TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 18 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,256 er November 18 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 19 (edited) 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 November 19 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 19 (edited) 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 November 19 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,555 November 19 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 475 November 19 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 475 November 19 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,256 er November 19 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,555 November 19 (edited) 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 November 19 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 19 (edited) 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 November 19 by Ecocharger 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 19 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. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 19 (edited) 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 November 20 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 19 (edited) 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 November 19 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 20 (edited) 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 November 20 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 20 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 20 (edited) 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 November 20 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 20 (edited) 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 November 20 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 20 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 20 (edited) 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. Some mentally weak people here thought a Trump victory would spell the end to green energy and EVs. Edited November 20 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 20 5 hours ago, TailingsPond said: 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%? This type of micro-argument is worthless. You should examine trends over a longer period taking pubic policy into account. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 20 5 hours ago, TailingsPond said: 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. No, we examined this earlier. Atmospheric reductions make no discernible change to health outcomes, whereas reduction in indoor pollution does make a major change. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,486 DL November 20 (edited) 5 hours ago, TailingsPond said: I told you guys Musk bought Trump. Some mentally weak people here thought a Trump victory would spell the end to green energy and EVs. There was no one "bought", just an acceptance of policy matters. EVs will be badly hurt by the reduction of government support. Fossil fuel cars will be helped by the removal of tax disincentives. Edited November 20 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 475 November 20 10 hours ago, turbguy said: 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. Saw a documentary on how poor agricultural soil generally has become despite chemical fertilizer used. Yield reportedly decreased over time. Recalling when i was young, we rented next door space to a furniture making company. Much saw dust was produced and it created blackish top soil (likely called humous soil) which was very fertile. Any seed thrown in would grow by itself and fruit without much care. Over the decades, rain water washed away the top soil gradually. The loss is especially obvious when someone uses trick to occupy swamp next to the planting space used to belong to my grandfather. Add on houses construction affects our drainage system and also our soil. We sometimes use remaining mixture of organic matter and ash from burnt pile of tree braches, leaves after rain to spread around trees. From this observation, shall ash from coal can be mixed with water, filtered out whatever not desired that possibly there, and sprayed over agricultural soil, it can possibly replenish carbon, the basic building block of living things. Carbon is probably overlooked by most of us as major nutrient required by soil. We spray chemical fertilizer which usually consists of trace elements nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur. In addition , remnant from harvest, shall can be pulverized, mixed with nutrients shall deficient, and spray with water over soil, could probably be more helpful than chemical fertilizer alone. This would reduce problems of handling coal ash and poor agri soil. Two birds one stone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 20 36 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: EVs will be badly hurt by the reduction of government support. You just posted the new administration will help Tesla. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,013 GE November 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: This type of micro-argument is worthless. You should examine trends over a longer period taking pubic policy into account. Year over year is not long enough for you? 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 November 20 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members