QuarterCenturyVet + 312 JL September 23, 2021 12 minutes ago, notsonice said: Coal is dead In the United States. Sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 23, 2021 (edited) Oil demand is pushing prices up, also caused by ongoing restrictions on fossil fuels due to climate panic and defective climate models. https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2256738-demand-recovery-leaves-100bl-oil-on-track-trafigura "Demand has recovered sufficiently from the recent waves of the Delta variant of Covid-19 to put the oil market in a "much healthier place", Rahim said at the virtual Argus Asia-Pacific Crude Forum today. "Not just the price, but the level of backwardation we are seeing is telling us the market is hungry for oil," he said. Trafigura predicted earlier this year that crude prices are likely to return to $100/bl, something that Rahim said today could happen "probably towards the back end of next year, if conditions are right". Key indicators such as the level of floating stocks have started to normalise in recent months. US inventories are well below the five-year average — and, once releases from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve are taken into account, are lower than the five-year range, he said." Edited September 23, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 September 24, 2021 (edited) 14 hours ago, notsonice said: Coal is dead Look at Texas! WOW! Also note that all the nat gas and nuc is located near bodies of water. Seems you can construct "other renewables" at some distance from water. Gee, why is that?? Does it REALLY make sense to throw away ~50% of the energy you release during combustion?? CHAP systems do a lot better, but they are limited to densely populated areas. Edited September 24, 2021 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 September 24, 2021 https://www.thegwpf.com/china-plays-its-green-card-promising-to-sell-the-world-its-wind-and-solar-projects-produced-by-cheap-coal/ China plays its green card, promising to sell the world its wind and solar projects produced by cheap coal Date: 22/09/21 GWPF International President Xi Jinping told the UN on Tuesday that China will sell nations around the world its cheap wind and solar technology produced with cheap slave labour and cheap coal power, ending support for building coal-fired power plants abroad. China’s cheap energy strategy will kill three birds with one stone: 1. By building up its coal-powered economy, it can continue to produce and export renewables much cheaper than most OECD nations. China will thus cement its role as the world’s foremost producer and exporter of renewable energy. 2. By ending support for building coal-fired power plants abroad it reduces the pressure on coal demand, improving China’s domestic coal market which is currently struggling with high coal prices. 3. By announcing this move, China is playing the green card in the run-up to COP26 in order to reduce Western pressure and kick the ball back into Joe Biden’s court. Xi tells UN China will stop funding coal projects overseas Addressing the UN General Assembly, Xi made the promise as he vowed to accelerate efforts to help the world battle the climate crisis. “China will step up support for other developing countries in developing green and low carbon energy and will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad,” Xi said in a pre-recorded address. “We should foster new growth drivers in the post-Covid era and jointly achieve leapfrog development, staying committed to harmony between man and nature,” Xi said. China has gone on an infrastructure-building blitz around the world as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, and until now has been open to coal projects. In a letter earlier this year, a coalition of non-governmental groups said that the state-run Bank of China was the largest single financier of coal projects, pumping $35 billion since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015. China, however, has kept investing in coal at home, preserving a form of industry that is also politically sensitive in the United States. China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation last year — more than three times what was brought on line globally. Full story 174Shares Share Tweet Pin Share Recent Popular Articles Green Britain faces food shortages as energy crisis shuts down factories Date: 18/09/21 GWPF & The Times Suspend climate policies and cancel COP26 to save Britain from looming energy disaster Date: 20/09/21 Global Warming Policy Forum Leaders of China, India, and other major economies snub Joe Biden’s climate forum Date: 17/09/21 The Washington Examiner Greenflation: Household bills to soar by more than £1,500 a year, analysts warn Date: 18/09/21 UN climate summit at risk of failure, UN GenSec warns 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 September 24, 2021 https://www.thegwpf.com/leaders-of-china-india-and-other-major-economies-snub-joe-bidens-climate-forum/ Leaders of China, India, and other major economies snub Joe Biden’s climate forum Date: 17/09/21 The Washington Examiner A number of key world leaders were notably absent from President Joe Biden’s Friday morning climate forum. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, representing the two countries the scientific community believes are the linchpins in effectively combating climate change, did not participate in the reconvening of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. Both leaders took part in the first forum, held by the White House in spring 2021. French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other European heads of state also did not participate, though the continent was represented by European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The remaining participants, per White House officials, included President Alberto Fernandez of Argentina, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, President Joko Widodo of Indonesia, President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of Mexico, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom, and United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry spoke on behalf of the United States. Biden used his opening remarks on Friday to frame the climate debate as an “inflection point” for the global community, mirroring language he rolled out to frame the congressional debate over his social safety net package the day prior. “There’s a real consensus, a real consensus that while the climate crisis poses an existential threat, there is a silver lining the climate crisis also presents real and incredible economic opportunities to create jobs, lift up the standard of living for people around the world,” he said. “We know there’s still a lot of work to do, and if anything, our job, in my view, is growing more urgent.” The White House did not answer questions by press time on why certain world leaders did not participate in Friday’s event. Full story 218Shares Share Tweet Pin Share Recent Popular Articles Britain is turning into the Venezuela of wind as green jobs are exported to Asia Date: 11/09/21 GWPF & BBC COP26 crisis deepens as Boris Johnson plans last-ditch attempt to save UN climate summit Date: 12/09/21 GWPF International Energy prices in Europe hit records after the wind stops blowing Date: 14/09/21 The Wall Street Journal Coal boom in China and India sends prices soaring Date: 13/09/21 Nikkei Asia GWPF warns ministers not to draw the wrong lessons from Europe’s energy crisis 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 September 24, 2021 https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/ 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year AEIdeas CARPE DIEM April 21, 2019 Tomorrow (Monday, April 22) is Earth Day 2019 and time for my annual Earth Day post on spectacularly wrong predictions around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970….. In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 49th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 19 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started: 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” 5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” 6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” 7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. 8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” 9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. 12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. 13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years). 14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” 15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. 16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” 17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” 18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded in the next few days with media hype, and claims like this from the Earth Day website: Global sea levels are rising at an alarmingly fast rate — 6.7 inches in the last century alone and going higher. Surface temperatures are setting new heat records about each year. The ice sheets continue to decline, glaciers are in retreat globally, and our oceans are more acidic than ever. We could go on…which is a whole other problem. The majority of scientists are in agreement that human contributions to the greenhouse effect are the root cause. Essentially, gases in the atmosphere – such as methane and CO2 – trap heat and block it from escaping our planet. So what happens next? More droughts and heat waves, which can have devastating effects on the poorest countries and communities. Hurricanes will intensify and occur more frequently. Sea levels could rise up to four feet by 2100 – and that’s a conservative estimate among experts. Climate preacher/scientist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez predicted recently that “We’re like… the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” You can add that to the spectacularly wrong predictions made this year around the time of Earth Day 2019. Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the virtue signalling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC. Mark J. Perry Senior Fellow @Mark_J_Perry Tags: 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 September 24, 2021 https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/09/22/berlin-s-young-climate-activists-in-third-week-of-hunger-strike 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 September 24, 2021 6 minutes ago, ronwagn said: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/ 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year AEIdeas CARPE DIEM April 21, 2019 Tomorrow (Monday, April 22) is Earth Day 2019 and time for my annual Earth Day post on spectacularly wrong predictions around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970….. In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 49th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 19 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started: 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” 5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” 6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” 7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. 8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” 9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. 12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. 13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years). 14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” 15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. 16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” 17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” 18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded in the next few days with media hype, and claims like this from the Earth Day website: Global sea levels are rising at an alarmingly fast rate — 6.7 inches in the last century alone and going higher. Surface temperatures are setting new heat records about each year. The ice sheets continue to decline, glaciers are in retreat globally, and our oceans are more acidic than ever. We could go on…which is a whole other problem. The majority of scientists are in agreement that human contributions to the greenhouse effect are the root cause. Essentially, gases in the atmosphere – such as methane and CO2 – trap heat and block it from escaping our planet. So what happens next? More droughts and heat waves, which can have devastating effects on the poorest countries and communities. Hurricanes will intensify and occur more frequently. Sea levels could rise up to four feet by 2100 – and that’s a conservative estimate among experts. Climate preacher/scientist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez predicted recently that “We’re like… the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” You can add that to the spectacularly wrong predictions made this year around the time of Earth Day 2019. Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the virtue signalling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC. Mark J. Perry Senior Fellow @Mark_J_Perry Tags: Many of those predictions say "If we don't change, this will happen." Guess what? We changed our behavior, that is why the predictions didn't come true. Some of the best examples are in regard to air pollution. All across he developed world strict air pollution laws began going into effect in the early 70's. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 24, 2021 (edited) The Green Dream transition has already foundered on the hard rocks of reality, causing a self-inflicted energy crisis in Europe which may well replicate in America. Bottom line is that fossil fuels are here to stay, as in permanent. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Baker-Hughes-CEO-Warns-Of-Three-Hard-Truths-About-The-Energy-Transition.html "Fossil fuels are here to stay. This is the message one oilfield major CEO had for those watching the surge of gas prices in Europe, some with trepidation, others with fascination. They are here to stay because they help ensure a country's energy security. "We think there's three hard truths," Simonelli told CNBC in an interview this week. "Firstly, we've got to work together, accelerate the move towards decarbonization and also eliminating emissions. Secondly, hydrocarbons are here to stay … and natural gas, in fact, is a key element. And thirdly, we've got to do it together, collaborate and actually adopt the new technologies that are available." Some would say the current energy crisis in Europe is sufficient proof that there is something not quite right with the way the EU and the UK approached the energy transition. OPEC's secretary-general Mohamed Barkindo, for instance, told CNBC there was a new premium emerging in energy markets that he called "the transition premium." What this means is, essentially, that the energy transition is making energy more expensive despite promises for affordability." Edited September 24, 2021 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Gagen + 713 September 24, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, turbguy said: Look at Texas! WOW! Also note that all the nat gas and nuc is located near bodies of water. Seems you can construct "other renewables" at some distance from water. Gee, why is that?? Does it REALLY make sense to throw away ~50% of the energy you release during combustion?? CHAP systems do a lot better, but they are limited to densely populated areas. not only does CHAP only make sense in heavily populated areas, but they also have to be ones where the climate is sufficiently cold that there is enough heating required to make it worth doing at all. There are large chunks of the US (maybe half?) where it just doesn't get cold enough often enough for there to be enough heating demand to ever make it worth the bother. As for 'throwing away' half the energy - yes, if the energy is cheap enough, sure why not? A campfire throws away 90% of the heat of the wood, but as long as there is more wood available to be picked up a few steps away, who cares? In the case of natural gas and coal, the price of the fuel is so low, that it IS cost effective to throw half or more of the heat energy away. As for Texas: We have a growing population, LOTS of wind and solar (wind is heavily utilized already, solar is just starting) and a very robust electrical demand led by heavy industries attracted by abundant cheap electricity. Major industries include steel and other metal smelting, petroleum refining, fertilizer manufacturing, plastic manufacturing, etc. These are all highly energy intensive. Edited September 24, 2021 by Eric Gagen 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 September 24, 2021 34 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said: As for 'throwing away' half the energy - yes, if the energy is cheap enough, sure why not? A campfire throws away 90% of the heat of the wood, but as long as there is more wood available to be picked up a few steps away, who cares? In the case of natural gas and coal, the price of the fuel is so low, that it IS cost effective to throw half or more of the heat energy away. While I hear where you are coming from, throwing away half the energy makes no physical sense (except that it is thermodynamics at work). It is similar to wasting food. We got plenty and it's cheap, so why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nsdp + 449 eh September 24, 2021 On 9/18/2021 at 9:20 PM, turbguy said: What happens when it gets dirty? Depends on where you live and how much PM10 and PM2.5 from fossil fuels you deposit in your environment. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nsdp + 449 eh September 24, 2021 On 9/18/2021 at 9:20 PM, turbguy said: What happens when it gets dirty? Depends on where you live and how much PM10 and PM2.5 from fossil fuels you deposit in your environment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 25, 2021 (edited) Now Britain's energy suppliers are returning to reality, amidst a self-inflicted energy crisis. https://amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20210923-britain-runs-coal-power-stations-amid-energy-crisis "Drax -- which owns the nation's biggest facility in Yorkshire, northern England -- had planned to switch from coal to biomass this year to help tackle climate change. The group could now extend the use of coal, Chief Executive Will Gardiner told the Financial Times. "We're very aware that the country might have a significant problem and if there's something Drax can do we will absolutely think about doing that," Gardiner told the business-focused newspaper. Any delay could complicate Britain's plans to scrap coal-powered electricity generation by October 2024." Edited September 25, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG September 25, 2021 On 9/24/2021 at 12:06 AM, ronwagn said: https://www.thegwpf.com/china-plays-its-green-card-promising-to-sell-the-world-its-wind-and-solar-projects-produced-by-cheap-coal/ China plays its green card, promising to sell the world its wind and solar projects produced by cheap coal Date: 22/09/21 GWPF International President Xi Jinping told the UN on Tuesday that China will sell nations around the world its cheap wind and solar technology produced with cheap slave labour and cheap coal power, ending support for building coal-fired power plants abroad. China’s cheap energy strategy will kill three birds with one stone: 1. By building up its coal-powered economy, it can continue to produce and export renewables much cheaper than most OECD nations. China will thus cement its role as the world’s foremost producer and exporter of renewable energy. 2. By ending support for building coal-fired power plants abroad it reduces the pressure on coal demand, improving China’s domestic coal market which is currently struggling with high coal prices. 3. By announcing this move, China is playing the green card in the run-up to COP26 in order to reduce Western pressure and kick the ball back into Joe Biden’s court. Xi tells UN China will stop funding coal projects overseas Addressing the UN General Assembly, Xi made the promise as he vowed to accelerate efforts to help the world battle the climate crisis. “China will step up support for other developing countries in developing green and low carbon energy and will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad,” Xi said in a pre-recorded address. “We should foster new growth drivers in the post-Covid era and jointly achieve leapfrog development, staying committed to harmony between man and nature,” Xi said. China has gone on an infrastructure-building blitz around the world as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, and until now has been open to coal projects. In a letter earlier this year, a coalition of non-governmental groups said that the state-run Bank of China was the largest single financier of coal projects, pumping $35 billion since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015. China, however, has kept investing in coal at home, preserving a form of industry that is also politically sensitive in the United States. China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation last year — more than three times what was brought on line globally. Full story 174Shares Share Tweet Pin Share Recent Popular Articles Green Britain faces food shortages as energy crisis shuts down factories Date: 18/09/21 GWPF & The Times Suspend climate policies and cancel COP26 to save Britain from looming energy disaster Date: 20/09/21 Global Warming Policy Forum Leaders of China, India, and other major economies snub Joe Biden’s climate forum Date: 17/09/21 The Washington Examiner Greenflation: Household bills to soar by more than £1,500 a year, analysts warn Date: 18/09/21 UN climate summit at risk of failure, UN GenSec warns Coal and FF are not cheap at all when you factor in health care costs and destroyed lives. But Republicans, Russians, the Chinese, Muslims and N Koreans have yet to become woke and figure that out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG September 25, 2021 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Now Britain's energy suppliers are returning to reality, amidst a self-inflicted energy crisis. https://amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20210923-britain-runs-coal-power-stations-amid-energy-crisis "Drax -- which owns the nation's biggest facility in Yorkshire, northern England -- had planned to switch from coal to biomass this year to help tackle climate change. The group could now extend the use of coal, Chief Executive Will Gardiner told the Financial Times. "We're very aware that the country might have a significant problem and if there's something Drax can do we will absolutely think about doing that," Gardiner told the business-focused newspaper. Any delay could complicate Britain's plans to scrap coal-powered electricity generation by October 2024." Don’t worry, the battery we have been talking about for years is on its way. To kill much of Coal and Nat Gas it might still be at least a decade for tech and scale to develop. But every year the transition will grow and we’ll have plenty to report. Even China will come around when those watts get to cheap to ignore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Gagen + 713 September 25, 2021 (edited) 19 hours ago, turbguy said: While I hear where you are coming from, throwing away half the energy makes no physical sense (except that it is thermodynamics at work). It is similar to wasting food. We got plenty and it's cheap, so why not? Well it is like that. Saving energy takes effort, and real expenditure of resources (steel, labor, managerial time, etc. Saving food takes effort (containers for leftovers, refrigeration, extra water usage for washing, etc.) at some point if new food or energy are cheap enough, and the potential savings is small enough it’s actually wasteful of resources and effort to try and save them. Would you pick up 17 individual grains of cooked rice off the floor then wash them and put them in a container? Will you sort through a bag of shredded cabbage to separate the rotting pieces from the good ones? Probably not. Would you do it if you dropped a steak? Will you separate good apples from bad ones in a bag? Of course. Same thing with energy. If the cost in resources required to save the energy is low enough you do it. With energy though it’s even easier, because for any sort of major plant a team will actually go through a detailed energy and economic cost benefit analysis for each possible change, and can not only tell you if it makes sense to do or not, but why, and under what circumstances the answer changes. Edited September 25, 2021 by Eric Gagen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 September 25, 2021 14 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said: Well it is like that. Saving energy takes effort, and real expenditure of resources (steel, labor, managerial time, etc. Saving food takes effort (containers for leftovers, refrigeration, extra water usage for washing, etc.) at some point if new food or energy are cheap enough, and the potential savings is small enough it’s actually wasteful of resources and effort to try and save them. Would you pick up 17 individual grains of cooked rice off the floor then wash them and put them in a container? Will you sort through a bag of shredded cabbage to separate the rotting pieces from the good ones? Probably not. Would you do it if you dropped a steak? Will you separate good apples from bad ones in a bag? Of course. Same thing with energy. If the cost in resources required to save the energy is low enough you do it. With energy though it’s even easier, because for any sort of major plant a team will actually go through a detailed energy and economic cost benefit analysis for each possible change, and can not only tell you if it makes sense to do or not, but why, and under what circumstances the answer changes. Of course you don't consume unsafe food. That makes no sense. Some waste is unavoidable. However, safe food wasted In the USA is about 1/3rd! When safe food is wasted, so is the land, water, labor, energy (and other inputs) that are used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing, and disposing of the discarded food. Food is the single largest category of material placed in municipal landfills, then it emits, of all things, methane. Solid waste landfills are the third-largest source of human-caused methane emissions in the USA. At least a few sites recover some of it and run a small recip. Interesting to bring in economics. The planet does not care about "human" economics. Our environment operates on a whole 'nother set of economics, which are not recognized by human accounting (yet). That said, FF will be around for quite some time. It's just a pity we gotta throw away 1/2 (+/-) of the stuff, when you can get energy using sources that do not consume fuel to start with. Are there issues with those sources to overcome? Yes. Some of those issues are serious. Solutions exist. Just because those solutions are not "economic" in human terms, does not mean they don't make sense to our planet's economy. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 25, 2021 (edited) Uh oh, the Green Dreamers in Britain have come up against the realities of an energy crisis, courtesy of the misguided energy plans of panicked climate alarmists. This is what happens when people stop questioning and debating important issues, and blindly follow politically oriented disaster plans. Attempting to fight an unproven future disaster by creating a certain current disaster is a poor strategy. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/some-shell-gas-stations-run-out-fuel-uk-2021-09-24/ "Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) said on Friday it was seeing more demand at some of its fuel stations in Britain as worries about lorry driver shortages prompted drivers to fill up their tanks. "We are adapting our delivery schedules to ensure sufficient supplies for our customers," a spokesperson said, adding that rising demand "may in some instances result in larger queues." A handful of Shell gas stations are thought to have run out of fuel. Shell has around 1,000 stations across Britain. BP (BP.L) said it was prioritising fuel deliveries in Britain to sites with the highest demand and seeking to minimise the amount of time its petrol and diesel pumps were empty." Edited September 25, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 25, 2021 (edited) Some frank and honest statements recently surrounding the public climate panic which has stampeded governments around the world into lip-syncing the party line on climate change emerging from the UN. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/surging-gas-prices-are-transition-premium-to-renewables-opec-chief.html?__twitter_impression=true&recirc=taboolainternal "The long-time head of the oil cartel criticized what he believed was an overly emotional approach to energy policies and climate change, though he did not point a finger at specifically who was to blame for what he described as a “misrepresentation of facts.” Barkindo contended that there was “distortion of facts and the science, and the misrepresentation of these facts in the conversation, which is not healthy, because climate change and the energy transition are supposed to be guided by the science.” “The intergovernmental panel on climate change is supposed to be the most authoritative body with regard to both climate change and the transition,” he said. “And we in OPEC believe they are doing a great job, they are producing very very important, seminal reports, but unfortunately these reports are being set aside and the discussions ensuing at the moment, more or less being driven by emotions rather than the great work that this scientific body is producing for all of us.” " Edited September 25, 2021 by Ecocharger 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Gagen + 713 September 25, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, turbguy said: Of course you don't consume unsafe food. That makes no sense. Some waste is unavoidable. However, safe food wasted In the USA is about 1/3rd! When safe food is wasted, so is the land, water, labor, energy (and other inputs) that are used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing, and disposing of the discarded food. Food is the single largest category of material placed in municipal landfills, then it emits, of all things, methane. Solid waste landfills are the third-largest source of human-caused methane emissions in the USA. At least a few sites recover some of it and run a small recip. Interesting to bring in economics. The planet does not care about "human" economics. Our environment operates on a whole 'nother set of economics, which are not recognized by human accounting (yet). That said, FF will be around for quite some time. It's just a pity we gotta throw away 1/2 (+/-) of the stuff, when you can get energy using sources that do not consume fuel to start with. Are there issues with those sources to overcome? Yes. Some of those issues are serious. Solutions exist. Just because those solutions are not "economic" in human terms, does not mean they don't make sense to our planet's economy. It's not just 'human economics' and that's part of my point. Even from an environmental perspective there is a point at which it is counterproductive to try and 'save' or 'reuse' energy. For example, I have a couple of live oaks in my front yard. In the summer time, they help me save energy by shading the house, and reducing the air conditioning burden. However in the winter, they increase the heating bill by shading the house and preventing sunlight from warming the building. Clearly this is an unacceptable loss. I should hire an arborist company to take my oak trees out each fall and store them somewhere else, then put them back each spring. Of course this is a crazy idea. In my climate I burn something along the lines of 3,000 scf of natural gas each winter to heat my home. The arborist would emit more carbon dioxide out the exhaust of his truck burning diesel just travelling to my house, much less performing the tree removal and storage, so it's obviously a bad idea from an environmental point of view. There are many other seemingly good energy saving ideas which are actually net environmental harm when you do the math. Some everyday examples include: Reusable shopping bags (if you wash them, more petrochemicals are used in the form of soap than the plastic bags they replace, if you don't wash them they have to last at least 200 uses to break even organic foods (require more land creating habitat distruction and CO2 emissions from land clearance, and more diesel because ploughing is used as a replacement for pesticides and herbicides) paper straws instead of plastic straws (more energy is used making the paper straws than is used making the plastic ones) And that's just a few obvious ones. You can NEVER look only at the benefits of a course of action without looking at the costs. These costs are environmental and financial, but all financial costs eventually find their way towards being some sort of an environmental cost also. Edited September 25, 2021 by Eric Gagen 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 September 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: Uh oh, the Green Dreamers in Britain have come up against the realities of an energy crisis, courtesy of the misguided energy plans of panicked climate alarmists. This is what happens when people stop questioning and debating important issues, and blindly follow politically oriented disaster plans. Attempting to fight an unproven future disaster by creating a certain current disaster is a poor strategy. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/some-shell-gas-stations-run-out-fuel-uk-2021-09-24/ "Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) said on Friday it was seeing more demand at some of its fuel stations in Britain as worries about lorry driver shortages prompted drivers to fill up their tanks. "We are adapting our delivery schedules to ensure sufficient supplies for our customers," a spokesperson said, adding that rising demand "may in some instances result in larger queues." A handful of Shell gas stations are thought to have run out of fuel. Shell has around 1,000 stations across Britain. BP (BP.L) said it was prioritising fuel deliveries in Britain to sites with the highest demand and seeking to minimise the amount of time its petrol and diesel pumps were empty." This is being caused by BREXIT, nothing to do with Green actions, but don't let the truth get in your way. 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 26, 2021 (edited) An excellent analysis of the current energy crisis in Europe, brought about through commitments to faulty climate models, alarmist propaganda, and frightened politicians, who surrendered to irresponsible panic. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Harsh-Truth-Behind-Europes-Energy-Crisis.html "The Dutch media is speculating that minister Blok will be asking for a possible reopening of the Groningen field, a decision that must be made before October 1. If the Minister decides to change the current shutdown plans, the whole Groningen debacle, as some see it, will be prolonged. It is clear, looking at the current deplorable situation of the European energy sector, that Groningen is still needed. The ongoing energy crunch could have grave consequences for the economies and wellbeing of EU member states, changing the narratives in Brussels and the respective European capitals. The lack of supply of natural gas by Russia (or the political will to supply more), the difficulty of ramping up Norwegian gas or other gas imports quickly, is jeopardizing Europe’s energy situation. At the same time, a possible shutdown of several electricity-intensive industries in Europe, such as fertilizers, chemicals, and steel/aluminum production is on the table." Here is the astute summary, "The current situation shows one main fact of life, the success of the energy transition is not based on a one-sided approach. By relying too much on renewables, the market became destabilized, but politicians and others didn’t want to admit it. Destabilization could and should be prevented, by acknowledging the fact that for the foreseeable future hydrocarbons, including coal, will be playing a significant role in the European energy market.At the same time, European politicians also should acknowledge that without hydrocarbons, not only does energy supply become threatened, but the hydrocarbon economy suffers. It is not yet fully understood by most, but without hydrocarbons, especially natural gas and oil, food and other primary sectors will be hit hard. The first shutdowns of fertilizer and steel companies have already been reported. Brussels, London, Berlin, and even The Hague, should start to change their approach to energy and the economy of the future. Politicians should start to listen to market analysts that have been warning of a disruption in energy markets. The European long-term energy strategy should acknowledge the position of hydrocarbons as a backbone while investing in renewable options at the same time. Investments in storage, diversified supply, and domestic production are crucial. " Edited September 26, 2021 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL September 26, 2021 12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said: This is being caused by BREXIT, nothing to do with Green actions, but don't let the truth get in your way. The whole of Europe is in energy crisis due to the Green Dream, but don't let the truth get in your way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 September 26, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Ecocharger said: The whole of Europe is in energy crisis due to the Green Dream, but don't let the truth get in your way. Your post is about gasoline shortages at gas stations in the UK due to a lack of truck drivers which is widely known to be caused by Brexit. Your post is not about the whole of Europe. Of course you have to change the subject since you were caught fibbing. Edited September 26, 2021 by Jay McKinsey 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
