GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Other times had many other variables. The only period that is relevant is the period that allowed us to evolve at most and really just the period of civilization.

CO2 is CO2. Other variables can be added to the models.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We need to examine all data which might be relevant to the determination of how and to what extent CO2 levels influence climate change.

"might be relevant" News Flash - It isn't relevant before human evolution at most and really just civilization.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

CO2 is CO2. 

Ecosystem reaction to CO2 changes over time.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

"might be relevant" News Flash - It isn't relevant before human evolution at most and really just civilization.

CO2 is CO2, it behaves the same in any century. Other variables can be added to a multi-variate model.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ecosystem reaction to CO2 changes over time.

Again, other variables can be added to a multivariate model.

But it makes no sense to avoid the most important variables in a model.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It is extremely inconvenient to recharge even with a home charger. Hours and hours and hours and hours and hours.....

The average car drives 10,000 mls per year, or 27 mls/day. That's 10kWh per day. So you need to connect your car for about 1-2 hours per day at home or work. I don't see how that is "extremely inconvenient".

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It is already large.

But the increase won't be.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:08 AM, Ron Wagner said:

Do you think that CO2 is the cause of pollution? What percentage of pollution?

No Ron Co2 isnt pollution, without it we all die. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

46 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

No Ron Co2 isnt pollution, without it we all die. 

But with too much of it we also die.

For humans even a small increase of CO₂ in the air is dangerous. Normal outdoor air has an average CO₂ percentage of just 0.04%. At 1,5 % CO₂ content humans reacts by increased heart rate and at 4 % CO₂ there is an Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH).

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

But with too much of it we also die.

For humans even a small increase of CO₂ in the air is dangerous. Normal outdoor air has an average CO₂ percentage of just 0.04%. At 1,5 % CO₂ content humans reacts by increased heart rate and at 4 % CO₂ there is an Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH).

Yes Jay but those are massive increases in PPM to get to those percentages.

PPM has risen by approx 140 since the start of the industrial revolution, from 280 ppm - 420ppm! In that time the atmospheric percentage of Co2 has risen from 0.027% to 0.04% (50% increase).

Youre talking about 1.5%!!! its never ever going to happen if we relied on FF for the rest of mankind's history.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

20 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes Jay but those are massive increases in PPM to get to those percentages.

PPM has risen by approx 140 since the start of the industrial revolution, from 280 ppm - 420ppm! In that time the atmospheric percentage of Co2 has risen from 0.027% to 0.04% (50% increase).

Youre talking about 1.5%!!! its never ever going to happen if we relied on FF for the rest of mankind's history.

Sigh, we have covered this before. Negative human health affects start to set in as low as 600ppm.

Exposure to pCO2 levels > 600 ppm has been shown to lead to the “sick-building syndrome,” resulting in irritation, fatigue, anxiety, headaches, ...https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.543322/full

At the current rate of growth we will be at 600ppm in a century.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sigh, we have covered this before. Negative human health affects start to set in as low as 600ppm.

Exposure to pCO2 levels > 600 ppm has been shown to lead to the “sick-building syndrome,” resulting in irritation, fatigue, anxiety, headaches, ...

 

But a growing body of research suggests CO 2 levels as low as 1,000ppm could cause health problems, even if exposure only lasts for a few hours.

 

At the current rate of growth we will be at 600ppm in a century.

The most accepted level that affects human health is 1000ppm which is a very very long way off , if ever.

The general consensus is that population will start to fall second half of this century and with renewables, carbon capture, SMR's becoming prevalent etc I cant see the earth with anything more than 600ppm.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

12 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

The most accepted level that affects human health is 1000ppm which is a very very long way off , if ever.

The general consensus is that population will start to fall second half of this century and with renewables, carbon capture, SMR's becoming prevalent etc I cant see the earth with anything more than 600ppm.

 

With renewables yes, carbon capture is a total fantasy and SMR's aren't much better. 

The important thing to note is that you admitted CO2 is a pollutant if we don't remove FF. At the current rate of 60ppm increase every 20 years we are just 200 years from reaching 1000ppm. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

With renewables yes, carbon capture is a total fantasy and SMR's aren't much better. 

The important thing to note is that you admitted CO2 is a pollutant if we don't remove FF. At the current rate of 60ppm increase every 20 years we are just 200 years from reaching 1000ppm. 

Jay too much of anything you could argue is a pollutant.

What you arent factoring in at all is advancements in tech and reductions in cost for non FF making them more economic and therefore what will be implemented.

FF will still be essential for fertilisers, roads, pharmaceuticals, clothing, plastics, etc etc but wont be required to any major level in transportation in 200 years time and way before that.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Jay too much of anything you could argue is a pollutant.

What you arent factoring in at all is advancements in tech and reductions in cost for non FF making them more economic and therefore what will be implemented.

FF will still be essential for fertilisers, roads, pharmaceuticals, clothing, plastics, etc etc but wont be required to any major level in transportation in 200 years time and way before that.

Cost reductions don't occur in all technologies. Solar and wind yes, nuclear kinda maybe sorta (we've been at it for 70 years and legend has it that a nuclear plant in korea once was at lower cost, we tried SMRs in the 60's and they had terrible economics) and carbon capture just no no no, it is economically impossible. 

Green hydrogen can be used to make any hydrocarbon so no FF will not be essential.

But my only real point in replying to you was to bracket your claim that without CO2 we die and then to point out that at the current rate of increase we really aren't that far from it being a health hazard.

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Cost reductions don't occur in all technologies. Solar and wind yes, nuclear kinda maybe sorta (we've been at it for 70 years and legend has it that a nuclear plant in korea once was at lower cost, we tried SMRs in the 60's and they had terrible economics) and carbon capture just no no no, it is economically impossible. 

Green hydrogen can be used to make any hydrocarbon so no FF will not be essential.

But my only real point in replying to you was to bracket your claim that without CO2 we die and then to point out that at the current rate of increase we really aren't that far from it being a health hazard.

 

I'll then point out to you that I'd rather it be a health hazard than all living things on earth die.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I'll then point out to you that I'd rather it be a health hazard than all living things on earth die.

Well if humans stopped all of the CO2 production we are responsible for today all the living things on earth would be fine except for maybe the humans.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

48 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well if humans stopped all of the CO2 production we are responsible for today all the living things on earth would be fine except for maybe the humans.

Not to worry, Jay, get a good night's sleep tonight.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html#:~:text=This could occur when exposed,%2C however%2C is very rare.

"Carbon dioxide is not generally found at hazardous levels in indoor environments. The MNDOLI has set workplace safety standards of 10,000 ppm for an 8-hour period and 30,000 ppm for a 15 minute period. This means the average concentration over an 8-hour period should not exceed 10,000 ppm and the average concentration over a 15 minute period should not exceed 30,000 ppm. It is unusual to find such continuously high levels indoors and extremely rare in non-industrial workplaces. "

"Occupants may experience health effects in buildings where CO₂ is elevated, but the symptoms are usually due to the other contaminants in the air that also build up as a result of insufficient ventilation. At high levels, the carbon dioxide itself can cause headache, dizziness, nausea and other symptoms. This could occur when exposed to levels above 5,000 ppm for many hours. "

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

What we should be worried about is this,

"Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, said:

“It would be both absurd and counterproductive for Government to bail out the wind industry in spite of the evident failure to reduce costs. A refusal to learn from mistakes will be disastrous.”

In a press release, the organisation argued the Government should “reject the self-serving demands” because the U.K. economy should not be expected to continue to subsidise a sector “that is still uneconomic after nearly 20 years of above-market prices and guaranteed market share”.

“The wind experiment has failed and must be wound down,” it adds.

The Government should also be mindful that U.K. households and businesses are already experiencing extreme pressures on budgets, and a further burden on the energy bill should not be tolerated, it says.

This is particularly the case as the wind industry’s current cost difficulties are “neither unforeseen nor unpredicted but have been obvious to careful observers for over a decade”."

[notsonice + 1,255]

the highlight......

Notably, the report revealed a significant decrease in electricity generation from coal-fired plants, reaching a record low share of 15.9% in the electricity mix in March 2023.

 

Renewable energy soars, fossil fuels decline in electricity report

Fossil fuel-based electricity production experienced a decline in March, according to the International Energy Agency

 

Big Zero Report 2023

Dimitris Mavrokefalidis

More Articles

 

Friday 16 June 2023

Image: Shutterstock

Renewable energy sources have witnessed a remarkable surge while fossil fuel-based electricity production experienced a decline, according to the latest Monthly Electricity Statistics report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The report, which provides a comprehensive analysis of global electricity production highlights a shift towards cleaner energy sources in both the OECD and Belgium.

In March 2023, total net electricity production in the OECD reached 887.8TWh, representing a 1.5% decrease compared to the same period in 2022.

Analysts note that the decline was primarily driven by lower electricity production from fossil fuel sources, which experienced an 8.1% year-to-date decrease.

Furthermore, nuclear power production also saw a notable decline of 3.1% year-to-date.

Notably, the report revealed a significant decrease in electricity generation from coal-fired plants, reaching a record low share of 15.9% in the electricity mix in March 2023.

This decrease surpassed the levels observed at the start of the Covid-19 lockdowns in April 2020, according to the IEA’s report.

Edited July 7, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 minutes ago, notsonice said:

the highlight......

Notably, the report revealed a significant decrease in electricity generation from coal-fired plants, reaching a record low share of 15.9% in the electricity mix in March 2023.

 

Renewable energy soars, fossil fuels decline in electricity report

Fossil fuel-based electricity production experienced a decline in March, according to the International Energy Agency

 

Big Zero Report 2023

Dimitris Mavrokefalidis

More Articles

 

Friday 16 June 2023

Image: Shutterstock

Renewable energy sources have witnessed a remarkable surge while fossil fuel-based electricity production experienced a decline, according to the latest Monthly Electricity Statistics report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The report, which provides a comprehensive analysis of global electricity production highlights a shift towards cleaner energy sources in both the OECD and Belgium.

In March 2023, total net electricity production in the OECD reached 887.8TWh, representing a 1.5% decrease compared to the same period in 2022.

Analysts note that the decline was primarily driven by lower electricity production from fossil fuel sources, which experienced an 8.1% year-to-date decrease.

Furthermore, nuclear power production also saw a notable decline of 3.1% year-to-date.

Notably, the report revealed a significant decrease in electricity generation from coal-fired plants, reaching a record low share of 15.9% in the electricity mix in March 2023.

This decrease surpassed the levels observed at the start of the Covid-19 lockdowns in April 2020, according to the IEA’s report.

OECD and Belgium only, influenced by government intervention into the marketplace. World numbers are much different.

The source for this blurb is....?

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

 

"Occupants may experience health effects in buildings where CO₂ is elevated, but the symptoms are usually due to the other contaminants in the air that also build up as a result of insufficient ventilation. At high levels, the carbon dioxide itself can cause headache, dizziness, nausea and other symptoms. This could occur when exposed to levels above 5,000 ppm for many hours. "

Note those "other contaminate in the air" almost certainly came from burning fossil fuels.

Stop arguing about CO2, there are far more terrible emissions from ICEs.  Heck, just filling your gas tank releases toxic vapours.  Even if anthropogenic climate change is not real we will be better off without ICE. 

Ever wonder why all indoor motors (washer, blender, etc.) are electric?  Cleaner, low-maintenance, and much safer.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Note those "other contaminate in the air" almost certainly came from burning fossil fuels.

Stop arguing about CO2, there are far more terrible emissions from ICEs.  Heck, just filling your gas tank releases toxic vapours.  Even if anthropogenic climate change is not real we will be better off without ICE. 

Ever wonder why all indoor motors (washer, blender, etc.) are electric?  Cleaner, low-maintenance, and much safer.

 

You are not even close to reality. Read,

"Outdoor "fresh" air ventilation is important because it can dilute contaminants that are produced in the indoor environment, such as odors released from people and contaminants released from the building, equipment, furnishings, and people's activities. Adequate ventilation can limit the build up of these contaminants. It is these other contaminants and not usually CO₂ that may lead to indoor air quality problems, such as discomfort, odors "stuffiness" and possibly health symptoms."

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

32 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are not even close to reality. Read,

"Outdoor "fresh" air ventilation is important because it can dilute contaminants that are produced in the indoor environment, such as odors released from people and contaminants released from the building, equipment, furnishings, and people's activities. Adequate ventilation can limit the build up of these contaminants. It is these other contaminants and not usually CO₂ that may lead to indoor air quality problems, such as discomfort, odors "stuffiness" and possibly health symptoms."

The CO2 is coming from more than exhalation if the levels gets that high.  Something is likely burning in "building" or in the "equipment" - think furnace or a cutting torch.

"Dilution is the solution to pollution" only works for a while.  When the outdoor fresh air isn't fresh anymore what are you going to do then?  Install air purifiers in every room like in Hong Kong? Opening the window with poor outdoor air quality actually degrades indoor air quality.  They tell people with health problems to close windows and run AC when the air quality index gets too poor. 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

ICE can turn your outdoor "fresh air" into poison. Dilution of pollution only works for a while.  We use to think we couldn't poison the oceans too...

https://www.iqair.com/hong-kong

"The quality of air in Hong Kong is considered a serious matter. For over 30 per cent of the year, visibility is less than 8 kilometres. Haze is often seen hanging over the city which can last for several days, depending on the direction of the prevailing winds. Because of this reduction in air quality, cases of bronchial infections and asthma has risen sharply. The average air quality index for 2019 was 96 US AQI with a PM2.5 of 33.5 µg/m³ together with significant amounts of PM10, O3, NO2, SO2 and CO, according to data published on the IQAir website."

"The main source of these pollutants comes from vehicle emissions of which there is plenty throughout the city."

Edited July 7, 2023 by TailingsPond