GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 983]

18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 a Canadian-based defense analyst

You really need to stop looking to oilprice articles for "real analysis."  The guy is not even based in the USA.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,243]

5 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You are on record of loving coal. 

You now accept coal is "dirtier?"  

Please explain "dirtier".  Both pollute, in different ways. 

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You are on record of loving coal. 

You now accept coal is "dirtier?"  

It looks like Trump's plans for increased oil and gas output will actually mean a massive reduction in global CO2 levels.

However, I doubt that Trump is motivated by this objective, and understandably so. 

But it keeps the anti-CO2 agitators happy.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/How-Trumps-Energy-Plan-Could-Actually-Benefit-the-Environment.html

"A second Trump administration's focus on increasing US natural gas production and exports could lead to a decrease in global CO2 emissions.

US natural gas exports can displace coal and other dirtier energy sources, particularly in developing nations.

Trump's energy plan includes faster permitting for pipelines and LNG terminals, facilitating the export of US natural gas to meet global energy needs."

"...when Trump fulfills his campaign promises to increase U.S. oil and gas production and removes President Biden’s pause on new liquid natural gas exports, global emissions will likely decline rather than rise.

This is because exports of U.S. natural gas generally displace coal, reducing global CO2 emissions. Even Germany, Europe’s largest manufacturer, is using lignite coal (rather than the less-polluting bituminous coal) to deal with shortages of renewables now that it has closed its nuclear power plants and Russian gas is no longer available.

About 3 billion people in emerging economies lack electricity and running water, and cook over wood and dung. Natural gas power plants would reduce particulates from wood and dung and make the air cleaner. "

It is the latter emissions from indoor fuels which are responsible for most of the health problems  emerging from energy resources, which would also decline drastically when transitioned into natural gas.

Edited 23 hours ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You really need to stop looking to oilprice articles for "real analysis."  The guy is not even based in the USA.

I have linked science articles here which were written by European scientists...I guess they are not real scientists?

Or maybe you are not a real scientist.

Edited 23 hours ago by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,542]

5 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Please explain "dirtier".  Both pollute, in different ways. 

Anywhere between 5% and 10% of the coal (by mass) you toss into a firebox is "real estate" that doesn't burn. It's called ash. 

What ash does NG leave in the firebox?

[specinho + 467]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

Golf carts use lead-acid, too.

People who live in low traffic zone e.g. outskirt europe, or retiree town, have purchased golf carts to move about for daily routine. Few thousand a cart? Buying a fleet of 10 together with neighbours would have 50% discount each, ~$2500.

At some tourist spots, chain of moderate long cart would be available e.g. big zoo, big resort. Shall it is used as public transport, would not be bad too. Press of a button at the cart stop, signal that someone needs a ride would be transmitted. Like traffic light at busy street. Relatively cost effective and efficient. 

[specinho + 467]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It looks like Trump's plans for increased oil and gas output will actually mean a massive reduction in global CO2 levels.

However, I doubt that Trump is motivated by this objective, and understandably so. 

But it keeps the anti-CO2 agitators happy.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/How-Trumps-Energy-Plan-Could-Actually-Benefit-the-Environment.html

"A second Trump administration's focus on increasing US natural gas production and exports could lead to a decrease in global CO2 emissions.

US natural gas exports can displace coal and other dirtier energy sources, particularly in developing nations.

Trump's energy plan includes faster permitting for pipelines and LNG terminals, facilitating the export of US natural gas to meet global energy needs."

"...when Trump fulfills his campaign promises to increase U.S. oil and gas production and removes President Biden’s pause on new liquid natural gas exports, global emissions will likely decline rather than rise.

This is because exports of U.S. natural gas generally displace coal, reducing global CO2 emissions. Even Germany, Europe’s largest manufacturer, is using lignite coal (rather than the less-polluting bituminous coal) to deal with shortages of renewables now that it has closed its nuclear power plants and Russian gas is no longer available.

About 3 billion people in emerging economies lack electricity and running water, and cook over wood and dung. Natural gas power plants would reduce particulates from wood and dung and make the air cleaner. "

It is the latter emissions from indoor fuels which are responsible for most of the health problems  emerging from energy resources, which would also decline drastically when transitioned into natural gas.

Quote:" About 3 billion people in emerging economies lack electricity and running water, and cook over wood and dung. Natural gas power plants would reduce particulates from wood and dung and make the air cleaner. "

1. Owing to the final finishing , including the interior, might be largely a layer of cow dung, they probably need to burn wood inside to dry it, remove malodour, and probably avoid strong wind and heat outside. They probably do not have door to air the interior.

2. According to a foodie vlogger, popular street meat sticks in XinJiang are barbecued using cow dung. All taste of meat have been masked by the smell of dung. Truely, uuhhh..... What do you call? '-'

Some might have learnt how to ferment cow dung to get natural gas.

Others might have been introduced simple gas stove. Owing to the location which is usually isolated, supply of gas and gas stove might be a challenge.

 

Shall they are in hot weather zone, concentrated sunlight might be able to help. The concept is when sunlight passes through a small glass magnifier, heat intensified and would burn dried leave below the glass instantly. Shall the degree of heat can be controlled by widening the area of light spread, they might use it for boiling water, cooking etc with adjustment?

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,243]

8 hours ago, turbguy said:

Anywhere between 5% and 10% of the coal (by mass) you toss into a firebox is "real estate" that doesn't burn. It's called ash. 

What ash does NG leave in the firebox?

Frequent Questions about the Beneficial Use of Coal Ash | US EPA

Many uses for coal ash. 

[turbguy + 1,542]

5 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Frequent Questions about the Beneficial Use of Coal Ash | US EPA

Many uses for coal ash. 

Yes, fly ash that has very low unburned carbon content is a good substitute for Portland cement.  If the carbon content is too high (say 4%+), it don't work well as cement.  You gotta go back and review/correct your pulverization/ combustion process to make it "usable".

Flue Gas Desulfurization?  That ain't used to make wallboard much anymore. And it ain't ash.  It's the output from quicklime-based process used to scrub flue gas of sulfur gasses, which after removing the fly ash (with electrostatic precips, or baghouse filters), contains almost no ash.

Bottom ash?  It typically is used to fill an ash disposal pond.

Edited 6 hours ago by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html

“It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote."

These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

Edited 4 hours ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

12 hours ago, specinho said:

Quote:" About 3 billion people in emerging economies lack electricity and running water, and cook over wood and dung. Natural gas power plants would reduce particulates from wood and dung and make the air cleaner. "

1. Owing to the final finishing , including the interior, might be largely a layer of cow dung, they probably need to burn wood inside to dry it, remove malodour, and probably avoid strong wind and heat outside. They probably do not have door to air the interior.

2. According to a foodie vlogger, popular street meat sticks in XinJiang are barbecued using cow dung. All taste of meat have been masked by the smell of dung. Truely, uuhhh..... What do you call? '-'

Some might have learnt how to ferment cow dung to get natural gas.

Others might have been introduced simple gas stove. Owing to the location which is usually isolated, supply of gas and gas stove might be a challenge.

 

Shall they are in hot weather zone, concentrated sunlight might be able to help. The concept is when sunlight passes through a small glass magnifier, heat intensified and would burn dried leave below the glass instantly. Shall the degree of heat can be controlled by widening the area of light spread, they might use it for boiling water, cooking etc with adjustment?

All the more reason to rely on a transition to natural gas in developing nations.

[TailingsPond + 983]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html

“It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote."

These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

Still referencing oilprice for your analysis? Sad. 

COP will continue; just watch.

That dumb article does self-referencing.  Them writing an article is not a "sign" they can reference for anything. 

"And there were signs this might be the case...recall, just days ago we wrote that climate summits were "no longer fit for purpose"."

Edited 24 minutes ago by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 983]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

All the more reason to rely on a transition to natural gas in developing nations.

Agreed, I'm glad you are accepting that solid and liquid fuels (e.g. wood, coal, heating oil) produce more pollution than natural gas.  That is progress!  You used to make silly claims that coal was non-polluting.

Edited 35 minutes ago by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

It appears that Tesla will benefit from some regulatory changes being brought in by the new administration.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trump-Administration-to-Fast-Track-Self-Driving-Car-Regulations.html

"...Trump officials told advisors they're planning to construct a federal framework for fully self-driving vehicles as one of the Transportation Department's top priorities. The media outlet cited sources that were familiar with the plans. 

"This would be a huge step forward in easing US rules for self-driving cars and be a significant tailwind for Tesla's autonomous and AI vision heading into 2025," said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who was quoted by Market Watch.

Ives added, "Musk's significant influence in the Trump White House is already having a major influence and ultimately the golden path for Tesla around Cybercabs and autonomous is now within reach with an emboldened Trump/Musk strategic alliance playing out in real-time and very in line with our thesis." "

Edited 8 minutes ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

27 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Still referencing oilprice for your analysis? Sad. 

COP will continue; just watch.

That dumb article does self-referencing.  Them writing an article is not a "sign" they can reference for anything. 

"And there were signs this might be the case...recall, just days ago we wrote that climate summits were "no longer fit for purpose"."

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html

“It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote."

These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

[Ecocharger + 1,468]

27 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Agreed, I'm glad you are accepting that solid and liquid fuels (e.g. wood, coal, heating oil) produce more pollution than natural gas.  That is progress!  You used to make silly claims that coal was non-polluting.

Coal pollution has drastically reduced since 1985.

The health reports indicate that atmospheric pollutants do not have the negative health effects of  indoor sources of energy, and the transition for indoor fuels to the use of natural gas should represent a relatively safe and reliable option.

For Africa and other nations still using dung for indoor energy resources, this could be the deal maker, and we could see a massive reduction in negative health impacts going forward.

Edited 9 minutes ago by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 983]

Tesla up again today.

99.8% gain in last 6 months.

46.9% gain over last year.

Compare that to WTI Down 0.8% over last year.

What is better +46.9% or -0.8%?

Edited 4 minutes ago by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 983]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The health reports indicate that atmospheric pollutants do not have the negative health effects of  indoor sources of energy, and the transition for indoor fuels to the use of natural gas should represent a relatively safe and reliable option.

Wrong.  There is clear correlation between outdoor air pollution levels and rates of hospital admissions for cardio-respiratory problems.

I agree natural gas is better, but that means you accept the other fuel forms are worse.

Coal pollution will continue to decline as its usage is eliminated.

[TailingsPond + 983]

15 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It appears that Tesla will benefit from some regulatory changes being brought in by the new administration.

 

I told you guys Musk bought Trump

 

Edited just now by TailingsPond