Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, you are incorrect as the research I provided concludes. All you have is your empty claim.

An “empty claim” what don't you use or touch during today, yesterday, or last week that doesn't have fossil fuels as part of it.

I don't need to cut and paste an article by someone who may or may not have an. Agenda, 

I'll tell you the secret, but don't youtell anyone! You learned it in school, Ready for it, Chemistry!!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation. Aside from that as the EU lies in near collapse due to Green Energy's massive investment and failure. The US is finally coming to the reality of the Greatest Bamboozle Ever Told.

 

Indiana utility delays coal phaseout over federal solar investigation

NiSource is working with its renewable generation developers to better understand the potential project impacts,” NiSource said. “The company anticipates that most solar projects originally scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023 will experience delays of approximately 6 to 18 months.” 

As a consequence of this uncertainty, two coal units at Michigan City’s Schahfer Generating Station will remain online through 2025, two years longer than originally planned. 

The Commerce Department in March announced the probe into solar panel manufacturers based in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, following a petition alleging the manufacturers are fronts for Chinese companies to dodge tariffs. The industry has reacted with alarm, with the Solar Energy Industry Association cutting its projections for solar installation in half in response. 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3478305-indiana-utility-delays-coal-phaseout-over-federal-solar-investigation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And maybe you will be correct but like it or not it's all about the dollar, british sterling, yen, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If the mining, shipping and assembly is done with renewable energy then the carbon footprint is very low. So simple you might even be able to understand it.

But even if FF is used for the production of an EV then FF is also used for the production of an ICE, an EV covers its carbon footprint in a couple years of operation at most. 

Large–scale electric vehicle adoption can greatly reduce emissions from vehicle tailpipes. However, analysts have cautioned that it can come with increased indirect emissions from electricity and battery production that are not commonly regulated by transport policies. We combine integrated energy modeling and life cycle assessment to compare optimal policy scenarios that price emissions at the tailpipe only, versus both tailpipe and indirect emissions. Surprisingly, scenarios that also price indirect emissions exhibit higher, rather than reduced, sales of electric vehicles, while yielding lower cumulative tailpipe and indirect emissions. Expected technological change ensures that emissions from electricity and battery production are more than offset by reduced emissions of gasoline production. Given continued decarbonization of electricity supply, results show that a large–scale adoption of electric vehicles is able to reduce CO2 emissions through more channels than previously expected. Further, carbon pricing of stationary sources will also favor electric vehicles. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y

 

Reuters analyzed data generated by an Argonne National Laboratory model to determine at what point a typical electric vehicle (EV) becomes cleaner than an equivalent gasoline car in terms of its lifetime carbon footprint.

Based on a series of assumptions, the data showed that a Tesla Model 3 in the United States, for example, would need to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla.https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

Jay, you have not shown us WHY would we want to eliminate CO2. All we have now for CO2 reduction support is a small group of discredited statistical studies and a huge political agitation movement with no rational content.

Why would  anyone make the enormous personal sacrifices entailed in abandoning fossil fuels and hoping for some Utopian renewable fairy tale?

Show us something which makes a rational case for CO2 reduction. As of now, no one wants to give up their standard of living in exchange for a fairy tale.

You yourself have refused to make the transition to an EV vehicle, but are still filling your gas tank with fossil fuels. That does not inspire confidence in your rant.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 All we have now for CO2 reduction support is a small group of discredited statistical studies and a huge political agitation movement with no rational content.

 

Otherwise known as 99% of all scientific research on climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

This Eminent Scientist Says Climate Activists Need to Get Real

That I don’t know, but aren’t there credible pathways to decarbonizing the grid? Mark Jacobson at Stanford has said we have most of the technology we need to produce America’s power renewably and keep the grid secure and stable by 2035. Or what about the example of countries like Norway or Namibia that are producing a vast majority of their energy from renewables? Check the China statistics. The country is adding, every year, gigawatts of new coal-fired power. Have you noticed that the whole world is now trying to get hands on as much natural gas as possible? This world is not yet done with fossil fuels.

 

Germany, after nearly half a trillion dollars, in 20 years they went from getting 84 percent of their primary energy from fossil fuels to 

 Can you tell me how you’d go from 76 percent fossil to zero by 2030, 2035? I’m sorry, the reality is what it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

An “empty claim” what don't you use or touch during today, yesterday, or last week that doesn't have fossil fuels as part of it.

I don't need to cut and paste an article by someone who may or may not have an. Agenda, 

I'll tell you the secret, but don't youtell anyone! You learned it in school, Ready for it, Chemistry!!

No you just have your vacuous agenda driven claim not based on any research whatsoever. Everything produced with fossil fuels today can be replaced with renewables tomorrow.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Otherwise known as 99% of all scientific research on climate change.

Pure nonsense, that old canard has long since been exposed as a PR exercise. You are behind the times, Jay. 

You have not produced a single study to show CO2 is a problem, whereas I cited to you the newer research.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay name one item or product that has absolutely no fossil fuel used?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Pure nonsense, that old canard has long since been exposed as a PR exercise. You are behind the times, Jay.

You have not produced a single study to show CO2 is a problem, whereas I cited to you the newer research.

I thoroughly debunked your research. Solar energy is down but temperature is way up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

I thoroughly debunked your research. Solar energy is down but temperature is way up.

Where is the CO2 factor in that PR chart? There is no CO2 statistic. Get out your reading glasses, Jay.

And you misquoted that item about 99%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RichieRich216 said:

Jay name one item or product that has absolutely no fossil fuel used?

You apparently can't contemplate that I keep saying tomorrow there will be. The primary path will be renewable energy to create green hydrogen and atmospheric carbon removal to make green hydrocarbons for everything from steel to plastic to fertilizer and everything else.

‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal

This article is more than 8 months old

Hybrit sends steel made with hydrogen production process to Volvo, which plans to use it in prototype vehicles and components

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Where is the CO2 factor in that PR chart? There is no CO2 statistic. Get out your reading glasses, Jay.

And you misquoted that item about 99%.

You really are thick. Debunking your claim does not require any reference to CO2. Your claim is debunked by the straightforward fact that solar energy has been decreasing while temperature has been rapidly increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You really are thick. Debunking your claim does not require any reference to CO2. Your claim is debunked by the straightforward fact that solar energy has been decreasing while temperature has been rapidly increasing.

No, I showed you that your series is not the right one, and is out of date. Here is where that work showing "99%" came from, a climate change PR effort. The poll was conducted by the Alliance for Science, a climate change PR effort. Many climate change agitators have misquoted those studies, claiming that "99% of scientists" support the view of anthropogenic climate change, which is not the case at all. It is nowhere near that figure.

"Support for the Alliance for Science is provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation."

 

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Here is where that work came from, a climate change PR effort. The poll was conducted by the Alliance for Science, a climate change PR effort.

"Support for the Alliance for Science is provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation."

 

There was no poll involved, temperature and solar energy measurements are made by multiple devices and processes using state of the art scientific instruments such as the SOHO solar observatory satellite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There was no poll involved, temperature and solar energy measurements are made by multiple devices and processes using state of the art scientific instruments such as the SOHO solar observatory satellite. 

Read your own quote, it has nothing to do with "instruments". It is a random poll of scientific publications. How could you miss that? When you quote a source, you should read the source. In this "random" poll, I do not know if the new research is even included.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

27 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Read your own quote, it has nothing to do with "instruments". It is a random poll of scientific publications. How could you miss that? When you quote a source, you should read the source.

GISTEMP is from weather stations: Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using current data files from NOAA GHCN v4 (meteorological stations) and ERSST v5 (ocean areas), combined as described in our publications Hansen et al. (2010) and Lenssen et al. (2019). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and also late reports and corrections for earlier months. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

PMOD Solar Irradiance is from the SOHO solar observatory satellite:

Contemporary radiometric measurements from satellites:  Recently, TSI has been measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM); two versions of this instrument have flown on the SORCE spacecraft (providing TSI measurements since 2003) and the TCTE platform (providing TSI measurements since 2013).  SORCE and TCTE data are available through the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.

A joint European Space Agency-NASA experiment known as VIRGO, which encompasses 3 instruments for TSI on the SOHO spacecraft, has provided TSI data from the mid-1990s to present.

Earlier satellite-era TSI measurements came from the ERB/HF, ACRIM, and ERBS missions.  Data from these earlier missions have been combined with contemporary VIRGO measurements to form a composite satellite-era TSI record known as PMOD (named for the institute in Davos, Switzerland that produces the data), which spans 1978-present.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/total-solar-irradiance-tsi-datasets-overview

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, here is where your study comes from, the Alliance for Science. It is claimed in this article to be a public relations organization.

https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-campaign-for-agrichemical-industry/

I have no idea what you are babbling about. My data debunking your claim has nothing to do with that group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, I showed you that your series is not the right one, and is out of date.

 

No you made an imbecilic claim that data from the SOHO solar observatory is not used by solar scientists.  

About the SOHO Mission
 
 

SOHO, the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory, is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA to study the Sun from its deep core to the outer corona and the solar wind.

SOHO was launched on December 2, 1995. The SOHO spacecraft was built in Europe by an industry team led by prime contractor Matra Marconi Space (now EADS Astrium) under overall management by ESA. The twelve instruments on board SOHO were provided by European and American scientists. Nine of the international instrument consortia are led by European Principal Investigators (PI's), three by PI's from the US. Large engineering teams and more than 200 co-investigators from many institutions supported the PI's in the development of the instruments and in the preparation of their operations and data analysis. NASA was responsible for the launch and is now responsible for mission operations. Large radio dishes around the world which form NASA's Deep Space Network are used for data downlink and commanding. Mission control is based at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

Further information about SOHO:

 

PMOD Solar Irradiance is from the SOHO solar observatory satellite:

Contemporary radiometric measurements from satellites:  Recently, TSI has been measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM); two versions of this instrument have flown on the SORCE spacecraft (providing TSI measurements since 2003) and the TCTE platform (providing TSI measurements since 2013).  SORCE and TCTE data are available through the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.

A joint European Space Agency-NASA experiment known as VIRGO, which encompasses 3 instruments for TSI on the SOHO spacecraft, has provided TSI data from the mid-1990s to present.

Earlier satellite-era TSI measurements came from the ERB/HF, ACRIM, and ERBS missions.  Data from these earlier missions have been combined with contemporary VIRGO measurements to form a composite satellite-era TSI record known as PMOD (named for the institute in Davos, Switzerland that produces the data), which spans 1978-present.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You apparently can't contemplate that I keep saying tomorrow there will be. The primary path will be renewable energy to create green hydrogen and atmospheric carbon removal to make green hydrocarbons for everything from steel to plastic to fertilizer and everything else.

‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal

This article is more than 8 months old

Hybrit sends steel made with hydrogen production process to Volvo, which plans to use it in prototype vehicles and components

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal

Chemistry is Chemistry; want to go back to the moon, more satilites exploring Mars? Not going to the next closest town/city? 
 

THE article you posted regarding steel, how did it leave the plant, place on ship?

Fossil Fuels for the next 50 years, I have had this argument dating back to the 70’ so look back at the 70’s until May 5th, 2022, same old fight song the world is doomed in 20 years, doomed by 2010, always been just a talking point while every major industry worldwide keep raking in the cash on fossil fuels!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RichieRich216 said:

Chemistry is Chemistry; want to go back to the moon, more satilites exploring Mars? Not going to the next closest town/city? 
 

THE article you posted regarding steel, how did it leave the plant, place on ship?

Fossil Fuels for the next 50 years, I have had this argument dating back to the 70’ so look back at the 70’s until May 5th, 2022, same old fight song the world is doomed in 20 years, doomed by 2010, always been just a talking point while every major industry worldwide keep raking in the cash on fossil fuels!

You are also as thick as ever. I just explained to you that green hydrogen can be converted into any green hydrocarbon. 

This Green Hydrogen Plant Could Soon Fuel SpaceX Rockets

The future runs on hydrogen.

MAR 7, 2022
 
 

us space spacex starship

JIM WATSONGETTY IMAGES
  • Energy startup Green Hydrogen International (GHI) is planning to develop a new project based in South Texas.
  • The hub plans to supply billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX with green hydrogen for the rocket company’s methane-powered rocket engines.
  • Other uses for the abundant, colorless gas include adding it to ammonia for fertilizers and generating environmentally friendly jet fuels.

Mars evangelist and SpaceX founder Elon Musk may soon have an easier time going green.

Green Hydrogen International (GHI), a Texas-based energy startup, announced plans last week to develop a brand-new green hydrogen project—the world’s largest—in South Texas. GHI says some of the hydrogen from this project will be used to develop clean rocket fuel for Elon Musk’s aerospace company SpaceX.

spacex green hydrogen plant

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a39353989/green-hydrogen-plant-could-fuel-spacex-rockets/#:~:text=The hub plans to supply,generating environmentally friendly jet fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India adds 10 GW solar capacity in 2022
 

Solar capacity installations in the country jumped by a record 210 per cent to 10 gigawatts during 2021, Mercom Communications India said in a report on Thursday. The green capacity installations reached a level of 3.2 gigawatts (GW) in 2020, the research firm said in its 'Indian Solar Sector Market Leaders' report.

"In CY 2021, India saw a record 10 GW of new solar capacity installed, a big jump of 210 per cent compared to 3.2 GW the year before. The newly installed solar capacity in ..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I hope you realize that EVERY item in your list applies equally to the production of ICE vehicles.  All you have done is list some of the inputs required for a generic automobile of any sort. 

You're free to list a shit load of “green” possibilities, but none of that decreases the carbon footprint it creates.

You say I'm thick; everything around you, you can and should thank the fossil fuels industry!

And anything that is currently “green.” exists because of some chemical makeup of fossil fuel.

The only time we are off fossil fuels and everything they make is when all oil is exhausted but again the Nazi’s created synthetic oil out of coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I have no idea what you are babbling about. My data debunking your claim has nothing to do with that group.

You were the one who quoted the article. That 99% figure comes from a public relations exercise. How could you miss that?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.