GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, Polyphia said:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/South-Korea-Pledges-5-Billion-In-Support-For-Battery-Makers-In-The-US.html

South Korea Pledges $5 Billion In Support For Battery Makers In The U.S.

This will not even be a drop in the proverbial bucket. EVs simply do not make sense for anyone.

"Despite the massive push from Biden and Democratic-led states for Americans to more quickly adopt EVs, traditional gas-powered cars represented 93% of all new car sales in 2022, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And EVs remain far more expensive and less efficient than alternatives.

Overall, the average cost of an EV was $64,338 while the average cost of a compact gas-powered car was $26,101 as of last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. In addition, the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs."

Edited April 8, 2023 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 470]

On 4/7/2023 at 2:38 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Eww, embarrassing.......

No, state/federal forests are not being "managed wisely".  If you had been paying any attention at all, you would know they are being left to ROT in place(unthinned) creating GARGANTUAN fire hazards which then create MONSTOROUS fires due to envirowackos who have gotten in charge out here in the Western USA who refuse to allow anyone to thin/log anymore.  Active logging acerage is down 50%.  Road mileage upkept on federal lands has dropped by 40%(this number I think is high lets call it 25%). 

Type of trees bud.  Germany has Evergreens near elusively in any managed forest areas.  Straight growing evergreen trees take care of themselves and block out all underbrush all by themselves, Being farther north drops underbrush quotient a lot as well.  Evergreen trees require zero management required other than thinning purely for economic benefits not underbrush.  Deciduous, or mixed forest, do not block out the sunlight in the spring/fall and therefore allow underbrush to grow.  Likewise Deciduous trees(with few exceptions) do not grow straight, tall, dense together.  Also the 1 straight tall Deciduous tree which used to dominate the Eastern USA, Chestnut, died out due to blight brought over from Europe.  Also, Due to Gargantuan Evergreen tree plantations throughout the western USA/BC Canada, Eastern USA forests have essentially stopped being harvested for lumber other than furniture and flooring.  Add in giant increase in importation of exotic lumber from the tropics and this smashed the Eastern USA lumber uses once again.  Wait, we are not done yet, due to the advent of digitization and the internet, paper usage has dropped by 40%.  Most of the trees shipped off to Europe allowing them to pretend they are "green", are actually harvested off old paper plantations.  

PS: All that "horrible" underbrush which the Indians used to burn off every autumn and which we do not anymore(leading to yet much LARGER forest fires especially out west), is home to all the animals which is why Eastern North America has an abundance of wildlife only surpassed by the Tropics. 

Watched a documentary made by DW of Germany. Title was probably "climate change, draught, fire in Europe" or something like that......

In this documentary, effort of  reforestation was shown. Indeed, straight grown evergreen pine, if not mistaken, average diameter of tree trunks ~ 10 cm, no underbrush.

A cult kid commented on the distance between two  neighbouring trees. It was probably 50 cm or 1 m interval. Draught in that same area made those plants look brownish green.

Imagine if fire breaks out, despite no underbush, this kind of set up would also encourage fire to enrage easily for days..... 

Hence, although the initiative is kind and good, unless the intention is 'replant- let it burn down - plant again', aiming at

a) refertilize nutrient poor soil naturally without using chemical

b) utilize well idle - unlimited supply of fund for reforestation and agriculture in the Europe. 

c) testing ground for theories 

d) etc

the effectiveness of process ought to be re-examined.

[specinho + 470]

8 hours ago, Polyphia said:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/South-Korea-Pledges-5-Billion-In-Support-For-Battery-Makers-In-The-US.html

South Korea Pledges $5 Billion In Support For Battery Makers In The U.S.

Just out of curiosity, why would an EV need so much energy e.g. 340 kw?

I barely passed this subject, just intrigued how things happen in nature..... Nothing related to calculation...

If, 

1. Power

= Work /time

= V2/R

2. Work = force x distance

3. Force = mass x acceleration

4 human could weigh an average of 2400 to 3200 kg.

Is there a chance lead - acid can be fitted in e.g.

Step up 70V to 240V; second upstep from 240V to 720 V.

P= V2/R

If, R is small enough, would 720V x 720 V or 518 400 V be enough? For how long?

 

Might be wrong but .....

Adding acid to lead acid battery could resume the chemical reaction needed, yes? Charging merely accelerate the process, hence, not a must?

If solar car, particularly in tropical areas with year long sunshine, can fit in lead acid instead of lithium, would the process be cheaper, more environmentally friendly? 

This area is not my strength.... Just curious...

Edited April 8, 2023 by specinho

[bloodman33 + 22]

Planting trees now does next to nothing to stop global warming.  For the first 15-20 years the tree is a net C02 contributor.  Old growth forests sink carbon.  Germans like tree and like to run around outside naked.

[turbguy + 1,544]

7 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Planting trees now does next to nothing to stop global warming.  For the first 15-20 years the tree is a net C02 contributor.  Old growth forests sink carbon.  Germans like tree and like to run around outside naked.

Growing trees become a carbon sink when they are able to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release through respiration.

This occurs through photosynthesis, where trees absorb carbon dioxide and water to produce glucose and oxygen. The glucose is used to fuel the tree's growth and is stored in various parts of the tree, including its roots, trunk, and branches.

As a tree continues to grow, it accumulates more and more carbon in its tissues, making it an increasingly effective carbon sink. The rate at which a tree becomes a carbon sink can vary depending on factors such as the tree species, age, climate, soil conditions, and management practices.

In general, younger trees tend to absorb more carbon dioxide than older trees, as they are actively growing and producing new tissue. As trees mature, their rate of carbon uptake slows down (and they may eventually reach a point where they are no longer net carbon sinks).

For example, research has shown that young sugar maple trees (Acer saccharum) can sequester large amounts of carbon during their first few years of growth. In one study, sugar maple seedlings planted in a temperate forest sequestered an average of 1.4 kg of carbon per tree, per year, over a 3-year period.  As maple trees mature and reach their full size, their rate of carbon uptake slows down, and they may eventually become carbon-neutral or even release carbon back into the atmosphere through the processes of respiration and decay.

However, some mature trees can continue to absorb carbon through the process of photosynthesis, albeit at a slower rate.

Edited April 9, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

As maple trees mature and reach their full size, their rate of carbon uptake slows down, and they may eventually become carbon-neutral or even release carbon back into the atmosphere through the processes of respiration and decay.

 

Don't forest fires, which will probably become more frequent and intense.

[turbguy + 1,544]

15 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Don't forest fires, which will probably become more frequent and intense.

Yes, but not all carbon is consumed in a forest fire. I would estimate about 25% remains as unburned materials. 

That said, I believe between 5% to 10% of total carbon dioxide emissions are due to global wildfires.

Wildfires also release other gasses and materials as well.

Edited April 10, 2023 by turbguy

[bloodman33 + 22]

turbguy: Regarding trees you talk like an expert, but the information you are spewing is completely wrong.   It is sickening.

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 minutes ago, bloodman33 said:

turbguy: Regarding trees you talk like an expert, but the information you are spewing is completely wrong.   It is sickening.

I am not without flaws.

Do you have a reliable source to counteract my statements?

Edited April 10, 2023 by turbguy

[bloodman33 + 22]

The effect of climate change

But the implications of climate change are quite different. All else being equal, warming tends to increase the likelihood of death among trees, from drought, wildfire or insect outbreaks. This will lower the average age of trees as we move into the future. But, in this case, that younger age does not have a loan-like effect on CO₂. Those young patches of trees may take up CO₂ more strongly than the older patches they replace, but this is more than countered by the increased rate of death. The capacity of the forest to store carbon has been reduced. Rather than the forest loaning CO₂ to the atmosphere, it’s been forced to make a donation.

Ie Young trees are much more likely to die giving back the carbon they took up.    Only when the trees get large are they big enough not to die and then decay.   Then the carbon they take up stays in the wood.  That said a huge climate change fires that wipes out an old growth forest or human burning of old growth forest for farmland (The amazon) is catastrophic.   Hence you are talking decades before there is any significant benefit. 

Plus the number of tree you will need to plant is huge to create significant carbon sinks where it stays in the tree.  Hence it is a pipe dream.

 

[bloodman33 + 22]

Greening the desert actually causes the earth to heat up since the heat is no longer reflected back. 

[bloodman33 + 22]

basically it is the same effect as covering the desert with black paint, or wearing a dark t shirt.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

44 minutes ago, bloodman33 said:

The effect of climate change

But the implications of climate change are quite different. All else being equal, warming tends to increase the likelihood of death among trees, from drought, wildfire or insect outbreaks. This will lower the average age of trees as we move into the future. But, in this case, that younger age does not have a loan-like effect on CO₂. Those young patches of trees may take up CO₂ more strongly than the older patches they replace, but this is more than countered by the increased rate of death. The capacity of the forest to store carbon has been reduced. Rather than the forest loaning CO₂ to the atmosphere, it’s been forced to make a donation.

Ie Young trees are much more likely to die giving back the carbon they took up.    Only when the trees get large are they big enough not to die and then decay.   Then the carbon they take up stays in the wood.  That said a huge climate change fires that wipes out an old growth forest or human burning of old growth forest for farmland (The amazon) is catastrophic.   Hence you are talking decades before there is any significant benefit. 

Plus the number of tree you will need to plant is huge to create significant carbon sinks where it stays in the tree.  Hence it is a pipe dream.

 

The fact is that CO2 changes TRAIL earth temperature changes, so that means that the CO2 hypothesis is dead.

Nothing more to speculate about there.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 4/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, Ron Wagner said:

All good points, but not the whole picture. Forest fires burned for weeks before modern firefighting equipment came along.

And 10X the acres burned before modern firefighting equipment compared to now.  Average acerage burned was north of 30Million acres a year.  A Bad year in the USA is ~4Million.  Back before the wackos were put in charge of the forestry service, the acerage burned was ~half that. 

You might notice the liars about climate change conveniently start their forest fires timeline around 1950 while ignoring all the great data we have before this from the forest service... Convenient that they pick around ~1950... when aircraft left over from WWII were introduced. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, Ron Wagner said:

	Location	Feedstock	Capacity
Alabama Pellets-Aliceville	AL		260,000
Alabama Pellets-Demopolis	AL		260,000
American Wood Fibers-Circleville	OH		40,800
American Wood Fibers-Marion	VA		40,800
Amite BioEnergy	MS		484,900
Appalachian Wood Pellets	WV		45,400
Appling County Pellets LLC	GA		181,400
AWF-Laurinburg	NC		45,400
Barefoot Pellet	PA		63,500
Blackstone Pellets	CT		8,200
Blue Mountain Lumber Products	OR		20,000
C&C Smith Lumber Pellet Plant	MO		10,900
Crossville Pellets	AL		99,800
Curran Renewable Energy LLC	NY		108,900
Dejno's Inc.	WI		45,400
Drax Leola	AR		40,000
Drax Russellville	AR		40,000
Drax-Entwistle	AB		400,000
Dry Creek Wood Pellets	NY		77,100
Easy Heat Wood Pellets-Indianapolis	IN		21,800
Easy Heat Wood Pellets-S. Charleston	OH		13,600
EasyPellet Products	VA		90,700
Energex American Inc.	PA		113,400
Enviva Pellets Amory	MS		107,500
Enviva Pellets Greenwood LLC	SC		500,000
Enviva Pellets Northampton LLC	NC		750,000
Enviva Pellets Southampton LLC	VA		760,000
Enviva Pellets Waycross	GA		750,000
Essex Pallet & Pellet	NY		800
Fiber By-Products Corp.	MI		103,400
Fiber Energy Products AR	AK		31,800
Forest Energy Mendocino LLC	CA		34,900
Forest Energy Oregon LLC	OR		43,500
Forest Energy Show Low	AZ		54,400
Forest Products Distributors	SD		22,600
Frank Pellets LLC	OR		21,300
Greene Team Pellet Fuel Co.	PA		45,400
Hamer Pellet Fuel	WV		66,000
Hassell & Hughes Lumber Co.	TN		16,300
Hazlehurst Wood Pellets LLC	GA		317,500
Hearthside Wood Pellets	NY		1,800
Highland Pellets LLC-Pine Bluff	AK		675,000
Horizon Biofuels Inc.	NE		2,000
Indeck Energy Ladysmith LLC	WI		81,600
Ironstone Mills	PA		1,800
Jasper Pellets	TN		108,900
Jensen Lumber Co.	ID		13,600
Kingdom Biofuels	PA		9,100
LaSalle BioEnergy	LA		578,300
Lemhi Valley Pellets	ID		2,800
Lignetics of Idaho Inc.	ID		59,000
Lignetics of Maine Inc.	ME		69,900
Lignetics of New England-Allegheny	PA		54,400
Lignetics of New England-Deposit	NY		79,800
Lignetics of New England-Jaffrey	NH		81,600
Lignetics of New England-Schuyler	NY		54,400
Lignetics of Oregon-Brownsville	OR		108,900
Lignetics of Oregon-Cascade Locks	OR		34,800
Lignetics of Virginia Inc.	VA		79,800
Lignetics of West Virginia Inc.	WV		111,500
Lignetics of Wisconsin-Marathon	WI		27,200
Lignetics of Wisconsin-Peshtigo	WI		27,200
LJR Forest Products	GA		226,800
Maeder Brothers Quality Wood Pellets Inc.	MI		13,600
Maine Woods Pellet Co.	ME		99,800
Mallard Creek Inc.	CA		90,700
Manke Lumber Co.	WA		31,800
Michigan Wood Fuels	MI		45,400
Morehouse BioEnergy	LA		614,400
Mt. Taylor Machine Pellet Fuel-Albuquerque	NM		4,100
Mt. Taylor Machine Pellet Fuel-Milan	NM		4,100
North Idaho Energy Logs-Hauser	ID		54,400
North Idaho Energy Logs-Moyie Springs	ID		45,400
Northeast Pellets LLC	ME		7,300
Northland Pallet Inc.	MN		13,600
O'Malley Wood Pellets	VA		36,300
Ozark Hardwood Products	MO		127,000
PA Pellets	PA		44,300
Pacific Coast Pellets	WA		59,000
Patterson Wood Products Inc.	TX		36,300
Pellheat Inc.	PA		2,900
Penn Wood Products Inc.	PA		4,900
Pennington Seed Inc.	MO		4,500
Quitman Pellets	MS		120,000
Restoration Fuels	OR		90,700
Rocky Canyon Pellet Co.	ID		7,300
Smith Creek Inc.	IN		1,700
Snow Timber Pellets LLC	WI		4,500
Somerset Pellet Fuel	KY		49,900
Southern Indiana Hardwoods	IN		4,500
Southern Kentucky Pellet Mill Inc.	KY		7,700
Spearfish Pellet Co.	SD		40,800
Sugar Creek Shavings	OH		2,300
Superior Pellet Fuels LLC	AK		31,800
T&D Wood Energy	ME		33,600
Telfair Forest Products LLC	GA		122,500
Timberland Pellets - Lenoir	NC		30,000
Timberland Pellets-Fruitland	ID		30,000
Turman Hardwood Pellets	VA		26,300
Varn Wood Pellets	GA		80,000
Vermont Wood Pellet Co. LLC	VT		14,500
Vulcan Wood Products Inc.	MI		8,200
Western Wood Products Inc.	NM		10,000
WestWind Logistics LLC	IA		13,600
Wood Pellets C&C Smith Lumber	PA		22,700
Woodscape of Utah	UT		8,200
Woodville Pellets LLC	TX		460,000

Total Plants: 107

Total capacity(Metric tons/yr):

11,188,200

 

 

[turbguy + 1,544]

9 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

The effect of climate change

But the implications of climate change are quite different. All else being equal, warming tends to increase the likelihood of death among trees, from drought, wildfire or insect outbreaks. This will lower the average age of trees as we move into the future. But, in this case, that younger age does not have a loan-like effect on CO₂. Those young patches of trees may take up CO₂ more strongly than the older patches they replace, but this is more than countered by the increased rate of death. The capacity of the forest to store carbon has been reduced. Rather than the forest loaning CO₂ to the atmosphere, it’s been forced to make a donation.

Ie Young trees are much more likely to die giving back the carbon they took up.    Only when the trees get large are they big enough not to die and then decay.   Then the carbon they take up stays in the wood.  That said a huge climate change fires that wipes out an old growth forest or human burning of old growth forest for farmland (The amazon) is catastrophic.   Hence you are talking decades before there is any significant benefit. 

Plus the number of tree you will need to plant is huge to create significant carbon sinks where it stays in the tree.  Hence it is a pipe dream.

 

"Those young patches of trees may take up CO₂ more strongly than the older patches they replace"...

Isn't that in direct support what I posted?

A agree that a tree that dies is no longer a carbon sink.

This ignores the effect of other species that arise that can survive, and even thrive, climate change.

For instance, large swaths of beetle-killed fir and pine trees in the western US are being replaced by fast growing Aspen stands.

Climate change introduces alterations to an existing chaotic situation.

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Climate change introduces alterations to an existing chaotic situation.

Ahh there you go again, enlightening the conversation. Frankly Turbguy you do bring a tremendous depth to the energy conversation. 

Perhaps it is time to design and enable AI to solve this carbon displacement debacle. Perhaps scaled to the magnitude of the Manhattan project. 

Thousand of engineers and coders would be required given the sheer size and complexity of the earths atmosphere. Ahh and the sun's solar cycles...The possibilities almost boggle the mind, one can only imagine the sheer size of the processing centers required to power this endeavor.

Now that would be progressive and at the same time keep some very intelligent minds busy..have you ever noticed a certain psychosis in such individuals?

The only issue I could foresee would be the power supply...wind power vs nuclear power. Hmm never mind, just a whim I experienced with a bad outcome. Environmentalist would have a very hard time accepting a nuclear power plant solving climate controversy once and for all..Frankly it would be on par with TDS!

[turbguy + 1,544]

Stabilizing the Earth's climate would require a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, which is the primary driver of global warming. There are several ways to achieve such reduction:

1. Increasing the use of renewable energy sources: Transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal energy would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Implementing energy-efficient practices: Reducing energy consumption through energy-efficient practices, such as using energy-efficient appliances, improving insulation in buildings, and using public transportation or walking and cycling instead of driving, would also significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Implementing carbon capture and storage technology: Carbon capture and storage technology can help reduce carbon emissions by capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial sources and storing it underground.

4. Promoting reforestation and afforestation: Reforestation means planting new trees in areas that were previously forests. Afforestation means planting trees in areas that were not previously forests. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so increasing the number of trees on the planet would help reduce greenhouse gas.

5. The toughest of all, obtaining international cooperation: Climate change is a global problem that requires international cooperation to solve. Governments, businesses, and individuals can work together to implement policies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable development.

Nuclear power can play a role in stabilizing the climate. Increasing nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from the power sector, (a significant contributor to global emissions). Nuclear power plants do have environmental and safety risks, such as the potential for accidents and the issue of nuclear waste disposal.  Add to that, the construction and operation of nuclear power plants can be REALLY expensive, and deployment of nuclear power may not be feasible in all countries or regions. It should be considered in the availability of other low-carbon energy sources (such as renewable energy), and be subject to consideration of its environmental, economic, and safety impacts.

Edited April 10, 2023 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,544]

...and before I receive comments to the contrary...

There is a vast body of scientific evidence supporting the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a primary driver of global warming. The basic principle is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, creating a "greenhouse effect".  Consider:

1. The correlation between CO2 and global temperature: There is a strong correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. Over the past century, as CO2 levels have risen, so too has the Earth's temperature. This correlation provides compelling support that CO2 is driving global warming.

2. Other factors don't fully explain the warming: There are indeed other factors that can influence global temperature, such as changes in the sun's output or periods, volcanic activity, and even natural climate variability. However, these factors don't fully explain the warming trend that we've seen in recent decades. Only when the effects of human-produced CO2 are taken into account does the warming trend become fully explainable.

3. Basic physics (duh): The physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood and has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. It is a fundamental result that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the Earth to warm.

4. Climate models: Computer models of the Earth's climate have consistently shown that the warming seen in recent decades can only be explained by the increase in CO2 levels. These models are based on fundamental physics and have been extensively tested against historical data.

The evidence supporting CO2 in global warming is overwhelming. That said, there remains some uncertainty around the exact magnitude of the warming and its impacts.

The physics behind the "greenhouse effect" is as follows:

Solar radiation arrives in the form of short-wavelength radiation (visible light and ultraviolet (UV). It travels through space and reaches the Earth's atmosphere and surface.

Some of the solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface, some of it is reflected back into space. The Earth's surface and atmosphere reflect about 30% of the incoming radiation, while the remaining 70% is absorbed.

As the Earth's surface absorbs the incoming solar radiation, it begins to warm up. The surface then emits energy in the form of long-wavelength infrared (IR) radiation.

A fraction of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, and H2O). This absorption causes the greenhouse gases to become excited, which leading to an increase in gas temperature.

The greenhouse gases then emit some of this IR energy back to the Earth's surface, which warms up further as a result.

This continues until a new thermal equilibrium is reached, where the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth's surface is equal to the amount of energy radiated back into space.

Edited April 10, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

As the Earth's surface absorbs the incoming solar radiation, it begins to warm up. The surface then emits energy in the form of long-wavelength infrared (IR) radiation.

A fraction of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, and H2O). This absorption causes the greenhouse gases to become excited, which leading to an increase in gas temperature.

The greenhouse gases then emit some of this IR energy back to the Earth's surface, which warms up further as a result.

 

They have developed a white paint that reflects in wavelengths the greenhouse gases to not absorb.  Basically rejecting energy back into space.

Pretty cool, pun intended.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/the-whitest-paint-is-here-and-its-the-coolest.-literally..html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyE-fHPZYk

 

[turbguy + 1,544]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

They have developed a white paint that reflects in wavelengths the greenhouse gases to not absorb.  Basically rejecting energy back into space.

Pretty cool, pun intended.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/the-whitest-paint-is-here-and-its-the-coolest.-literally..html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyE-fHPZYk

 

Yeah, like:

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, turbguy said:

Yeah, like:

Well rooftops maybe... still pretty neat science.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

Stabilizing the Earth's climate would require a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, which is the primary driver of global warming. There are several ways to achieve such reduction:

1. Increasing the use of renewable energy sources: Transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal energy would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Implementing energy-efficient practices: Reducing energy consumption through energy-efficient practices, such as using energy-efficient appliances, improving insulation in buildings, and using public transportation or walking and cycling instead of driving, would also significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Implementing carbon capture and storage technology: Carbon capture and storage technology can help reduce carbon emissions by capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial sources and storing it underground.

4. Promoting reforestation and afforestation: Reforestation means planting new trees in areas that were previously forests. Afforestation means planting trees in areas that were not previously forests. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so increasing the number of trees on the planet would help reduce greenhouse gas.

5. The toughest of all, obtaining international cooperation: Climate change is a global problem that requires international cooperation to solve. Governments, businesses, and individuals can work together to implement policies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable development.

Nuclear power can play a role in stabilizing the climate. Increasing nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from the power sector, (a significant contributor to global emissions). Nuclear power plants do have environmental and safety risks, such as the potential for accidents and the issue of nuclear waste disposal.  Add to that, the construction and operation of nuclear power plants can be REALLY expensive, and deployment of nuclear power may not be feasible in all countries or regions. It should be considered in the availability of other low-carbon energy sources (such as renewable energy), and be subject to consideration of its environmental, economic, and safety impacts.

There is no scientific basis to claim that CO2 is a driver of global temperature change, that is a pure fantasy and easily refuted.

The so-called scientists who support that belief refuse to debate the issue, that tells you everything you need to know.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Oil demand is a solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Demand-Set-To-Remain-Strong-For-Years-To-Come.html

"Demand for oil and gas isn’t projected to fall off a cliff.

Large forecasters such as the EIA and OPEC see continued demand for liquid fuels in the next few decades.

Large oil companies continue to invest in oil and gas production growth."

Edited April 11, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,544]

51 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There is no scientific basis to claim that CO2 is a driver of global temperature change, that is a pure fantasy and easily refuted.

The so-called scientists who support that belief refuse to debate the issue, that tells you everything you need to know.

How about Nature, for one:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

"Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past".

Or, you might rather prefer:

"Cosmic rays and global warming" by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in 2007.

 

COSMIC RAYS AND EARTH'S CLIMATE
HENRIK SVENSMARK
Danish Space Research Institute, DK-2100 Copenhagen (i), Denmark
(Received 13 August 1999; accepted 10 June 2000)
Abstract. During the last solar cycle the Earth's cloud cover underwent a modulation in phase with
the cosmic ray flux. Assuming that there is a causal relationship between the two, it is expected
and found that the Earth's temperature follows more closely decade variations in cosmic ray flux
than other solar activity parameters. If the relationship is real the state of the Heliosphere affects the
Earth's climate.
 

Introduction
 

The physical cause of climate variability is not know in detail. There are several
physical factors that are believed to influence the Earth's climate. For example:
(1) Orbital changes in the Earth's motion around the Sun is believed to cause ice-
ages. (2) Internal variability in the climate system, e.g., changes in atmospheric and
ocean circulation. (3) Large volcanic eruptions, which are known to cause a sudden
cooling lasting 2-3 years. A period with high volcanic activity could potentially
lead to a cooling of the Earth. (4) Changes in concentration of greenhouse gases.
Due to burning of fossil fuel during the last 100 years there has been an increase
in atmospheric C0 2 concentration from about 280 to 365 ppm. Because C0 2 is
a greenhouse gas that traps outgoing long wave radiation, and that the surface
temperature has increased by approximately 0.7 oc during the last 100 years, there
is a worry that this increase is leading to a warmer climate. (5) Changes in solar
activity, which will be discussed further in this paper. The relative importance of
the above different influences is not know very well.
 

BTW, subsequent studies have failed to replicate Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's findings.

 

 

 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-epa-car-rule-203512290.html

AP sources: EPA car rule to push huge increase in EV sales

 

AP sources: EPA car rule to push huge increase in EV sales

32

•  

   

• 

  Joe Biden

 

 

 

1 / 5

EPA Electric Vehicles

FILE - An International Electric MV Series truck is seen on display in Austin, Texas, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2023. The Biden administration will propose new automobile pollution limits this week that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030, ramping up quickly to as high as 67% by 2032. That's according to three people briefed on the plan. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, FIle)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOM KRISHER and MATTHEW DALY

Mon, April 10, 2023 at 3:35 PM CDT

 

 

In this article:

•  

   

• 

  Joe Biden

  President of the United States since 2021

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration will propose strict new automobile pollution limits this week that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030 and as many as two of every three by 2032, according to industry and environmental officials briefed on the plan.

The proposed regulation, to be released Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set greenhouse gas emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years for passenger vehicles that would be even stricter than goals the auto industry agreed to in 2021.

The EPA will offer a range of options that the agency can select after a public comment period, the officials said. They asked not to be identified because the proposal hasn't been made public. The proposed regulation isn't expected to become final until next year.

Environmental groups are applauding the ambitious numbers, which were first reported over the weekend by The New York Times. But the plan is likely to get strong pushback from the auto industry, which pledged in August 2021 to make EVs half of U.S. new car sales by 2030 as it moves toward a history-making transition away from internal combustion engines.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Even the low end of the EPA’s 2030 range is 4 percentage points higher than the 2021 goal, which came after strong pressure from President Joe Biden. An executive order signed by Biden set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emissions vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric or fuel cell electric vehicles.

Biden also wants automakers to raise gas mileage and cut tailpipe pollution between now and model year 2026. That would mark a significant step toward meeting his pledge to cut America's planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 as he pushes a once-almost-unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered engines to battery-powered vehicles.

With electric vehicles accounting for just 7.2% of U.S. vehicle sales in the first quarter of this year, the industry has a long way to go to even approach the administration's targets. However, the percentage of EV sales is growing. Last year it was 5.8% of new vehicles sales.

The EPA declined to offer details ahead of Wednesday's announcement, but said in a statement that as directed by Biden's order, it is “developing new standards that will ... accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, protecting people and the planet.''

The EPA tailpipe pollution limits don’t actually require a specific number of electric vehicles to be sold every year, but instead mandate limits on greenhouse gas emissions. That amounts to roughly the same thing, according to agency calculations of the number of EVs that likely would be needed to comply with the stricter pollution limits.

The auto industry likely will need to sell a lot more EVs to meet the requirements. It's already pushed up the mileage of gasoline vehicles with more efficient engines and transmissions, reducing weight and other measures. Many in the industry say they’d rather spend investment dollars developing new EVs that are likely to dominate the industry in coming years.

Suggesting a brake on the optimistic idea of vast emission improvements simply through rule making, however, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade association that includes Ford, General Motors and other automakers, said, “Regulatory mandates alone will not address the conditions that will determine the ultimate success of the EV transition.”

The EPA proposal "requires a massive, 100-year change to the U.S. industrial base and the way Americans drive,” the group said.

Supportive policies such as tax credits for EV purchases and funding of a nationwide network of charging stations are needed, the alliance said in a statement before the EPA rule was announced. EVs have to become more affordable, parts and domestic critical mineral supply chains have to be set up and utility generating capacity must be addressed, the statement said.

Transportation is the single largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S., but it is followed closely by electricity generation.

Environmental groups say stricter tailpipe pollution standards are needed, and provisions of the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act passed last year will help reach the tougher requirements. “Tailpipe emissions pollute the air we breathe and worsen severe weather,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

The Inflation Reduction Act, a climate and health care law passed with only Democratic votes, has tax credits for electric vehicle manufacturing and for purchases of new and used EVs.

At present, many new EVs manufactured in North America are eligible for a $7,500 tax credit, while used EVs can get up to $4,000.

However, there are price and purchaser income limits that make some vehicles ineligible. And starting April 18, new requirements by the Treasury Department will result in fewer new electric vehicles qualifying for a full $7,500 federal tax credit.

The rules require that certain percentages of battery parts and minerals come from North America or countries with which the U.S. has free trade agreements. Industry analysts say the requirements, announced March 31, could cut the $7,500 credit in half on many vehicles. A smaller credit may not be enough to attract new buyers for EVs that now cost an average of $58,600 according to Kelley Blue Book.

The price is down from $63,500 a year ago as more lower-priced EV models hit the market. Still, EVs are more expensive than the average vehicle sold in the U.S., which costs just under $46,000.

____

Krisher reported from Detroit.