GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Everyone on this site will be dead before fossil fuels take second place to renewables. Even if a new invention popped up it would take decades to implement.

It appears that the concept of renewables is being over-marketed by the President. 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

2 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

What it takes is going carbon negative. At what pace and how? It depends.

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/going-carbon-negative-what-are-the-technology-options

Okay, now how do you get rid of several billions of extra mouths to feed in that pre-industrial paradise?  I am still waiting for the details.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, "pre-industrial" means fewer than a billion people walking the planet....I already pointed that out to you.

How do you propose to get rid of billions of extra folks?

You haven't shown any evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere is the reason we can support more people today. By your argument all of our technological advancements have nothing to do with it. Apparently all we needed to do was set all the coal and oil fields on fire to up the co2 levels and suddenly we would be able to feed another 7 billion people. Daft.

[surrept33 + 609]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Okay, now how do you get rid of several billions of extra mouths to feed in that pre-industrial paradise?  I am still waiting for the details.

Better agricultural productivity. 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

Just now, surrept33 said:

Better agricultural productivity. 

You cannot get better agricultural productivity by reducing CO2, which enhances agricultural productivity.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You haven't shown any evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere is the reason we can support more people today. By your argument all of our technological advancements have nothing to do with it. Apparently all we needed to do was set all the coal and oil fields on fire to up the co2 levels and suddenly we would be able to feed another 7 billion people. Daft.

The evidence was in the post I gave you earlier that higher levels of CO2 cause a greening of the plant biosphere, which is what we would expect.

You cannot sustain human life with better medical equipment, while depriving people of oxygen and food.

Some items are more basic than others.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Do you read your own stuff?  Hydro-electric was well in front...well ahead of wind.

Last I checked 337,510 is greater than 291,111. Do you read at all?

Oh, and note that the EIA calls wind and solar "other renewables" that is because hydro is a renewable.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[surrept33 + 609]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You cannot get better agricultural productivity by reducing CO2, which enhances agricultural productivity.

 

That's too simplistic way of thinking. Think about the bigger picture: https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/sustainable-agriculture-0

At some point, humanity will even have industrialized (at scale) "lab grown meat". All it takes is the right strategic bets in technology.

These days, things like famines tend to happen because of local political instability, not because people don't know how to grow enough food. We waste a lot of food. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by surrept33

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Last I checked 337,510 is greater than 291,111. Do you read at all?

Okay, I was looking at 2017.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

Just now, surrept33 said:

That's too simplistic way of thinking. Think about the bigger picture: https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/sustainable-agriculture-0

At some point, humanity will even have industrialized "lab grown meat". All it takes is the right strategic bets in technology.

These days, things like famines tend to happen because of local political instability, not because people don't know how to grow enough food. We waste a lot of food. 

You are looking at tangents, none of which relates to the basic underlying components of plant/human life sustainability.

[surrept33 + 609]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are looking at tangents, none of which relates to the basic underlying components of plant/human life sustainability.

Take a look here:

https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply

There really isn't a problem giving everybody a carbohydrate rich diet in today's world. Other things like proteins/fats are more of a problem. A higher CO2 supply would just promote plant macronutrient growth in stuff we don't need and create climate stress in areas of the world where are malnourished people (that rely on for example, the monsoons in Africa and South Asia).

Edited April 29, 2021 by surrept33

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

And just to make sure this is clear, the EIA includes hydro in their definition of renewable energy. I accept all of your apologies.

What is renewable energy?

Renewable energy is energy from sources that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited; renewable resources are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time.

The major types of renewable energy sources are

• Biomass
  • Wood and wood waste
  • Municipal solid waste
  • Landfill gas and biogas
  • Ethanol
  • Biodiesel
• Hydropower
• Geothermal
• Wind
• Solar

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

8 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Take a look here:

https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply

There really isn't a problem giving everybody a carbohydrate rich diet in today's world. Other things like proteins/fats are more of a problem. A higher CO2 supply would just promote plant macronutrient growth in stuff we don't need and create climate stress in areas of the world where are malnourished people (that rely on for example, the monsoons in Africa and South Asia).

No, even cattle and chickens require plant life to eat, if you reduce the food stocks of livestock you have the same constraints from a different angle.

If you reduce CO2 in the atmosphere going forward agricultural productivity declines, that is a given.

That translates into less plant life, less grains and vegetables, less oxygen to breathe, bad news all around.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

What it takes is going carbon negative. At what pace and how? It depends on technology adoption.

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/going-carbon-negative-what-are-the-technology-options

The expenditure involved in such an endeavor is far beyond the worth. Real polluton is the real problem not CO2. There are many problems that require money that would be a higher priority. Maximizing use of natural gas and biogas while reducing coal use would be better choice. Build wind turbines too, but only in the proportion that makes sense and is cost effective. 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And just to make sure this is clear, the EIA includes hydro in their definition of renewable energy. I accept all of your apologies.

What is renewable energy?

Renewable energy is energy from sources that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited; renewable resources are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time.

The major types of renewable energy sources are

• Biomass
  • Wood and wood waste
  • Municipal solid waste
  • Landfill gas and biogas
  • Ethanol
  • Biodiesel
• Hydropower
• Geothermal
• Wind
• Solar

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/

Hydro-electric is a more reliable source of energy than wind or solar, and less expensive to transform.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

11 hours ago, JoMack said:

This photo is apparently the Midway Wind farm.  From the ground, no pumpjacks, no Christmas trees.  So, no oil and gas.

 

 

 

A zoomed in shot at Midway. One wind turbine with a tiny bit of 'disturbed earth' and three hydrocarbon extraction points, two of which have the 3 tank configuration for separating water from oil. The third one may be a DUC.

The original screen capture shows a lot more well pads. I suspect that the picture you've included obscures all this stuff due to the soybeans growing in the fields.

[surrept33 + 609]

33 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You haven't shown any evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere is the reason we can support more people today. By your argument all of our technological advancements have nothing to do with it. Apparently all we needed to do was set all the coal and oil fields on fire to up the co2 levels and suddenly we would be able to feed another 7 billion people. Daft.

Yeah. It took a nation of farmers (and the "horsepower" or "watts" performed by beasts of burden) to grow all of our food, with far fewer people.

I wonder what's happened since then:

https://ourworldindata.org/structural-transformation-and-deindustrialization-evidence-from-todays-rich-countries

Edited April 29, 2021 by surrept33

[-trance + 114]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

If you reduce CO2 in the atmosphere going forward agricultural productivity declines, that is a given.

 

Not really, most often crops yields are limited by other factors (water, N, P, K). 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

15 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Hydro-electric is a more reliable source of energy than wind or solar, and less expensive to transform.

I don't know what you mean by less expensive to transform, dams ain't cheap, but wind and solar are at least as reliable on a monthly basis as hydro and once you add batteries they are as reliable on a daily/hourly basis.

blue hydro, green wind, gold solar

Edited April 29, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

46 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are looking at tangents, none of which relates to the basic underlying components of plant/human life sustainability.

The idea of lab grown meat disgusts me, and many others. I would go vegetarian first. As it is, I have eaten less meat al I have grown older. I use meat more as a flavoring for soups, stews, chili etc. I like the way Asians eat it with lots of rice, legumes, spices, and vegetables. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

46 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Take a look here:

https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply

There really isn't a problem giving everybody a carbohydrate rich diet in today's world. Other things like proteins/fats are more of a problem. A higher CO2 supply would just promote plant macronutrient growth in stuff we don't need and create climate stress in areas of the world where are malnourished people (that rely on for example, the monsoons in Africa and South Asia).

Rice, legumes, wheat, peanuts, and all vegetables can be eaten in combinations that supply all needed amino acids. Meat, poultry, pork, and fish are great foods but none are essential.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Hydro-electric is a more reliable source of energy than wind or solar, and less expensive to transform.

Not in times of drought.

[turbguy + 1,543]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Why is it that wind tyurbine blades and motors are not replaced then? They are cut up and buried in Mother Earth, not made into metal. Turbines are rebuilt and most parts stay as original. The metal is reused because it is recyclable. 

When a CT's first stage blades/buckets are replaced, you better hold onto your wallet.

When a steam turbine ROTOR is replaced, you better hold onto your wallet.

When a large generator is rewound/re-insulated, you better hold onto your wallet.

Similar to wind turbines, I would suppose.  Geared wind turbines can be particularly troublesome...

Anything with moving parts is gonna have future costs.

Solar panels? Not sure...

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I don't know what you mean by less expensive to transform, dams ain't cheap, but wind and solar are at least as reliable on a monthly basis as hydro and once you add batteries they are as reliable on a daily/hourly basis.

blue hydro, green wind, gold solar

On a "monthly" basis! Day-to-day, no, not as reliable. You have to add expensive back-up, which costs money, money, money.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

2 hours ago, -trance said:

Not really, most often crops yields are limited by other factors (water, N, P, K). 

Of course, given other factors.