch), however, there are always winners and losers when there are changes in any status of any quo, and people (especially in the first world) have an irrational fear of loss when a better problem framing is how much win (a infinite dimensional Copernican Revolution) can be created. I think the greatest gift of humanity is our ability to adapt, but we should also heed precautionary tales of maladaptation. 

A secondary question is how do we measure wastefulness or some efficiency and incentivize reductions in "cheating" (I'll describe this as generally, behavior that is not conducive to well being). This is especially true, for example, of many public companies who classically have been incentivized to focus strictly on the short term, for example the current quarterly result, without focusing on the ambient needs of different stakeholders (whether it be their employees, the environment, or future generations).

How does one measure this? Is it an arbitrary numéraire, capacity, power, energy, addition of resilience or adaptability if things go south? These all come with assumptions that people squabble about. Personally, I think it is prudent to design for prevention (risk of ruin) but also maximize risk taking by cross fertilization (where by pollination of competitive cross collaboration is emphasized, the tighter the feedback loop the better). This is especially when the costs of being wrong aren't much and the benefits are extremely high.

Paradoxically, I suspect there will be both substitution of various uses of petrochemical-derived products where there is high fungibility (really a substitution of some processed organic chemicals, for example, many polymers) and a bidding up for (petro)chemical expertise (human capital) as our system of commerce selects out certain pathologies, especially accounting for externalities that became "debt" for future (and sometimes present) generations. This substitution won't be universal, but given what appears to be true for example, with the bioaccumulation of microplastics and endocrine disruption, perhaps it is all in our best interests when there are easy substitutes, for example, in the consumer packaging industry. 

Think about a generalized "immune system" (a equilibrium model, borrowed from statistical physics), which is approximately our laissez-fairish system of capitalism mixed with rational regulations when market failures happen, but can also describe the ecosystem of either economic activity or for example, various natural ecological cycles that are easy to destabilize given their low tolerance to top of the food chain (in practice, human) activity. The collective us (humanity) seems to on average get better at learning from our previous mistakes, but rarely does anything move in a straight line, it's really a zigzag.

Have you run out of your favourite mushrooms? You are starting to make sense! However, I think you will find it to be "2 steps forward, 3 steps back"  for most ppl for quite some time, which is why I listen carefully to those on this site that caution against the inequality-enhancing features of rapid change. There are simple economic policies that could fix this, but toxic politics usually prevent them.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

Don't be silly Dan, I hope you are not an accountant! Would you prefer to have TWO industries both emitting CO2 into the atmosphere or would you at least prefer one of those industries to recycle once their CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere, which cuts the problem in half? And yes, it would also solve the rolling blackouts coz it would force Texas to develop a Hydrogen industry to feed their livestock. No blackout problems in a H2 economy!

Here is the accounting: each atom of carbon extracted from the earth in a fossil fuel will become the carbon atom in one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere unless that atom becomes captured and sequestered. As of right now, the only large-scale deliberate sequestration is placing plastics into landfill.

In the case under discussion, some fossil-generated CO2 is being converted chemically into cattle feed. If the cows did not eat that feed they would be eating food that is converted from atmospheric CO2 by plants. To a first approximation, cattle produce as much CO2 as they consume.  If the fossil CO2 is simply released into the atmosphere, it will be converted by plants into feed, and the cattle will still consume it and then re-emit it.

(NOTE: on this forum I do not argue for or against the existence of human-caused climate change. This sub-thread was started by someone else). If you want a carbon-neutral economy that extracts carbon-containing fossil fuels from the earth, then you will need to capture and permanently and reliably store the same amount of carbon. Each ton of coal will result in 44/12= 3.67 tons of CO2. Each ton of methane will result in 2.45 tons of CO2. Each ton of crude oil will fall somewhere in between: about 3 tons) To balance 100 million barrels of oil each day, you will need to sequester more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 each day. You will need additional sequestration for coal, NG, and cement. You can subtract some for plastics if you can bury the damn stuff.  Of the 39 carbon capture projects started in the US, all but 7 have failed. The 7 survivors provide CO2 to the oil industry for enhanced recovery, and the retention of that CO2 underground is, to put it charitably, dubious.

I still do not see how this is relevant to the Texas power disaster, except that carbon capture is a false hope that permits Texans to believe that the oil industry has a future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Here is the accounting: each atom of carbon extracted from the earth in a fossil fuel will become the carbon atom in one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere unless that atom becomes captured and sequestered. As of right now, the only large-scale deliberate sequestration is placing plastics into landfill.

In the case under discussion, some fossil-generated CO2 is being converted chemically into cattle feed. If the cows did not eat that feed they would be eating food that is converted from atmospheric CO2 by plants. To a first approximation, cattle produce as much CO2 as they consume.  If the fossil CO2 is simply released into the atmosphere, it will be converted by plants into feed, and the cattle will still consume it and then re-emit it.

(NOTE: on this forum I do not argue for or against the existence of human-caused climate change. This sub-thread was started by someone else). If you want a carbon-neutral economy that extracts carbon-containing fossil fuels from the earth, then you will need to capture and permanently and reliably store the same amount of carbon. Each ton of coal will result in 44/12= 3.67 tons of CO2. Each ton of methane will result in 2.45 tons of CO2. Each ton of crude oil will fall somewhere in between: about 3 tons) To balance 100 million barrels of oil each day, you will need to sequester more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 each day. You will need additional sequestration for coal, NG, and cement. You can subtract some for plastics if you can bury the damn stuff.  Of the 39 carbon capture projects started in the US, all but 7 have failed. The 7 survivors provide CO2 to the oil industry for enhanced recovery, and the retention of that CO2 underground is, to put it charitably, dubious.

I still do not see how this is relevant to the Texas power disaster, except that carbon capture is a false hope that permits Texans to believe that the oil industry has a future.

Mr Clemmensen I thank you for your post, it is always interesting to see how one arrives at thier conclusions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

You have missed the point Gerry. Ron asked about using CO2 for a commercial purpose rather than go to the enormous expense of capturing it to just to pump it underground. Food for livestock, such as fishmeal etc, is very expensive. If it is cheaper to produce protein artificially, both the farmer and the planet will benefit. Likewise, Australian research into seaweed that eliminates methane from cow burps has now gone from the lab to the paddock. We are trialing the seaweed on beef and sheep properties to see whether it positively impacts the yield a farmer earns on their livestock. The theory is that all the energy that would have gone to creating methane will instead go to fattening up the cow/sheep faster for a given amount of food. If the experiments prove this correct, then the central issue of who should pay to stop the ruminants from belching methane becomes a non-issue. It will become self-funding.

We just finished watching a very good documentary on Netflix called "Seaspiracy" that I would recommend to all.  Excellent piece, actually.  From their perspective, and that apparently of real science, is that overfishing the oceans does more damage to the climate than any other man-responsible cause, all added together!  Not to mention the slavery involved and "certified" crap on our tables from "sustainable" fishing and harvesting.  I Highly recommend that program and, if enough people watch it, we could discuss the realities vs propaganda on a dedicated separate thread?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

We just finished watching a very good documentary on Netflix called "Seaspiracy" that I would recommend to all.  Excellent piece, actually.  From their perspective, and that apparently of real science, is that overfishing the oceans does more damage to the climate than any other man-responsible cause, all added together!  Not to mention the slavery involved and "certified" crap on our tables from "sustainable" fishing and harvesting.  I Highly recommend that program and, if enough people watch it, we could discuss the realities vs propaganda on a dedicated separate thread?

Ok now we have conclusive proof Google is a super spy. You post this documentary I open up Netflix to do a search....no search was nesscary ..SEAPIRCY just popped right up boldly right in my face .Gezz. Now if pizzahut knocks at door with a chicken ranch double crust pizza i am truly going to just give up and go primitive.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Here is the accounting: each atom of carbon extracted from the earth in a fossil fuel will become the carbon atom in one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere unless that atom becomes captured and sequestered. As of right now, the only large-scale deliberate sequestration is placing plastics into landfill.

In the case under discussion, some fossil-generated CO2 is being converted chemically into cattle feed. If the cows did not eat that feed they would be eating food that is converted from atmospheric CO2 by plants. To a first approximation, cattle produce as much CO2 as they consume.  If the fossil CO2 is simply released into the atmosphere, it will be converted by plants into feed, and the cattle will still consume it and then re-emit it.

(NOTE: on this forum I do not argue for or against the existence of human-caused climate change. This sub-thread was started by someone else). If you want a carbon-neutral economy that extracts carbon-containing fossil fuels from the earth, then you will need to capture and permanently and reliably store the same amount of carbon. Each ton of coal will result in 44/12= 3.67 tons of CO2. Each ton of methane will result in 2.45 tons of CO2. Each ton of crude oil will fall somewhere in between: about 3 tons) To balance 100 million barrels of oil each day, you will need to sequester more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 each day. You will need additional sequestration for coal, NG, and cement. You can subtract some for plastics if you can bury the damn stuff.  Of the 39 carbon capture projects started in the US, all but 7 have failed. The 7 survivors provide CO2 to the oil industry for enhanced recovery, and the retention of that CO2 underground is, to put it charitably, dubious.

I still do not see how this is relevant to the Texas power disaster, except that carbon capture is a false hope that permits Texans to believe that the oil industry has a future.

How does 1 ton of solid coal turn into 3.67 tons of gaseous CO2? Do you actually mean SCM, or something like it? In which case, the entire premise of your atomic "accounting" is a little like the federal government's "balanced" budget. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

You have missed the point Gerry. Ron asked about using CO2 for a commercial purpose rather than go to the enormous expense of capturing it to just to pump it underground. Food for livestock, such as fishmeal etc, is very expensive. If it is cheaper to produce protein artificially, both the farmer and the planet will benefit. Likewise, Australian research into seaweed that eliminates methane from cow burps has now gone from the lab to the paddock. We are trialing the seaweed on beef and sheep properties to see whether it positively impacts the yield a farmer earns on their livestock. The theory is that all the energy that would have gone to creating methane will instead go to fattening up the cow/sheep faster for a given amount of food. If the experiments prove this correct, then the central issue of who should pay to stop the ruminants from belching methane becomes a non-issue. It will become self-funding.

With due respect, I didn't miss the point. I don't believe the point. In other words, I don't believe CO2 is causing much of a problem at all. 

Above, Ecocharger posted a very well performed study by the climate science group at the University of California in Santa Cruz, not exactly a conservative think tank. It is on this very page and has (I suspect) been skipped over because it is laborious to read. Published in the journal Climate, it makes several pertinent points: 1) Global temperature measured instrumentally has increased by a whopping 0.8 degrees C since 1880, the end of the Little Ice Age that began in 1860. 2) Evidence shows that, on multi-millennial timescales over most of known climate history, atmospheric CO2 concentration was not correlated with, and therefore did not cause, global temperature change. 3) The dates of collapse of all human civilizations over the past four millennia are associated with global cooling, not warming. 

I'm sure you are aware that there are methane mounds all over the floor of the ocean. These are especially prevalent in the GOM, where they are massive and have, over the centuries, developed their own symbiotic methane hydrate societies: plants, bacteria, viruses. This natural methane release is exemplified prominently in the Antarctic Ice Circle in Siberia. I would like to emphasize that the culminant methane release from these natural emission factories is nothing short of gargantuan. I think it's just fine to see if we can't remove the bovine burps from the equation--that's 20% of the global methane from anthropogenic sources. I have also been a bitter opponent of prolonged venting/flaring of methane from wellcasings--that's just plain stupid. Additionally, I am in favor of reducing vehicular greenhouse gas emission.

However, it was unequivocally shown that the 18 largest ships in the world emitted more NOX and SOX than all the land-based vehicles on the face of the earth. This was addressed by the IMO2020 mandate. All of this was difficult to find in the news. When something like that--an epiphenomenon if there ever was one--is more or less censored from the mainstream news, and millions of people are revving up the discussion about EV's, renewables, banning gas cars, etc., then it raises a huge red flag, to me. For instance, there are tens of thousands of ships plying the ocean waters of the world. Sure, they've reduced the sulfur content of the fuel, but the land-based vehicular and bovine burp greenhouse gas load still pales beside the shipping pollution and nobody says a word. Why is that?

My point: this has turned into hysteria based on very little true science. The Norwegian Climate Science Institute spokesman, Bjorn Lomborg, hailed by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential persons in the world, says that changing to renewables and EV's will make a microscopic difference in global climate change. Yet, we are, as a planet, making monumental shifts in culture mainly for the economic benefit of a very small handful of brilliant entrepreneurs capable of bending the rhetoric for massive capitalistic gain.

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I still do not see how this is relevant to the Texas power disaster, except that carbon capture is a false hope that permits Texans to believe that the oil industry has a future.

To wit, and said without malice, some of the posts here are, to me, wildly dissociated from reality. To the note above, I can only say that if the oil industry has no future, then neither does mankind. Now I am an openminded guy: I suppose there may be something that can supplant petroleum products in making clothes, pharmaceuticals, kitchen utensils, surgical tools, hairdryers and automobile bodies. Maybe there is some magic molecule that we can develop ad lib and in great numbers to take the place of petroleum products.

But I doubt it. I would submit that the gentleman who made that comment is so doggedly determined to push the alternative energy concept that he can't control his inner urge to demonize the awful petroleum industry. To me, this mania is much ado about almost nothing. Obviously, to a growing number, equally informed, it is more important than almost anything else. 

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

48 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

How does 1 ton of solid coal turn into 3.67 tons of gaseous CO2? Do you actually mean SCM, or something like it? In which case, the entire premise of your atomic "accounting" is a little like the federal government's "balanced" budget. 

One ton of coal is all carbon to a close approximation. Each of those carbon atoms has an atomic mass of 12. when burned, each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms to form one molecule of CO2. Each oxygen atom has an atomic mass of 16, so the molecule has an atomic mass of 44. Therefore, each C becomes a CO2, and the mass multiplier is 44/12= 3.67. (Numbers are not absolutely exact because there are small variances in average atomic masses due to isotopic ratios, but the numbers are still accurate to within one percent.) Basically, to sequester one carbon atom, you must also sequester two oxygen atoms. For Methane, each CH4 emits one CO2 when burned, the CH4 has a mass of 16 (12 from the carbon atom and one from each of the four hydrogen atoms) so the multiplier is 44/16=2.45. Crude oil has a lower percentage of hydrogen to carbon than methane but higher coal, so I guessed a ratio of about 3.

Edited by Dan Clemmensen
sp
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

To wit, and said without malice, some of the posts here are, to me, wildly dissociated from reality. To the note above, I can only say that if the oil industry has no future, then neither does mankind. Now I am an openminded guy: I suppose there may be something that can supplant petroleum products in making clothes, pharmaceuticals, kitchen utensils, surgical tools, hairdryers and automobile bodies. Maybe there is some magic molecule that we can develop ad lib and in great numbers to take the place of petroleum products.

But I doubt it. I would submit that the gentleman who made that comment is so doggedly determined to push the alternative energy concept that he can't control his inner urge to demonize the awful petroleum industry. To me, this mania is much ado about almost nothing. Obviously, to a growing number, equally informed, it is more important than almost anything else. 

Gerry, my post stated that I am not debating climate change here. If consumers believe that petroleum is bad for the environment, then the industry will die, regardless of whether or not that belief is valid.

You make the case that oil and NG are used to make lots of useful plastics. This is true, but the overwhelming majority of oil and NG  is used for fuel, and plastics are basically a side product of petroleum refining. They will be a lot more expensive if fuel consumption goes down. At some point, the rising costs of fossil hydrocarbon feedstocks will cross the falling costs of synthetic hydrocarbon feedstocks produced from CO2 and H2. These are not "magic molecules". These feedstocks have been produced in the past (e.g., when wartime restrictions cut countries off form oil) and are being produced now experimentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ok now we have conclusive proof Google is a super spy. You post this documentary I open up Netflix to do a search....no search was nesscary ..SEAPIRCY just popped right up boldly right in my face .Gezz. Now if pizzahut knocks at door with a chicken ranch double crust pizza i am truly going to just give up and go primitive.

Well, Netflix knows more about you (or the preferences of people like you) than you, as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filtering#Innovations

Why inadvertently people got trapped into the great collaborative filtering filter bubble:

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

Why good sane privacy enhancing regulation makes sense to me, for example the CCPA, unfortunately, it's not federal law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

 If consumers believe that petroleum is bad for the environment, then the industry will die, regardless of whether or not that belief is valid.

 

Not really.

People inherently know fossil fuels are bad for the environment and their health.  The industry itself admits it is bad for the environment.  It says right on the pump it causes cancer.  There is no ignorance of the risks yet people continue consuming.

Similar things happen with alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, etc.... the industries do not die despite consumer knowledge of the deleterious effects.  Tobacco has survived pretty well consider the decades of regulation against them.  Likewise the "war on drugs" is a joke.

Humans, the cult members in particular, are not rational creatures. They are almost entirely controlled by the lizard brain desires for salt, sugar, fat, and sex.

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Not really.

People inherently know fossil fuels are bad for the environment and their health.  The industry itself admits it is bad for the environment.  It says right on the pump it causes cancer.  There is no ignorance of the risks yet people continue consuming.

Similar things happen with alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, etc.... the industries do not die despite consumer knowledge of the deleterious effects.  Tobacco has survived pretty well consider the decades of regulation against them.  Likewise the "war on drugs" is a joke.

Humans, the cult members in particular, are not rational creatures. They are almost entirely controlled by the lizard brain desires for salt, sugar, fat, and sex.

Exposure to low levels of gasoline fumes has not been shown to cause cancer, however if the general public is in panic or paranoia, there may be a fear of cancer from many substances too numerous to mention.

Fear itself is something to be afraid of. Propagandists rely on fear to sell their message of panic. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying, how come wind turbines don't freeze up here in Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

24 minutes ago, Refman said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-hathaway-floats-8-3-191651224.html

More NG plants will not do any good if the NG supply fails though.

Under the proposal, Texas power customers would pay a fee to cover the costs of the plants. In exchange for making the investment, Berkshire is proposing to earn a 9.3% rate of return, which would need to approved by state regulators.

F*ck Berkshire and their 9.3%. Texas has the reserve cash flowing in without the need of "Good ol' Warren". At more than a 1000 new residents moving to Texas daily, the need for more power is going to be challenging. 

NG plants as a rule don't fail unless some idiots forget to fill the paperwork out. DUH!!!! I suggest a couple 5GW nuke plants would suffice for the incoming electrical needs and let the Texans figure out how to pay for them. Even a small surcharge on NG of say 10cent a foot going out of state wouldn't kill anyone and all the states that receive Texas NG isn't that much of a burden on Texans.

Edited by Old-Ruffneck
add
  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.