GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 12/13/2022 at 10:30 PM, turbguy said:

They are not quite "ready for prime-time" yet here in rural Wyoming. 

They are getting closer day-by-day.

Don't get me wrong...I have friends with Tesla's in town and they like them.  It's just that they can't perform to match a full-size diesel pickup quite yet.  Ground clearance is too tight for most two-tracks around here, and they can't pull a loaded horse trailer anywhere near what the pickup does.

For more heavily populated areas, with less "practical demands", EV's are probably a no-brainer for many.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fords-Electric-Pickup-Is-15000-More-Expensive-Than-Its-Original-Listing-Price.html

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

Please explain the heat loss and why it can't be captured somehow.

Ahhh...thermodynamics of heat engines?

Unless "they" can achieve working fluid temperatures in excess of about 2300℉ (or so), about 50% thermal efficiency is the max on this planet.

That's gonna be a real challenge for materials.

Of course, there's always CHAP. That would help.

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

10 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The full quote is telling - the world hates the reliance on filty coal.

Your stance is akin to saying crack cocaine is good because there are many addicts.

Do not make the logic error that usage = good. 

Coal will still be king when you and I are long since put to bed. 

It is an essential component of the steel industry, without which our buildings and bridges would bend and break.

It will continue to heat and produce electricity to supply those EVs with juice.

Rejoice in coal!

Rejoice also in CO2, which allows you and I to still draw a breath on this planet, feeding the green plants which produce oxygen.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Coal will still be king when you and I are long since put to bed. 

It is an essential component of the steel industry, without which our buildings and bridges would bend and break.

It will continue to heat and produce electricity to supply those EVs with juice.

Rejoice in coal!

Rejoice also in CO2, which allows you and I to still draw a breath on this planet, feeding the green plants which produce oxygen.

An article from 2019 for you to peruse:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/08/19/how-sweden-delivered-the-worlds-first-fossil-fuel-free-steel/?sh=751f607e6b55

[Polyphia + 67]

11 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Too bad you are so misinformed. 

Breitbart has been identified as being both biased (right-skewed) and mixed in terms of its factual reporting:

https://adfontesmedia.com/breitbart-bias-and-reliability/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

And if you ever roam into the comment sections of some of their articles, you will find a lot of conspiracy theory and white supremacy talk.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 12/14/2022 at 2:12 AM, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

"There is no established relationship between CO2 levels and earth temperature". 

Yes, there is: On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Here is actual data, not BS.  Not to mention there is no control on CO2 if CO2 is the actual driver.  But hey, we already knew that due to basic radiation physics and partial pressures. 

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

So, someone in Nature rag has learned to create castles out of clouds in their mind... People keep publishing their CO2 BS as driver and have done so for decades now and it keeps getting dismantled instantly via basic science laws...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Polyphia said:

An article from 2019 for you to peruse:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/08/19/how-sweden-delivered-the-worlds-first-fossil-fuel-free-steel/?sh=751f607e6b55

Did you bother to read the nitty gritty?  We went over this 2 years ago... No... if you had read it and you know anything about creating steel from iron ore, you would know that article and all the others who diddled about the same topic are all giant lies as it will require many multiples of equivalent energy to make the same steel. 

Now, is it possible to create steel from iron without Coal?  Yes it can, and is highly inefficient. 

You can always do things the stupid way when your religion blinds you to reality.

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Did you bother to read the nitty gritty?  We went over this 2 years ago... No... if you had read it and you know anything about creating steel from iron ore, you would know that article and all the others who diddled about the same topic are all giant lies as it will require many multiples of equivalent energy to make the same steel. 

Now, is it possible to create steel from iron without Coal?  Yes it can, and is highly inefficient. 

You can always do things the stupid way when your religion blinds you to reality.

I love how all of you green deniers act as if we are stuck in the current moment. Nothing will ever be developed to be more efficient, cheaper, etc. It's laughable, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

15 hours ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh...thermodynamics of heat engines?

Unless "they" can achieve working fluid temperatures in excess of about 2300℉ (or so), about 50% thermal efficiency is the max on this planet.

That's gonna be a real challenge for materials.

Of course, there's always CHAP. That would help.

 

 

5 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Breitbart has been identified as being both biased (right-skewed) and mixed in terms of its factual reporting:

https://adfontesmedia.com/breitbart-bias-and-reliability/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

And if you ever roam into the comment sections of some of their articles, you will find a lot of conspiracy theory and white supremacy talk.

 

15 hours ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh...thermodynamics of heat engines?

Unless "they" can achieve working fluid temperatures in excess of about 2300℉ (or so), about 50% thermal efficiency is the max on this planet.

That's gonna be a real challenge for materials.

Of course, there's always CHAP. That would help.

 

Well, Central Heat and Power is so obvious that I referred to capturing that heart. So, why would that not be possible to a great extent. It is no different than any other energy use. Some energy is lost in the process. That applies to wind and solar also. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:50 AM, Ecocharger said:

Coal is still King.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Global-Coal-Consumption-On-Track-To-Hit-An-All-Time-High.html

"The International Energy Agency expects coal consumption to hit an all-time high this year, breaking 8 billion tons for the first time ever.

Soaring natural gas prices have been the key factor pushing coal demand higher, with coal consumption set to rise by 1.2% this year.

The IEA maintains that the current energy crisis and Russia’s war in Ukraine will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels."

Worldwide energy needs will reportedly grow faster than the added growth from wind and solar. That means we need all forms of energy used. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

5 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Breitbart has been identified as being both biased (right-skewed) and mixed in terms of its factual reporting:

https://adfontesmedia.com/breitbart-bias-and-reliability/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

And if you ever roam into the comment sections of some of their articles, you will find a lot of conspiracy theory and white supremacy talk.

It is VERY telling that you MUST refer to comments to articles to find ANY concrete examples to support your opinion. I will be happy to defend any Breitbart ARTICLE. Every site has bad comments. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Ron Wagner

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

It is VERY telling that you MUST refer to comments to articles to find ANY concrete examples to support your opinion. I will be happy to defend any Breitbart ARTICLE. Every site has bad comments. 

No, I could have left out the part about the comments that people leave, and Breitbart would still be a right-wing based source of information that is mixed in terms of the accuracy of what it reports--as the links that I included demonstrate. Are there some articles that are factually correct? Of course there are. Broken clocks are also correct twice per day, though. And on average/in its entirety Breitbart is not a very reliable source of factual information. There are much better sources that you could be reading/quoting. If that is the source that you think is the paragon of news reporting, that's your choice. But claiming that people who denounce Breitbart as a reliable source are misinformed and defending Breitbart in general is VERY telling about who YOU are.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

4 hours ago, Polyphia said:

But claiming that people who denounce Breitbart as a reliable source are misinformed and defending Breitbart in general is VERY telling about who YOU are.

I will defend Ron on this one. I don't think you know Ron as a person at all and trying to put him in some stereotype (I think you are trying to say UltraMaga), is far from the Ron Wagner that I have known on here for alot of years. 

Me on the other hand, well I obviously LOVE oil and by-products and all the good meds, plastics, fuel..... yup, guess I am yer enemy. Spew away!!!!!

[turbguy + 1,391]

6 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

 

 

Well, Central Heat and Power is so obvious that I referred to capturing that heart. So, why would that not be possible to a great extent. It is no different than any other energy use. Some energy is lost in the process. That applies to wind and solar also. 

As long as there is a need for "lower quality" heat, and a distribution system of sorts to deal with it, fine.  CHAP works in densely populated areas.  

Conversion efficiency of "fuel-less" sources is a subject for consideration. After conversion, transmission losses certainly remain, but those are on the order of 10% (+/-).   Typical Wind and solar sources (and hydro) don't have much of a heat engine component, if any at all,

Thermal efficiency applies for fueled sources.

[Ron Wagner + 642]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Here is actual data, not BS.  Not to mention there is no control on CO2 if CO2 is the actual driver.  But hey, we already knew that due to basic radiation physics and partial pressures. 

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

So, someone in Nature rag has learned to create castles out of clouds in their mind... People keep publishing their CO2 BS as driver and have done so for decades now and it keeps getting dismantled instantly via basic science laws...

Just watch actual ocean rise rates and figure out why rich people buy up all the coastal property nearest to the beaches all around the world and especially little islands!

[Ron Wagner + 642]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

As long as there is a need for "lower quality" heat, and a distribution system of sorts to deal with it, fine.  CHAP works in densely populated areas.  

Conversion efficiency of "fuel-less" sources is a subject for consideration. After conversion, transmission losses certainly remain, but those are on the order of 10% (+/-).   Typical Wind and solar sources (and hydro) don't have much of a heat engine component, if any at all,

Thermal efficiency applies for fueled sources.

I should have said energy loss but it is still loss through friction transference of generated energy, line loss, construction of the wind turbine components, transit, and installation. 

[turbguy + 1,391]

46 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

I should have said energy loss but it is still loss through friction transference of generated energy, line loss, construction of the wind turbine components, transit, and installation. 

The efficiency of a typical wind turbine (after conversion of kinetic energy in the air flow to RPM and torque, limited by Betz) is caused by bearing, gearbox (if any), and generator efficiencies, all well above 90%.

Construction. transit, and erection/commissioning applies to any system (and is worthy of consideration). Those are up-front "expenses".

While working erection of a large nuc plant installation (1.3 GW), I frequently pondered how long the plant had to operate to make up for the energy burned by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of the total daily commutes made by the fitters, carpenters, electricians, iron workers, laborers, operating engineers, and management teams, plus the energy used in manufacturing and transit of the plant components, plus the mining/processing of the yellowcake, enrichment and fuel fabrication.  I was never able to arrive at any informed answer, but I "feel" it was on the order of a year or three.

Getting back to a fusion boiler. THAT'S gonna use a heat engine.

Edited December 18, 2022 by turbguy

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

I will defend Ron on this one. I don't think you know Ron as a person at all and trying to put him in some stereotype (I think you are trying to say UltraMaga), is far from the Ron Wagner that I have known on here for alot of years. 

Me on the other hand, well I obviously LOVE oil and by-products and all the good meds, plastics, fuel..... yup, guess I am yer enemy. Spew away!!!!!

It is sweet of you to defend him, but I think Ron can take care of himself. And while you inferred that I was calling him "UltraMaga," it is not what I was implying. I was providing evidence that Breitbart is a crappy place to get unbiased fact-based news, and some conservatives, both UltraMaga and non-UltraMaga perceive it to be something close to the gospel. If Ron actually spends the time to cross reference the articles from Breitbart to verify the facts, then kudos to him. It sounded more like he was prepared to blindly defend any of their articles, but he can try to set the record straight, if he would like.

I don't consider anyone the enemy, per se, unless they hold their partisan views above democratic ideals. And truth be told, I don't think we are going to be able to do away with fossil fuels and their byproducts totally. I do believe that CO2 is a significant problem and that it is in our best interest (for that reason and other non-climate reasons) to reduce CO2 emissions significantly.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 hour ago, Polyphia said:

It is sweet of you to defend him, but I think Ron can take care of himself. And while you inferred that I was calling him "UltraMaga," it is not what I was implying. I was providing evidence that Breitbart is a crappy place to get unbiased fact-based news, and some conservatives, both UltraMaga and non-UltraMaga perceive it to be something close to the gospel. If Ron actually spends the time to cross reference the articles from Breitbart to verify the facts, then kudos to him. It sounded more like he was prepared to blindly defend any of their articles, but he can try to set the record straight, if he would like.

I don't consider anyone the enemy, per se, unless they hold their partisan views above democratic ideals. And truth be told, I don't think we are going to be able to do away with fossil fuels and their byproducts totally. I do believe that CO2 is a significant problem and that it is in our best interest (for that reason and other non-climate reasons) to reduce CO2 emissions significantly.

Here is exhibit A for Climate Change....the new Global Warming problem, aquariums bursting and spilling contents...

Hey, wait just one minute, this is not Global Warming causing this, but Global Freezing!

What happened to the old CO2 climate models? I guess they goofed big time on this result!

Reach for your mittens and scarves, folks. It's gonna get cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/huge-aquarium-bursts-berlin-housed-1500-tropical-fish-rcna62053

 

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is exhibit A for Climate Change....the new Global Warming problem, aquariums bursting and spilling contents...

Hey, wait just one minute, this is not Global Warming causing this, but Global Freezing!

What happened to the old CO2 climate models? I guess they goofed big time on this result!

Reach for your mittens and scarves, folks. It's gonna get cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/huge-aquarium-bursts-berlin-housed-1500-tropical-fish-rcna62053

 

You are talking about weather. Also, climate change results in both extreme heat AND extreme cold (as well as more frequent and stronger adverse weather events such as tornados, hurricanes, droughts, and floods).

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/how-global-warming-causes-both-extreme-heat-and-cold-weather/

[TailingsPond + 460]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:11 PM, Ecocharger said:

Coal will still be king when you and I are long since put to bed. 

It is an essential component of the steel industry, without which our buildings and bridges would bend and break.

It will continue to heat and produce electricity to supply those EVs with juice.

I'm sure you know there are multiple types of coal.  I don't mind the high-quality coal used for steel, I only hate the low-quality coal that is used for energy.

When you hear news of new coal mines they are almost always going after high-grade coal.

 

• Anthracite: The highest rank of coal. It is a hard, brittle, and black lustrous coal, often referred to as hard coal, containing a high percentage of fixed carbon and a low percentage of volatile matter.
• Bituminous: Bituminous coal is a middle rank coal between subbituminous and anthracite. Bituminous coal usually has a high heating (Btu) value and is used in electricity generation and steel making in the United States. Bituminous coal is blocky and appears shiny and smooth when you first see it, but look closer and you might see it has thin, alternating, shiny and dull layers. 
• Subbituminous: Subbituminous coal is black in color and is mainly dull (not shiny). Subbituminous coal has low-to-moderate heating values and is mainly used in electricity generation.
• Lignite: Lignite coal, aka brown coal, is the lowest grade coal with the least concentration of carbon. Lignite has a low heating value and a high moisture content and is mainly used in electricity generation.

Edited December 19, 2022 by TailingsPond

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 12/17/2022 at 8:11 AM, Polyphia said:

I love how all of you green deniers act as if we are stuck in the current moment. Nothing will ever be developed to be more efficient, cheaper, etc. It's laughable, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

Anyone saying CO2 is a problem IS the ultimate GREEN denier.  More CO2 = greener planet. 

So sorry you can't publish something useful and more efficient than current tech and expect someone with a functioning brain to laud a less efficient more expensive process for ZERO gain. 

The object in life is to not only float your boat but others as well.  Its called being a BENEFIT to society instead of a drain.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

On 12/17/2022 at 1:34 AM, Ron Wagner said:

Rules can be made and changed. Old cars can be fixed. 

Yes rules can be changed but that prospect looks incredibly unlikely across all governments and car manufacturers.

Old cars can be fixed but the older they get the more things that need fixing and the more expensive the running costs for that vehicle become. Parts for "old cars" will become more expensive as there will be less demand as there are fewer FF cars and therefore less production of the parts. Reliability then also becomes a factor too.

As a cost conscious person Ron surely this would become uneconomical to continue to fix old cars. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 56]

On 12/17/2022 at 3:34 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Here is actual data, not BS.  Not to mention there is no control on CO2 if CO2 is the actual driver.  But hey, we already knew that due to basic radiation physics and partial pressures. 

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

So, someone in Nature rag has learned to create castles out of clouds in their mind... People keep publishing their CO2 BS as driver and have done so for decades now and it keeps getting dismantled instantly via basic science laws...

Basic science, from the famous footeab@yahoo.com. "trust me, bro". 

You clearly haven't looked at the science, otherwise you would not have posted a graph that supports the conclusion of the paper.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 56]

On 12/17/2022 at 3:44 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Did you bother to read the nitty gritty?  We went over this 2 years ago... No... if you had read it and you know anything about creating steel from iron ore, you would know that article and all the others who diddled about the same topic are all giant lies as it will require many multiples of equivalent energy to make the same steel. 

Now, is it possible to create steel from iron without Coal?  Yes it can, and is highly inefficient. 

You can always do things the stupid way when your religion blinds you to reality.

Traditional coal-fired plant - steel: 6MWh per tonne

H2 based DRI - steel: 4.25 MWh per tonne. 

Which one is more efficient? Below is the source:

How much hydrogen will be needed to replace coal in making steel? | Carbon Commentary

And blabla conversion losses H2, sure. But mining and transporting coal is not free either.