GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[notsonice + 1,243]

More bad news for the lovers of fossil fuels

Electrek

How renewables could beat natural gas in US generating capacity within 3 years – in numbers

US renewables' electrical generating capacity could be close to – and may even surpass – natural gas within 3 years, according to FERC data.

.

8 hours ago

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

The future looks bright for the oil and gas sector, regardless of who occupies the White House. And the renewable sectors have been tanking in comparison.

This is how it should be, with new research calling into question the need for CO2 reduction, which is beginning to look like one of the worst public hoaxes in history.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/WoodMac-Sees-1-Trillion-At-Risk-for-Clean-Energy-Investments-Under-Trump.html

"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), crude oil production in the United States, including condensate, averaged 12.9 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million b/d, set in 2019. Average monthly crude oil production set a new monthly record high in December 2023 at more than 13.3 million b/d.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas favorite benchmark, the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (NYSEARCA:XLE), has more than doubled in the time Biden has been in office while the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (NASDAQ:ICLN) has tanked nearly 70%. The current year is following the same playbook with the oil and gas sector up 12.2%, the third highest return amongst 11 U.S. market sectors, while clean energy stocks are in the red with a -8.5% return. Big Oil investors, in particular, have been laughing all the way to the bank during Biden’s tenure: "

"According to data compiled by Reuters, profits of the top five publicly traded oil companies, namely Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM), Chevron Corp.(NYSE:CVX), BP Inc.(NYSE:BP), Shell Plc (NYSE:SHEL) and TotalEnergies SE (NYSE:TTE) rocketed to $410 billion during the first three years of the Biden administration, a 100% increase compared to the corresponding period of Donald Trump’s presidency."

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Here is the self reported pollution releases from a coal mine.  The facilities are required to report emissions.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/2022/6669

Scroll down a bit and click on the Releases tab.  Literally tonnes of pollution released to air, water, and land (relax CO2 is not even listed). 

The mines fully acknowledge they are polluters, why can't you? 

2,121 tonnes of PM 2.5 (the most toxic air particulate), loads of heavy metals, etc.

Toxic emissions from fossil fuel products have declined by astronomical rates in recent years, that is what matters. This is a problem with a history but not a future.

https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/clean-air-act-successes-and-challenges-1970/#:~:text=[atmospheric concentration of] fine particles,1970%2C” the authors note.

“Despite the quadrupling of gross domestic product since 1970, air quality across the United States has improved substantially . . . [atmospheric concentration of] fine particles declined 41 percent since 2000, ozone fell 32 percent since 1980, and lead decreased 99 percent since 1970,” the authors note. As increases in gross domestic product (GDP) are usually associated with increased production and, therefore, emissions, this decrease in pollution is significant. The decline in pollutants and increase in GDP since 1980 are shown in the chart below.

Share

 

“The CAA has delivered clear success stories—removing lead from gasoline, phasing out chlorofluorocarbons and other substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, dramatically reducing sulfur emissions from power plants and transportation fuels. Emissions of air toxics have also declined substantially,” the authors highlight in their introduction."

 

Edited May 22 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 671]

21 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Toxic emissions from fossil fuel products have declined by astronomical rates in recent years, that is what matters. This is a problem with a history but not a future.

 

You said coal was a non-polluter, I showed you clear evidence of large amounts of pollution released.  Now you are saying pollution rates are decreasing. So you knew all along that they were polluters and just straight out lie to promote your pro-fossil propaganda.  Furthermore, if the toxic emissions have declined by "astronomical rates" as you say that means the earlier emissions were astronomically huge.

FYI that was pollution just from the mine - not the power plant - and those emission numbers are pretty recent (2022).  You can also see historical data by clicking "all years"  you should notice the pollution emission are not decreasing much if at all.

We are discussing coal, you are now trying to use overall fossil fuel pollution data; of course if you include natural gas pollution numbers look better than filthy coal alone.  

Edited May 22 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This is just air pollution data.  You neglected all water and land based toxic emissions.  

Deepwater Horizon disaster happened in 2010 and you don't see a blip.  Yeah, just ignore those 210,000,000 US gal of leaked toxins to aquatic systems.

2018 isn't all that recent.  Also the most recent years in that data set shows increasing pollution for multiple parameters.

 

 

Edited May 22 by TailingsPond

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

22 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It is a non-polluter, and the only pollution anyone should worry about is the intellectual pollution known as Climate Panic.

hmmm so your take on coal fired power stations is theyre a non-polluter, interesting.

I say interesting because you must have a critically low IQ if you genuinely believe that! I actually dont think you do!

Emissions from burning coal

Several principal emissions result from burning coal :

• Sulfur dioxide, which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
• Nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
• Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, respiratory illnesses, and lung disease
• Carbon dioxide (CO₂), which is the primary greenhouse gas produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
• Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals
• Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

In 2022, CO₂ emissions from burning coal for energy accounted for about 19% of total U.S. energy-related CO₂ emissions and for about 55% of total CO₂ emissions from the electric power sector.

U.S. air pollution laws now require most fly ash emissions to be captured by pollution-control devices. In the United States, fly ash and bottom ash are generally stored near power plants or placed in landfills. Some environmental concerns include pollution that leaches into the ground from coal ash storage and from landfills and then contaminates groundwater. Coal ash impoundment ruptures can damage the environment downstream of the impoundment.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

17 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You said coal was a non-polluter, I showed you clear evidence of large amounts of pollution released.  Now you are saying pollution rates are decreasing. So you knew all along that they were polluters and just straight out lie to promote your pro-fossil propaganda.  Furthermore, if the toxic emissions have declined by "astronomical rates" as you say that means the earlier emissions were astronomically huge.

FYI that was pollution just from the mine - not the power plant - and those emission numbers are pretty recent (2022).  You can also see historical data by clicking "all years"  you should notice the pollution emission are not decreasing much if at all.

We are discussing coal, you are now trying to use overall fossil fuel pollution data; of course if you include natural gas pollution numbers look better than filthy coal alone.  

You really are confused. What counts is atmospheric toxic pollutants, which have drastically declined since 1980 in spite of an enormous increase in the use of fossil fuels.

Obviously, this is not a problem. 

What is a problem is the phobic fixation on a non-problem in a desperate to attempt to find some anti-CO2 propaganda.

That is the real problem.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

17 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

This is just air pollution data.  You neglected all water and land based toxic emissions.  

Deepwater Horizon disaster happened in 2010 and you don't see a blip.  Yeah, just ignore those 210,000,000 US gal of leaked toxins to aquatic systems.

2018 isn't all that recent.  Also the most recent years in that data set shows increasing pollution for multiple parameters.

 

 

Of course, some countries are lagging behind in the curtailment of toxic pollutions. That is news to you?

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

hmmm so your take on coal fired power stations is theyre a non-polluter, interesting.

I say interesting because you must have a critically low IQ if you genuinely believe that! I actually dont think you do!

Emissions from burning coal

Several principal emissions result from burning coal :

• Sulfur dioxide, which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
• Nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
• Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, respiratory illnesses, and lung disease
• Carbon dioxide (CO₂), which is the primary greenhouse gas produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
• Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals
• Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

In 2022, CO₂ emissions from burning coal for energy accounted for about 19% of total U.S. energy-related CO₂ emissions and for about 55% of total CO₂ emissions from the electric power sector.

U.S. air pollution laws now require most fly ash emissions to be captured by pollution-control devices. In the United States, fly ash and bottom ash are generally stored near power plants or placed in landfills. Some environmental concerns include pollution that leaches into the ground from coal ash storage and from landfills and then contaminates groundwater. Coal ash impoundment ruptures can damage the environment downstream of the impoundment.

Rob, you have a crazy list there, it includes CO2 as a "pollutant", which in itself is a prime example of intellectual pollution, of which you seem to have imbibed too much.

Here is what is happening to air borne pollutants, please read the numbers.

“Despite the quadrupling of gross domestic product since 1970, air quality across the United States has improved substantially . . . [atmospheric concentration of] fine particles declined 41 percent since 2000, ozone fell 32 percent since 1980, and lead decreased 99 percent since 1970,” the authors note. As increases in gross domestic product (GDP) are usually associated with increased production and, therefore, emissions, this decrease in pollution is significant. The decline in pollutants and increase in GDP since 1980 are shown in the chart below.

Share

 

“The CAA has delivered clear success stories—removing lead from gasoline, phasing out chlorofluorocarbons and other substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, dramatically reducing sulfur emissions from power plants and transportation fuels. Emissions of air toxics have also declined substantially,” the authors highlight in their introduction."

 

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

You really are confused. What counts is atmospheric toxic pollutants, which have drastically declined since 1980 in spite of an enormous increase in the use of fossil fuels.

Obviously, this is not a problem. 

What is a problem is the phobic fixation on a non-problem in a desperate to attempt to find some anti-CO2 propaganda.

That is the real problem.

Why do you not care about aquatic pollutants? Land pollution?

You are excessively focused on CO2; so much that you ignore the other toxic emissions.  As I already mentioned that the coal mine pollution release report did not even include CO2.  Look at the entirely of the pollution. You can say CO2 is not pollution and you may even be right, but do not pretend the other emissions are not real.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

25 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Why do you not care about aquatic pollutants? Land pollution?

You are excessively focused on CO2; so much that you ignore the other toxic emissions.  As I already mentioned that the coal mine pollution release report did not even include CO2.  Look at the entirely of the pollution. You can say CO2 is not pollution and you may even be right, but do not pretend the other emissions are not real.

We need to see some trends or some measure that allows us to make an evaluation.

Just pointing out disparate spills and leaks does not do it. Devoid of context.

And pollution related to renewables has to be brought into the equation.

The carbon intensity of AI requires us to demolish that industry.

Edited May 22 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,535]

What if electric cars had been the norm for a hundred years, and some manufacturer built a gas engine and put it in a car.

Would anyone buy it?

1. There would be few gas stations, so you couldn’t go on a trip.
2. It would be slower than the EV.
3. It would pollute whereas the EV wouldn’t.
4. The engine would be complex and would need a transmission, radiator, drive shaft and they would take up space in the car.
5. The car couldn’t be charged at home as the EV could.
6. It would need more maintenance because of the complexity of the engine and driveline.
7. It would need oil changes and oil filters.

Who would buy one?

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Just pointing out disparate spills and leaks does not do it. Devoid of context.

If you looked at the releases report you would notice almost all of discharges from that coal mine were not spills or leaks.  Small amounts of fugitive emissions but the vast majority was just well-known, everyday pollution.

I grow weary of you ignoring clear evidence. 

The mines themselves admit they release all that pollution. What more could you want?

[TailingsPond + 671]

The truck dust alone is horrible and you can see it with your own eyes.

The mines also know the toxic dust is bad so they spray down the roads to help reduce it.  Look.

You are the only one living in a fantasy where coal is a non-polluter.

Edited May 23 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

It would be best if you just said you are fine with pollution instead of denying pollution.   

Edited May 23 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,535]

34 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

If you looked at the releases report you would notice almost all of discharges from that coal mine were not spills or leaks.  Small amounts of fugitive emissions but the vast majority was just well-known, everyday pollution.

I grow weary of you ignoring clear evidence. 

The mines themselves admit they release all that pollution. What more could you want?

EVERY coal pile in the USA has a "coal pile runnoff" system.   

I forget where they put that stuff...

I just know it wasn't used as feedwater.

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

EVERY coal pile in the USA has a "coal pile runnoff" system.   

I forget where they put that stuff...

I just know it wasn't used as feedwater.

Rain falling onto exposed coal is very similar to heap leaching in gold mines but except in this case they do not want the leachate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_leaching

I am an expert and educator in EPA method 1311.

https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-test-method-1311-toxicity-characteristic-leaching-procedure

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you have a crazy list there, it includes CO2 as a "pollutant", which in itself is a prime example of intellectual pollution, of which you seem to have imbibed too much.

Here is what is happening to air borne pollutants, please read the numbers.

“Despite the quadrupling of gross domestic product since 1970, air quality across the United States has improved substantially . . . [atmospheric concentration of] fine particles declined 41 percent since 2000, ozone fell 32 percent since 1980, and lead decreased 99 percent since 1970,” the authors note. As increases in gross domestic product (GDP) are usually associated with increased production and, therefore, emissions, this decrease in pollution is significant. The decline in pollutants and increase in GDP since 1980 are shown in the chart below.

Share

 

“The CAA has delivered clear success stories—removing lead from gasoline, phasing out chlorofluorocarbons and other substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, dramatically reducing sulfur emissions from power plants and transportation fuels. Emissions of air toxics have also declined substantially,” the authors highlight in their introduction."

 

I take what I said back.

You clearly MUST have a low IQ if you genuinely believe coal is a non-polluter and I'm NOT talking about Co2.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,217]

On 5/22/2024 at 9:52 PM, TailingsPond said:

Rain falling onto exposed coal is very similar to heap leaching in gold mines but except in this case they do not want the leachate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_leaching

I am an expert and educator in EPA method 1311.

https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-test-method-1311-toxicity-characteristic-leaching-procedure

You're a flake from Canada that likes to think he's more knowledgeable than everyone else on this site. 

The few on here that are totally anti-fossil fuel should accept the fact that it will be many years before there's an end to its usage. 

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

You're a flake from Canada that likes to think he's more knowledgeable than everyone else on this site. 

The few on here that are totally anti-fossil fuel should accept the fact that it will be many years before there's an end to its usage. 

Can you, or do you, dispute the data presented? 

Are you trying to defend someone that says coal is a non-polluter?  That would make you the flake.

Is Eco too weak to defend his own statements and needs Old Ruffy to come protect his feelings?  No, he is tough enough.

I am very knowledgeable on some relevant topics, and I am Canadian, deal with it.  Furthermore, in this case the topic was coal, not all fossil fuels.  I do not hate natural gas, and I unfortunately still drive a car fuelled by gasoline, but you won't ever see me supporting coal.

I frigging live in Oil Country.  FYI the Edmonton Oilers beat the Dallas Stars last night.   Alberta 1 : Texas : 0

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,217]

8 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Are you trying to defend someone that says coal is a non-polluter?  That would make you the flake.

I wasn't defending anyone, and yes coal pollutes!! So does the 6 billion+ souls on this planet when they exhale. How many of them still burn their garbage in a 55gal drum? I tend not to worry myself over "Cimate Change, Global Warming" propaganda. Too many theories, not enough logical proof that "Man" is cause of any weather phenomena. The climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It is in constant change. Is Florida coastal cities swamped from icebergs melting? 

Wlhen Yellowstone blows again, probably sooner than later, life on this sphere will change yet again, and most likely mankind and 95% of organic life will be destroyed. My suggestion is quit "sweatin' the small shit" and live life to the fullest and enjoy!

[TailingsPond + 671]

7 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

 

When Yellowstone blows again, probably sooner than later, life on this sphere will change yet again, and most likely mankind and 95% of organic life will be destroyed. My suggestion is quit "sweatin' the small shit" and live life to the fullest and enjoy!

I hope I am dead before that, but yes, that eruption or a large asteroid strike would make anthropogenic climate change moot.

I mostly do not care about climate change, just toxic emissions.  Poisons will give you and your children cancer in a much shorter time frame than the gradual warming of the planet.  Clean air and water is priceless.

Edited May 25 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/22/2024 at 7:05 PM, turbguy said:

What if electric cars had been the norm for a hundred years, and some manufacturer built a gas engine and put it in a car.

Would anyone buy it?

1. There would be few gas stations, so you couldn’t go on a trip.
2. It would be slower than the EV.
3. It would pollute whereas the EV wouldn’t.
4. The engine would be complex and would need a transmission, radiator, drive shaft and they would take up space in the car.
5. The car couldn’t be charged at home as the EV could.
6. It would need more maintenance because of the complexity of the engine and driveline.
7. It would need oil changes and oil filters.

Who would buy one?

They would never get off the ground. EVs would never happen.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/22/2024 at 8:19 PM, TailingsPond said:

If you looked at the releases report you would notice almost all of discharges from that coal mine were not spills or leaks.  Small amounts of fugitive emissions but the vast majority was just well-known, everyday pollution.

I grow weary of you ignoring clear evidence. 

The mines themselves admit they release all that pollution. What more could you want?

I have shown you the trends, and they are now at miniscule levels.

What more could you want?

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/22/2024 at 8:31 PM, TailingsPond said:

It would be best if you just said you are fine with pollution instead of denying pollution.   

Just look at all the pollution related to the renewable sector...just terrible. And embarrassing.