Rob Plant + 2,756 RP March 28 (edited) 8 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Sure, even the EPA sometimes gets it right, about one time in a thousand. More fossil fuels, less smog. "Annual emissions estimates are used as one indicator of the effectiveness of our programs. The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2022, gross domestic product increased 196 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 108 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 47 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent. " Thank you, Big Brother Joe. Anyone that thinks burning more FF reduces smog are utter imbeciles, if you have any brain whatsoever you will realise how stupid that sounds! ECO you have sunk to new lows with your latest hypothesis. Controls on air pollution have lessened the effects of smog in more recent times with improved filters etc on most vehicles let alone rules and controls in most western countries on powergen air pollution. New passenger vehicles are 98-99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s. Fuels are much cleaner—lead has been eliminated, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to regulation.3 Jan 2024 Accomplishments and Successes of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States | US EPA The clean air act came into force in 1970! Eco do you get it now? Edited March 28 by Rob Plant 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 28 (edited) 4 hours ago, Rob Plant said: The clean air act came into force in 1970! Eco do you get it now? I must say....you are without doubt perhaps the dullest tool I've yet to encounter. Let's sharpen that keen reasoning you employ. Using your profound reasoning skills there is now over 100,000 ships in the fleet...that yields over 2000 times the pollution of all the worlds autos combined. Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' This article is more than 14 years old One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles. Europe, which has some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, has dramatically cleaned up sulphur and nitrogen emissions from land-based transport in the past 20 years but has resisted imposing tight laws on the shipping industry, even though the technology exists to remove emissions. Cars driving 15,000km a year emit approximately 101 grammes of sulphur oxide gases (or SOx) in that time. The world's largest ships' diesel engines which typically operate for about 280 days a year generate roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution Particulate matter emissions from oceangoing ship engines were estimated to contribute to the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people globally," Corbett said in an interview. That number, the professor said, totals about 60,000 deaths a year worldwide. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/31/noaa-pollution-florida-freighters-tankers-cruise-ships Edited March 28 by Eyes Wide Open 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 28 (edited) 4 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Eco do you get it now? LMAO Eco you say? Do pay attention! The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume. Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars. https://livebunkers.com/bunker-fuel-pollution#:~:text=The low grade bunker fuel,diesel fuel used in automobiles. Edited March 28 by Eyes Wide Open 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 28 (edited) where smog comes from...... I will dumb it down for the clueless wonder who thinks smog is not a concern Edited March 28 by notsonice 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 28 (edited) 29 minutes ago, notsonice said: where smog comes from...... I will dumb it down for the clueless wonder who thinks smog is not a concern Was it not just a few days ago I reminded you of your abject ignorance. Below congressional testimony... “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. Dr. Holtz-Eakin pauses and shakes his head before responding, “I can’t answer because it will depend on what China and India and the globe has done.” “Have you heard from anybody in the Biden administration say how much it will lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy pressed again. Dr. Holtz-Eakin takes another long pause, before answering simply, “No.” “Does anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. When Dr. Holtz-Eakin doesn’t respond, so Kennedy answers himself, “No.” “No one can know for sure,” Dr. Holtz-Eakin finally answers. Kennedy moves on to another witness, asking, “If we spend $50 trillion or however much it takes to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050, how much will it lower world temperatures?” Dr. Robert Litterman, Chair of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, responded, “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world, we’re in this together. It’s one world, we can’t build a wall around the United States…” “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe cooperates, most Western democracies cooperate, but India and China don’t. How much will our $50 trillion lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy asked again. “We’re in this together, Senator, we have to get the world to work together,” Dr. Litterman responds. “I get that.” “Okay.” “How much will it lower world temperatures?” “If China and India do not help?” Dr. Litterman clarifies. “Yes.” “I don’t know.” https://www.johnlocke.org/the-50-trillion-carbon-neutral-plan-that-experts-admit-wont-work/ Edited March 28 by Eyes Wide Open 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 28 4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Was it not just a few days ago I reminded you of your abject ignorance. Below congressional testimony... “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. Dr. Holtz-Eakin pauses and shakes his head before responding, “I can’t answer because it will depend on what China and India and the globe has done.” “Have you heard from anybody in the Biden administration say how much it will lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy pressed again. Dr. Holtz-Eakin takes another long pause, before answering simply, “No.” “Does anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. When Dr. Holtz-Eakin doesn’t respond, so Kennedy answers himself, “No.” “No one can know for sure,” Dr. Holtz-Eakin finally answers. Kennedy moves on to another witness, asking, “If we spend $50 trillion or however much it takes to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050, how much will it lower world temperatures?” Dr. Robert Litterman, Chair of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, responded, “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world, we’re in this together. It’s one world, we can’t build a wall around the United States…” “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe cooperates, most Western democracies cooperate, but India and China don’t. How much will our $50 trillion lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy asked again. “We’re in this together, Senator, we have to get the world to work together,” Dr. Litterman responds. “I get that.” “Okay.” “How much will it lower world temperatures?” “If China and India do not help?” Dr. Litterman clarifies. “Yes.” “I don’t know.” https://www.johnlocke.org/the-50-trillion-carbon-neutral-plan-that-experts-admit-wont-work/ Was it not just a few days ago I reminded you of your abject ignorance???? I do not pay attentions to slow people such as yourself this said you posted a bunch of bs babble from a political hack....... do you understand the number one cause of air pollution's is the burning of Fossil Fuels?? or are you brain-dead and ignorant like your pal Ecochump????? I take it your are just plain brain dead....probably the result of huffing too much exhaust from you clunker 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 29 12 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said: I must say....you are without doubt perhaps the dullest tool I've yet to encounter. Let's sharpen that keen reasoning you employ. You are essentially illiterate. You can not combine "without doubt" and "perhaps" in the same sentence. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 29 (edited) 5 hours ago, notsonice said: do not pay attentions to slow people such as yourself this said you posted a bunch of bs babble from a political hack....... Ya Don't Say, it would seem the congressional investigations have hit a nerve...it begins Yellen Plans To Confront China For ‘Unfair’ Clean Energy Subsidies Yellen: I intend to warn Beijing that its national underwriting for energy and other companies is creating oversupply and distorting global markets. Yellen made the comments after visiting Georgia to see a newly reopened solar cell manufacturing plant. A couple of days ago, China filed a complaint against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization, for electric vehicle subsidies arguing the requirements are discriminatory. China is so dominant that it’s now, single-handedly, changing global solar standards: Last year, a Chinese IT columnist declared that large silicons sized between 182mm and 210mm would become the world’s standard thanks to their market share growing from 4.5% in 2020 to 45% in 2021, adding that they would probably increase to 90% in the near future. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Yellen-Plans-To-Confront-China-For-Unfair-Clean-Energy-Subsidies.html Edited March 29 by Eyes Wide Open 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 29 26 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Ya Don't Say, it would seem the congressional investigations have hit a nerve...it begins Can you read at all? What is the complaint here? The complaint is China is unfairly "stealing" the massive solar panel market. The solar panels are too cheap! "I intend to talk to the Chinese when I visit about overcapacity in some of these industries, and make sure that they understand the undesirable impact that this is having--flooding the market with cheap goods- -on the United States." They then go on to say the lack of solar tech is a vulnerability. "The world will almost completely rely on China for the supply of key building blocks for solar panel production through 2025. This level of concentration in any global supply chain would represent a considerable vulnerability,” https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Yellen-Plans-To-Confront-China-For-Unfair-Clean-Energy-Subsidies.html 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 29 If solar panels are a bad idea you would want your enemy to make a lot of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 29 (edited) 18 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Anyone that thinks burning more FF reduces smog are utter imbeciles, if you have any brain whatsoever you will realise how stupid that sounds! ECO you have sunk to new lows with your latest hypothesis. Controls on air pollution have lessened the effects of smog in more recent times with improved filters etc on most vehicles let alone rules and controls in most western countries on powergen air pollution. New passenger vehicles are 98-99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s. Fuels are much cleaner—lead has been eliminated, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to regulation.3 Jan 2024 Accomplishments and Successes of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States | US EPA The clean air act came into force in 1970! Eco do you get it now? I guess you missed the point, Rob. Despite massive increase in the use of fossil fuels, air pollution has actually declined drastically. Obviously, this is not a problem related to fossil fuels, but to new technology solutions. Those studies you referred to earlier were not trend studies, just snapshots without any context. You have to look at trends and achievable goals. Edited March 29 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 29 (edited) 5 hours ago, TailingsPond said: If solar panels are a bad idea you would want your enemy to make a lot of them. You are quite a tool Ponds, Enemy? Adversary? Perhaps But Dart would more appropriate. But Dart: Pain in the a@@. Actually the big E was a minor but dart...fascinating psychopath. Edited March 29 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 29 6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Ya Don't Say, it would seem the congressional investigations have hit a nerve...it begins Yellen Plans To Confront China For ‘Unfair’ Clean Energy Subsidies Yellen: I intend to warn Beijing that its national underwriting for energy and other companies is creating oversupply and distorting global markets. Yellen made the comments after visiting Georgia to see a newly reopened solar cell manufacturing plant. A couple of days ago, China filed a complaint against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization, for electric vehicle subsidies arguing the requirements are discriminatory. China is so dominant that it’s now, single-handedly, changing global solar standards: Last year, a Chinese IT columnist declared that large silicons sized between 182mm and 210mm would become the world’s standard thanks to their market share growing from 4.5% in 2020 to 45% in 2021, adding that they would probably increase to 90% in the near future. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Yellen-Plans-To-Confront-China-For-Unfair-Clean-Energy-Subsidies.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 29 23 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Was it not just a few days ago I reminded you of your abject ignorance. Below congressional testimony... “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. Dr. Holtz-Eakin pauses and shakes his head before responding, “I can’t answer because it will depend on what China and India and the globe has done.” “Have you heard from anybody in the Biden administration say how much it will lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy pressed again. Dr. Holtz-Eakin takes another long pause, before answering simply, “No.” “Does anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. When Dr. Holtz-Eakin doesn’t respond, so Kennedy answers himself, “No.” “No one can know for sure,” Dr. Holtz-Eakin finally answers. Kennedy moves on to another witness, asking, “If we spend $50 trillion or however much it takes to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050, how much will it lower world temperatures?” Dr. Robert Litterman, Chair of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, responded, “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world, we’re in this together. It’s one world, we can’t build a wall around the United States…” “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe cooperates, most Western democracies cooperate, but India and China don’t. How much will our $50 trillion lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy asked again. “We’re in this together, Senator, we have to get the world to work together,” Dr. Litterman responds. “I get that.” “Okay.” “How much will it lower world temperatures?” “If China and India do not help?” Dr. Litterman clarifies. “Yes.” “I don’t know.” https://www.johnlocke.org/the-50-trillion-carbon-neutral-plan-that-experts-admit-wont-work/ Thank God for Senator Kennedy! 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 29 https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/29/biden-epa-electric-trucks-emissions-regulation/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push ‘Entirely Unachievable’: Biden EPA Locks In Stringent Emissions Rule For Heavy-Duty Vehicles To Fight Climate Change The obvious answer is to encourage the use of natural gas trucks, busses, and cars. Any ICE engine can be converted to a natural gas engine. It is simple and relatively inexpensive. We are dealing with extreme authoritarian technocrats that are poorly informed and/or have ulterior motives. RCW 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 29 On 3/28/2024 at 5:49 AM, Rob Plant said: Smoke and smog are different things altogether. My comment was on the etymology of the word smog! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said: Thank God for Senator Kennedy! He is one of many putting up a wall, we will see more of this as time moves along. Frankly things are getting almost as crazy as ORO once peppered this forum with conspiracy theory. Big money cannot get out of the Green Energy market fast enough. Edited March 29 by Eyes Wide Open 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 30 (edited) 7 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Frankly things are getting almost as crazy as ORO once peppered this forum with conspiracy theory. You mean aided in organizing a traitorous act that led the the death of several people. It happened. Oilprice wisely deleted the evidence. Edited March 30 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 March 30 18 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You mean aided in organizing a traitorous act that led the the death of several people. It happened. Oilprice wisely deleted the evidence. I must have missed earlier conversations.... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 30 Meet the worst greenhouse gas, SF6. The problem is endemic to renewable energy industries, which are a serious long term problem. https://plana.earth/academy/most-powerful-greenhouse-gas#:~:text=You read right%3A SF6 is,23%2C900 tonnes of CO2. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/some-greenhouse-gases-are-stronger-others#:~:text=Compared with carbon dioxide%2C sulfur,28 times as much warming "Compared with carbon dioxide, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) causes 23,500 times as much warming and tetrafluoromethane (PFC-14), which is used as a refrigerant and in electronics, causes 6,630 times as much warming." "The energy industry is SF6’s biggest consumer– it consumes more than 80% of the gas. SF6 is mostly used inside switchgear – which is an absolutely essential component of any electricity grid. They are also used inside wind turbines, which means that neither wind energy as such, nor electricity, in general, can be claimed to be completely environmentally friendly. SF6 is known for its isolating potential in electricity. As such, it is a favoured material for energy infrastructures. When it comes to total consumption, yearly SF6 emissions are equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions produced by approximately 100 million cars. Forecasts show that SF6 usage might grow, parallel to those industries, by 50% in 2030." 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 30 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Meet the worst greenhouse gas, SF6. The problem is endemic to renewable energy industries, which are a serious long term problem. The problem is related to the electric grid, fossil fuel power plants make electricity too, in fact they make most of it. Try again. And since when do you care about greenhouse gases and climate change? Did Coe et al. ignore SF6 in his simplistic paper? You also claim the green hype is over, how is it a problem if it is over? Edited March 30 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 31 https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/solar-farm-size-2500-football-fields-destroyed-texas-amid-growing-solar-e Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 31 (edited) On 3/28/2024 at 10:10 AM, Eyes Wide Open said: I must say....you are without doubt perhaps the dullest tool I've yet to encounter. Let's sharpen that keen reasoning you employ. Using your profound reasoning skills there is now over 100,000 ships in the fleet...that yields over 2000 times the pollution of all the worlds autos combined. Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' This article is more than 14 years old One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles. Europe, which has some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, has dramatically cleaned up sulphur and nitrogen emissions from land-based transport in the past 20 years but has resisted imposing tight laws on the shipping industry, even though the technology exists to remove emissions. Cars driving 15,000km a year emit approximately 101 grammes of sulphur oxide gases (or SOx) in that time. The world's largest ships' diesel engines which typically operate for about 280 days a year generate roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution Particulate matter emissions from oceangoing ship engines were estimated to contribute to the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people globally," Corbett said in an interview. That number, the professor said, totals about 60,000 deaths a year worldwide. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/31/noaa-pollution-florida-freighters-tankers-cruise-ships I have been promoting natural gas powered ships for ten years. https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/158058-lng-powered-ships-pass-1000-vessel-milestone#:~:text=Credit: Ship & Bunker-,There are now over 1%2C000 LNG-powered ships in operation,18 LNG-powered vessels ordered. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/reimagining-energy/fleet-first-new-gas-ships-set-sail-with-latest-tech.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_LNG_Engine#:~:text=Most propulsion systems in LNG,turbines and propels the ship. Edited March 31 by Ron Wagner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: The problem is related to the electric grid, fossil fuel power plants make electricity too, in fact they make most of it. Try again. And since when do you care about greenhouse gases and climate change? Did Coe et al. ignore SF6 in his simplistic paper? You also claim the green hype is over, how is it a problem if it is over? One at a time, try thinking before speaking. This is a problem for all renewables, not just battery electricity. Wind turbines as well. It means that the renewable sector is even worse than we thought, not just producing high amounts of CO2, but also SF6 which appears to be the greater threat than CO2 going forward if fossil fuels are to be replaced with electrical energy. Perhaps Coe et al. will do another study looking at SF6, that would be interesting indeed. I do not care about greenhouse gases? Nonsense, the point made by the study of Coe et al. is that the predominant greenhouse gas is H2O, which even the NASA climate folks are now coming around to accepting. But this comparison of fossil fuel and CO2 with the SF6 resulting from electrical energy shows that the cure may be worse than the disease, whatever reduction in greenhouse effect is obtained by reducing CO2 is more than lost by increased SF6. In other words, the campaign against CO2 is worthless when the replacement source of energy creates an even greater greenhouse effect. Read carefully, "SF6 is mostly used inside switchgear – which is an absolutely essential component of any electricity grid. They are also used inside wind turbines, which means that neither wind energy as such, nor electricity, in general, can be claimed to be completely environmentally friendly." Edited March 31 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 31 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: "SF6 is mostly used inside switchgear – which is an absolutely essential component of any electricity grid. Just accept that fossil-fuel based electricity does the same thing. Or are you just anti-electricity now? Should we go back to oil lamps? Try again. Edited March 31 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
