JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

On 5/14/2021 at 11:20 PM, Ecocharger said:

Looks like that old pipe has done pretty well, small problems at best. Now getting an upgrade for good.

small problems at best.??? Line 5 has spilled 33 times and at least 1.1 million gallons along its length since 1968.  Kalamazoo was a small problem? what does it take to be a big problem 100,000 barrels into the Great Lakes?. 30 million people get their water from the Great Lakes (there is no backup system) Getting an upgrade? are they epoxy lining the whole pipeline? are the digging up the whole pipeline and re-coating it? . 70 year old pipe in the ground is past its useful life. You must of received your engineering degree from Trump U.

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The CO2?  Anyone who considers that to be a pollutant is dreaming in technicolor. We need CO2 to live as a human species.

The new coal-burning thermal plants are regarded as zero-toxic-emission technology.  That is well established.

Just waiting for a link or reference that shows ANY "zero-emission" coal-fired thermal plant.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Just waiting for a link or reference that shows ANY "zero-emission" coal-fired thermal plant.

 

Couldn't find coal, I think that's a stretch to be fair at the moment. However I did find this for gas (that will please @ronwagn) and this looks like pretty exciting tech to me.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power

This says Coal will be low and eventually "near zero" emissions (whatever "near zero" means)

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx

Edited by Rob Plant
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is never going to zero emission coal.

Mining the coal produces toxic waste, burning the stuff makes toxic waste, and fly ash etc. is still an emission even if it doesn't go out a smokestack.

Nothing to do with CO2!

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2021 at 7:10 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Who said anything about the overpriced launch edition? The regular edition is scheduled for January 2022 with 300 miles at $67,500. It will have a 400 mile battery option for $10K more.

In a few years there will be EV trucks that can pull 16,000 to 20,000. Then 10 years later you can buy them used and not worry about scratches.

image.thumb.png.4347c09b475365dc4e243ac1d4282014.png

The real test for electric vehicles will be the speed of adoption by the general public. Also watch the overall cost for governments that buy them, as in America where Democrats mean to force goverment agencies to use them. Then add in the cost of the charging system growth, new electrical line infrastructure, batteries to back up wind turbines etc. There will be a big fight over subsidies and the cost of the Green New Deal. It is a stupid non plan that is being mandated, rather than allowed to grow naturally. Natural gas vehicles should be allowed to compete as they are in Europe and around the world. There are still double the number of natural gas vehicles than electric and they are much larger overall due to large truck use.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

24 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The real test for electric vehicles will be the speed of adoption by the general public. Also watch the overall cost for governments that buy them, as in America where Democrats mean to force goverment agencies to use them. Then add in the cost of the charging system growth, new electrical line infrastructure, batteries to back up wind turbines etc. There will be a big fight over subsidies and the cost of the Green New Deal. It is a stupid non plan that is being mandated, rather than allowed to grow naturally. Natural gas vehicles should be allowed to compete as they are in Europe and around the world. There are still double the number of natural gas vehicles than electric and they are much larger overall due to large truck use.

Natural Gas Vehicles are only so big in Europe because of Italy, with 2/3 of the market, who provides the same kind of subsidies as are now being provided to EV

Italy leads the EU in CNG vehicle adoption, with more than 11% of new passenger cars equipped for natural gas last year. That compares to 0.01% for the US in 2012, where only one CNG model, a Honda, was sold. The Italian government promotes natural gas use in vehicles both directly and indirectly. The country provides a subsidy of €700 ($945) to purchasers of CNG automobiles, while manufacturers like Fiat offer discounts to expand their market for CNG cars. Incentives were even larger a few years ago. The government also makes retail petroleum products extraordinarily expensive with high taxes. So even though Italy is a large net importer of natural gas, CNG is much cheaper than gasoline or diesel at the pump.

Fuel availability may also have something to do with the disparity in adoption rates. Despite having an 83% smaller overall vehicle population , Italy has over 40% more CNG or “Autogas” refueling stations than the entire US, at around 900. This is due in part to state-level incentives, with 50-70% of the cost of a new CNG filling station reimbursed by regions such as Liguria, Lombardy, and Piemonte.

 

EV's are very new compared to NG vehicles which have been around for decades. So no surprise that NG *still* outnumbers them. In a couple years EV will be exceed them.

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Without coal-burning generators, the world would be fatally short of electricity.

How many coal fired plants are there currently?

Well,

The EU has 468, building 27 more = 495

Turkey has 56, building 93 more = 149

South Africa has 79, building 24 more = 103

India has 589, building 446 more = 1,035

Philippines has 19, building 60 more = 79

South Korea has 58, building 26 more = 84

Japan has 90, building 45 more = 135

China has 2,364, building 1,171 more = 3,534

U.S. has 15, building 0 more = 15

I guess the U.S. had better shut down those 15 coal-fired plants, they are scaring the daylights out of everyone.

 

 

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, notsonice said:

small problems at best.??? Line 5 has spilled 33 times and at least 1.1 million gallons along its length since 1968.  Kalamazoo was a small problem? what does it take to be a big problem 100,000 barrels into the Great Lakes?. 30 million people get their water from the Great Lakes (there is no backup system) Getting an upgrade? are they epoxy lining the whole pipeline? are the digging up the whole pipeline and re-coating it? . 70 year old pipe in the ground is past its useful life. You must of received your engineering degree from Trump U.

Read the news, friend. They are replacing it in a secure route.

Since 1968? What is that per year? It took how many days to clean up the spills?  This is chicken feed you are giving us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, -trance said:

There is never going to zero emission coal.

Mining the coal produces toxic waste, burning the stuff makes toxic waste, and fly ash etc. is still an emission even if it doesn't go out a smokestack.

Nothing to do with CO2!

 

 

 

If it doesn't go out a smokestack, it is zero toxic emission.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Couldn't find coal, I think that's a stretch to be fair at the moment. However I did find this for gas (that will please @ronwagn) and this looks like pretty exciting tech to me.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power

This says Coal will be low and eventually "near zero" emissions (whatever "near zero" means)

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx

I think that for our purposes in this discussion, zero toxic emissions means that toxic chemicals are not being emitted, which is true for the new coal-burning technology.

Frankly, I do not care if the coal-burning technology is zero CO2 emission, that means nothing to climate change as far as the new solar research has demonstrated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Natural Gas Vehicles are only so big in Europe because of Italy, with 2/3 of the market, who provides the same kind of subsidies as are now being provided to EV

Italy leads the EU in CNG vehicle adoption, with more than 11% of new passenger cars equipped for natural gas last year. That compares to 0.01% for the US in 2012, where only one CNG model, a Honda, was sold. The Italian government promotes natural gas use in vehicles both directly and indirectly. The country provides a subsidy of €700 ($945) to purchasers of CNG automobiles, while manufacturers like Fiat offer discounts to expand their market for CNG cars. Incentives were even larger a few years ago. The government also makes retail petroleum products extraordinarily expensive with high taxes. So even though Italy is a large net importer of natural gas, CNG is much cheaper than gasoline or diesel at the pump.

Fuel availability may also have something to do with the disparity in adoption rates. Despite having an 83% smaller overall vehicle population , Italy has over 40% more CNG or “Autogas” refueling stations than the entire US, at around 900. This is due in part to state-level incentives, with 50-70% of the cost of a new CNG filling station reimbursed by regions such as Liguria, Lombardy, and Piemonte.

 

EV's are very new compared to NG vehicles which have been around for decades. So no surprise that NG *still* outnumbers them. In a couple years EV will be exceed them.

 

This is still chicken feed level, less than 1% of vehicle stock. Won't happen in our lifetimes, probably never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

An electric future? Think again,

"For batteries to play the ultimate backup system, we're so far away from that it's not funny," Jim Robb, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., a regulatory body, said in an interview. "To really make the vision that we like to get to, a highly decarbonized electric system, you're going to have to have batteries deployed in many orders of magnitude beyond what we have now."

Well, actually, it IS funny.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Couldn't find coal, I think that's a stretch to be fair at the moment. However I did find this for gas (that will please @ronwagn) and this looks like pretty exciting tech to me.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power

This says Coal will be low and eventually "near zero" emissions (whatever "near zero" means)

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx

The gas tech is very interesting! They have started building two production units https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063730145

Here is a talk by the CEO on what they are doing. https://youtu.be/PISgVaLtbJY

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The nations of the world are skeptical about the all-electric dreaming which is being emitted without purification from various sources.

Our CEO has mandated that all company vehicles of which there are several dozen must be either plug in hybrid or all electric. His argument was that it will help climate change and Co2 emissions whilst also saving the company money.

When I pointed out that both hybrids and all electric have a significant carbon footprint his reply was "well its still saving the company money". And that is the crux of the matter as governments are subsidizing EV's and offsetting this by massively raising taxes on ICE vehicles so they are seen to be doing "the right thing" and get voted back in. 

This is a political game and has nothing to do with "saving the planet".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The gas tech is very interesting! They have started building two production units https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063730145

Here is a talk by the CEO on what they are doing. https://youtu.be/PISgVaLtbJY

Yeah I agree very interesting and somewhat of a breakthrough for NG, I had not heard of it until I found it yesterday.

Clever clever stuff indeed, the future for NG just got really interesting.

Thanks to @turbguy for making me look with his question to @Ecocharger

I'm not sure coal has much future even with tech breakthroughs as it is just a dirty energy source with pretty nasty byproducts. Gas though may prove to be the way forward economically, reliability and emissions wise, this could significantly threaten wind and solar as the "go to" green solutions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah I agree very interesting and somewhat of a breakthrough for NG, I had not heard of it until I found it yesterday.

Clever clever stuff indeed, the future for NG just got really interesting.

Thanks to @turbguy for making me look with his question to @Ecocharger

I'm not sure coal has much future even with tech breakthroughs as it is just a dirty energy source with pretty nasty byproducts. Gas though may prove to be the way forward economically, reliability and emissions wise, this could significantly threaten wind and solar as the "go to" green solutions.

I agree that the oxyfuel tech for that nat gas fired cycle has good possibilities.

Clever cycle!

I wonder what they cool the gas turbine with?  Perhaps excess CO2...

 

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

If it doesn't go out a smokestack, it is zero toxic emission.

Misleading bookkeeping - using a warped metric to look good.

If the industry is releasing toxic substances to the environment it is an emission.

Even without a smoke stack plenty of air emissions.

 

Here is a typical coal mine: note 1.5 tonnes of air emission and 0.04 tonnes of that was deadly PM2.5.  This is just mining the stuff.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/archives/index.cfm?do=facility_substance_summary&lang=en&opt_npri_id=0000023392&opt_report_year=2017

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 hours ago, -trance said:

Misleading bookkeeping - using a warped metric to look good.

If the industry is releasing toxic substances to the environment it is an emission.

Even without a smoke stack plenty of air emissions.

 

Here is a typical coal mine: note 1.5 tonnes of air emission and 0.04 tonnes of that was deadly PM2.5.  This is just mining the stuff.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/archives/index.cfm?do=facility_substance_summary&lang=en&opt_npri_id=0000023392&opt_report_year=2017

 

Look at the new technology, not the old.

The materials needed for EV batteries involve some very dirty mining.

The discussion here was about toxic emissions from coal-burning electrical generation...I guess you had enough of losing that discussion, and are trying to change the subject.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Biden's administration has signed on to a new era of carbon-carrying pipelines, in a big way.

Due to the need for "energy security".

""Today's actions demonstrate the administration's commitment to energy security in Europe, consistent with the President's pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe," Secretary Blinken said in a statement ahead of a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov to discuss the Arctic."

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Waives-Nord-Stream-2-Sanctions.html

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah I agree very interesting and somewhat of a breakthrough for NG, I had not heard of it until I found it yesterday.

Clever clever stuff indeed, the future for NG just got really interesting.

Thanks to @turbguy for making me look with his question to @Ecocharger

I'm not sure coal has much future even with tech breakthroughs as it is just a dirty energy source with pretty nasty byproducts. Gas though may prove to be the way forward economically, reliability and emissions wise, this could significantly threaten wind and solar as the "go to" green solutions.

Biden just signed on to a major new gas pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Our CEO has mandated that all company vehicles of which there are several dozen must be either plug in hybrid or all electric. His argument was that it will help climate change and Co2 emissions whilst also saving the company money.

When I pointed out that both hybrids and all electric have a significant carbon footprint his reply was "well its still saving the company money". And that is the crux of the matter as governments are subsidizing EV's and offsetting this by massively raising taxes on ICE vehicles so they are seen to be doing "the right thing" and get voted back in. 

This is a political game and has nothing to do with "saving the planet".

Sounds like the predominant concern is not the climate, but the need to show the general public that the company is concerned about the climate.

It falls under "public relations". The massive Green agenda has still to wind its way through Congress, it may not succeed in doing that. I am not worried yet about crippling gasoline taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2021 at 10:00 PM, turbguy said:

Just waiting for a link or reference that shows ANY "zero-emission" coal-fired thermal plant.

 

 

On 5/20/2021 at 4:03 AM, -trance said:

There is never going to zero emission coal.

Mining the coal produces toxic waste, burning the stuff makes toxic waste, and fly ash etc. is still an emission even if it doesn't go out a smokestack.

Nothing to do with CO2!

 

there might be an understanding disparity on "zero emission" between politicians, academicians, professionals and that of laymen... :o

Politicians, academicians, professionals

- that it is a clean energy where no CO2 is being released.

- solely solar and wind are the must have...

 

Laymen of probably idling with no job, no phd or anything

- it could be an ideal situation where the production of CO2 and absorption is balanced

- a few nice designs, with a few chemical reactions, might mediate the old systems

 

Nevertheless, the disparity still won't solve the basal cause of global warming and climate change i.e. too much heat in the atmosphere that can not be dissipated fast enough under normal conditions .......... * fainted *😵

image.png

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.