Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I never brought up the issue of ideal CO2 levels because all plants vary. Most plant life lives in oceans all around the world and I doubt that you or anyone else has a grasp of that issue. Greenhouses have little to do with the ambient atmosphere in various areas at various times. It is common knowledge that plants benefit from high levels of CO2. It is undeniable except to Green fanatics. 

What a baseless comment. 

Its relatively easy to test the hypothesis. Replicate the soil conditions of a given region. Grow plants in a CO2 enriched atmosphere but don't increase other limitation factors, primarily  nutrients, water and see what happens. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

What a baseless comment. 

Its relatively easy to test the hypothesis. Replicate the soil conditions of a given region. Grow plants in a CO2 enriched atmosphere but don't increase other limitation factors, primarily  nutrients, water and see what happens. 

Nitrogen also comes down incorporated into rain and is produced by some plants such as soybeans. It is a complex topic. Lush forests existed long before manicured cornfields!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

EXACTLY. You have proven what I have been saying. 

The climate change naysayers are always telling us that we should put CO2 up to 1000, 2000, 3000ppm as plants will thrive. They then cite examples from Greenhouse horticulture where of course limitation factors don't exist. 

YOU cant replicate this endlessly in the REAL WORLD as faster plant growth driven by higher CO2 levels will reach limitations as nutrients and water are exhausted and the availability of energy at a given location is limited. 

Please study how plants have thrived during the various geological periods and learn something about how plants do with CO2. Quit telling me they didn't thrive when they did. Red claims that they were genetically different, and it is possible that they adapted over time. They are still plants and many of their relatives still exist as simple plants. 

It might be true that man could never have adapted to very high levels of CO2 but man did not exist back then. Why do you seem to think that man has to add nutrients? Nature usually does just fine. Check out the dense growth of huge trees in the Olympic National Forest where new trees grow on top of fallen trees, and do just fine. Check out any vacant lot or field that is unattended. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

On 2/16/2019 at 11:54 AM, NickW said:

Science its all wrong wrong wromg - lets just make up bullshit and post it an Oil Price .com!

Poor loser Nicky can't be bothered to read past a headline.  Get off your lazy ass and read where the headlines come from.  In this case the BS "28 times" more powerful epic joke of CH4 to CO2.  The headlines like everything else in today's world bear ZERO resemblance to reality except to pander to their unthinking fool base who do not wish to think for themselves. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Wastral

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

 It is a complex topic. Lush forests existed long before manicured cornfields!

It is a complex topic.  Unfortunately environmental destruction, in general, ruins the whole system.

For example stable isotope studies have shown that much of the nitrogen in old growth forests came from the ocean and early models struggled to explain that.  It turn out bears were gorging on the massive salmon runs and then were crapping that nitrogen in the forest.  Fewer fish, fewer bears, unfertilized forests, reduced carbon uptake.  Everything we mess up hurts everything else.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Will Hanner + 13]

SOLAR WILL POWER THE US IN 10 YEARS*

.

.

*Thats what I heard at age 5 aaaaaand I'm now 52 years old. Do the math ! ! ! 

[Red + 252]

31 minutes ago, Will Hanner said:

SOLAR WILL POWER THE US IN 10 YEARS*

.

.

*Thats what I heard at age 5 aaaaaand I'm now 52 years old. Do the math ! ! ! 

I read that solar will be a key energy source in the mid 2020s, along with wind, but I only got that message in the past decade.

Whatever you claim to have heard would have been bullshit at best 30 years ago,  an improbability 20 years ago, a miniscule chance 10 years ago, and no chance today.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Will Hanner said:

SOLAR WILL POWER THE US IN 10 YEARS*

.

.

*Thats what I heard at age 5 aaaaaand I'm now 52 years old. Do the math ! ! ! 

Fourteen eleventy-second?

[buckskinner + 19]

An alcohol lamp is an inexpensive way to increase CO2 concentrations in a greenhouse.

Employ people to work inside a greenhouse, each day, one person will exhale one kilogram of CO2 into the atmosphere.

After eight hours, there will be an additional one-third kilogram of CO2 gas inside the greenhouse per employee.

The plants' stomata ingest the CO2, the chloroplasts do the work of photosynthesis, greenshoots become adult phenotypes.

Greenhouses want high concentrations of CO2, the plants decrease CO2 concentrations in the confines of a greenhouse.

You have to juice the CO2 for the best results.

At CO2 concentrations lower than 180 ppm, plants suffer and growth is stunted.

AOC will be burning cow pies to cook a cup of rice while living in a mud hut wearing sackcloth and ashes.  lol

[Red + 252]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Red claims that they were genetically different, and it is possible that they adapted over time. They are still plants and many of their relatives still exist as simple plants. 

I never said plants were genetically different millions of years ago; my comments were instead about adaptations over millions of years.  However, it is probable that if they were to be transplanted into today's climate of one-fifth the amount of CO2, then their survival would be problematic.  Similarly, there is no evidence that today's plants would adapt quickly to five times as much CO2.

The problem we have today is that doubling CO2 levels at a global level will massively alter vegetation regions.  Given the propensity for weather events to become more severe, food crops will be placed at significantly greater risk.

At a very local level, recent flooding in North Queensland was unprecedented (from modern records), not just causing crop losses, but drowning half a million cattle.

 

 

[Will Hanner + 13]

"Downtown Miami will be 3 feet under water in 20 years" (circa 1993)

"NYC will be between5-6 feet under water in 20 years" (circa 1995)

I wont judge Global Warming alarmiststststs, I'd simply ask if you'd like to be embarrassed simply take a look at countless predictions made that make even the most ardent believer uncomfortable. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Will Hanner said:

SOLAR WILL POWER THE US IN 10 YEARS*

.

.

*Thats what I heard at age 5 aaaaaand I'm now 52 years old. Do the math ! ! ! 

I think you are a little confused.  

They were actually talking about fusion. That said Solar is from fusion. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Will Hanner said:

"Downtown Miami will be 3 feet under water in 20 years" (circa 1993)

"NYC will be between5-6 feet under water in 20 years" (circa 1995)

I wont judge Global Warming alarmiststststs, I'd simply ask if you'd like to be embarrassed simply take a look at countless predictions made that make even the most ardent believer uncomfortable. 

Source? 

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, Wastral said:

Poor loser Nicky can't be bothered to read past a headline.  Get off your lazy ass and read where the headlines come from.  In this case the BS "28 times" more powerful epic joke of CH4 to CO2.  The headlines like everything else in today's world bear ZERO resemblance to reality except to pander to their unthinking fool base who do not wish to think for themselves. 

Lets see the evidence then. 

There are hundreds of studies showing the radiative forcing effect of CH4. Lets see what you have to offer to counter that. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

19 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Nitrogen also comes down incorporated into rain and is produced by some plants such as soybeans. It is a complex topic. Lush forests existed long before manicured cornfields!

So why do farmers buy fertilisers then? 

Also there is a key difference between a forest and Cornfield. 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

It is a complex topic.  Unfortunately environmental destruction, in general, ruins the whole system.

For example stable isotope studies have shown that much of the nitrogen in old growth forests came from the ocean and early models struggled to explain that.  It turn out bears were gorging on the massive salmon runs and then were crapping that nitrogen in the forest.  Fewer fish, fewer bears, unfertilized forests, reduced carbon uptake.  Everything we mess up hurts everything else.

Will you stop confusing matters. Here on Oil Price there is a complete disconnect between Nitrogen availability and CO2 uptake. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

8 hours ago, buckskinner said:

An alcohol lamp is an inexpensive way to increase CO2 concentrations in a greenhouse.

Employ people to work inside a greenhouse, each day, one person will exhale one kilogram of CO2 into the atmosphere.

After eight hours, there will be an additional one-third kilogram of CO2 gas inside the greenhouse per employee.

The plants' stomata ingest the CO2, the chloroplasts do the work of photosynthesis, greenshoots become adult phenotypes.

Greenhouses want high concentrations of CO2, the plants decrease CO2 concentrations in the confines of a greenhouse.

You have to juice the CO2 for the best results.

At CO2 concentrations lower than 180 ppm, plants suffer and growth is stunted.

AOC will be burning cow pies to cook a cup of rice while living in a mud hut wearing sackcloth and ashes.  lol

I have no idea what you just said but I like it

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Lets see the evidence then. 

There are hundreds of studies showing the radiative forcing effect of CH4. Lets see what you have to offer to counter that. 

 

All you have to do is pick ANY CH4 study and read past the headline and you will see their own study debunks this headline... but that would require you to actually read and do science.  OH the horrors.

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

All you have to do is pick ANY CH4 study and read past the headline and you will see their own study debunks this headline... but that would require you to actually read and do science.  OH the horrors.

Whereas in climate science the radiative forcing effect of CH4 is measurable and nothing debunks it except sheer ignorance.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

All you have to do is pick ANY CH4 study and read past the headline and you will see their own study debunks this headline... but that would require you to actually read and do science.  OH the horrors.

The scientific consensus position is that CH4 is a significant greenhouse gas so there is no need for me to read. You are applying a reverse burden of proof on me for an unfounded, unsupported position that you are taking. 

You deny the consensus opinion so its incumbent upon you, assuming you don't want to appear like the Clown you are to come up with the documented evidence to disprove the consensus position. 

Now that can be with peer reviewed academic studies and your own peer reviewed documented studies if such a piece of work exists. 

Expecting me to do all the reading in this scenario is like you saying the earth is flat, contrary to the consensus and then expecting me to do the research to find evidence to support your position. 

Edited February 18, 2019 by NickW
In retrospect Clown felt more fitting.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/11/2019 at 2:43 PM, mthebold said:

When we finally decide to end fossil fuels, they'll be replaced by nuclear.  Fission most likely; fusion if it's available. 

But nuclear is expensive, dangerous, blah blah blah.  It's not dangerous; nuclear has the best safety record of any energy source.  It's also only expensive due to regulation that, quite frankly, exceeds a statist's wildest dreams. 

The nuclear we currently know is also a crude first attempt.  In the beginning, engineers sought to answer the question, "How does one pack a nuclear power plant into a submarine?"  Once they had that, they forked the technology and dropped it into coal plant technology as a heat source.  Then they optimized the plants around the nuclear reactor.  Then they actually started to standardize the plant designs.  The point when they were standardizing - which is to say, the point at which they could have driven all other power out of business - is when crises were manufactured to justify overbearing regulation. 

What didn't happen was the next generation of technologies.  There are multiple ways to build a nuclear reactor and multiple possible fuels.  Many are inherently safe and proliferation resistant - the two main concerns with nuclear.  We never saw those designs because the political risk was too high. 

Today, interest in nuclear is reviving.  Small, modular designs are starting with proven technology and may eventually incorporate the next generation of nuclear concepts.  The most intriguing design I've seen is a containerized, closed Brayton cycle reactor.  Yes, that's possible.  It's not even difficult, in fact.  Only the government stands in its way.  If this design happens, it could be the end of renewables, coal, and natural gas. 

Natural gas is cost efficient while nuclear has proven itself to not be cost efficient we are just beginning to pay the true price to end it. It will take a lot of good salesmanship to revive nuclear in the free world. Possibly China, or Russia will show us the way. Let them do the experimentation. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544211/how-old-is-too-old-for-a-nuclear-reactor/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/01/31/these-dumpsters-old-nuclear-waste-are-costing-you-billions/lw7aIpcWOhmn3ThjeqEnVP/story.html

Problems with Nuclear Plants and Storage

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit#

Edited February 19, 2019 by ronwagn
reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/8/2019 at 4:37 PM, NickW said:

They are not random - they are all effectively glasshouse experiments where limiting factors are not in place. 

This article provides a more reasoned explanation

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

1

A nice article. I favor massive irrigation projects and maximum planting of forests for building materials, beauty, recreation etc. Genetics plays the biggest role in what plants will do. Most food plants have been , and continue to be, genetically modified. Drought resistant plants are the norm now. The West needs to be irrigated. When that becomes cost effective irrigation will increase. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

Natural gas is a good interim solution.  I'm glad the world is shifting to it, I think the US should produce as much as we possibly can, and it fills some niche markets that nuclear can't currently serve.  At some point, however, we run out of natural gas and switch to nuclear.  Or the world's energy demands exceed what is economical with natural gas alone.  Or we begin diversifying to prevent monopolies, price fluctuations, etc.  Where natural gas reaches its limit, nuclear steps in. 

Old nuclear plants have problems, but it should be noted that existing nuclear in the US is a first crude attempt.  The generation of reactors being built is much better.  The next generation of reactors will be better still.  More importantly, there are solutions to the perceived problems with nuclear; we just haven't availed ourselves of them.  E.g. waste is a non-issue when reprocessed, which is currently illegal. 

Many markets already prefer nuclear to natural gas.  Thus, we're seeing a rise in nuclear's market share around the world.  The ongoing construction of nuclear tells us the exact conditions under which nuclear is economical.  Where those conditions appear, nuclear will follow. 

On that note, the rise of natural gas has been swift, but only in specific markets enjoying transient circumstances.  To wit:
   - The US happens to have exceptionally cheap natural gas, but could suffer natural gas price volatility. 
   - A self-flagellating Europe is abandoning coal & nuclear, but will eventually tire of high prices and stagnant economies.
   - China is reducing pollution with natural gas, but also  working on nuclear alternatives. 
   -  Renewables + storage is now competitive with NG peaking plants and on small grids.  Future small nuclear reactors could be even more economical than those renewables. 
Natural gas, while useful, is not entrenched. 

Meanwhile, technology on the demand side increasingly shifts to electrical base loads:
- Building construction has advanced such that new buildings reduce energy consumption by approx. 80% as compared to old, existing buildings.  As a result, nat gas heating and electrical peaking demands decrease even as the number of buildings increases. 
- Heat pump technology is improving, which results in a shift from natural gas heating to electrical heating.  Heating & cooling are electrical base loads, which favors the low fuel costs of nuclear. 
- Vehicle electrification will increase electrical base load. 
- Energy storage shifts demand peaks over to demand troughs, effectively reducing peak load and increasing base load.

The shift to electricity and leveling of the demand curve means more power plants will be required to run 24/7/365.  This is the unique situation where nuclear thrives.  Where this condition exists, nuclear plants almost always clear electricity auctions, allowing them to achieve 90-95% capacity factors.  Hence, nuclear gained approximately 20% market share in the US before stagnating - and that despite heavy regulation. 

Natural gas is having a good run, but its ultimate victory is not probable.  Coal will continue for a time in frugal nations, renewables will fill niche cases, natural gas will rise and fall as circumstance permits, and nuclear will continue its slow-but-inevitable march to dominance. 

In the mean time, I'm glad we can play the NG card when a certain cartel gets uppity. 

Interesting thoughts. I am a natural gas advocate and am looking at the current situation and the most realistic future for the next few decades. Public opinion plays a big role in free countries. If China and Russia can make nuclear work competitively they will. Meanwhile piped natural gas is nearly free near the source. If Europe were logical they would be fracking, or expanding nuclear as you prefer. I see myself as an advocate for natural gas and am a true believer for now because of the cost involved. I do not think that solar and wind are nearly competitive over the long term, neither is nuclear at this time. Surely, it will be a very long and competitive race. Nobody knows what new technologies will do. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I agree that natural gas is a great solution for the time being.

Nuclear isn't competitive in the US, but it's competitive where piped natural gas can't be had for cheap.  E.g. Russia could theoretically sell cheap gas, but in practice they'll sell it just below the price of LNG.  LNG, of course, is expensive.  There's also the issue of national security.  When we consider both the cost of LNG and the national security problem, nuclear is competitive in many markets. 

China and Russia use nuclear heavily while the Middle East is desperately trying to get their hands on the technology.  That makes it tempting to claim nuclear only works in non-Western countries.  Unfortunately for that theory, South Korea and Japan also do well with nuclear.  Yes, there was Fukushima, but after suffering the cost of energy imports, Japan has decided nuclear is ok after all.  Europe's would go nuclear were it not for their ridiculous politics. 

Nuclear will expand with or without advanced technology.  However, there are a lot of obvious improvements to nuclear technology.  When those happen, I would expect nuclear to begin taking over.  All that's needed is the right political incentives. 

Far too many political incentives (bribes) have already been given and are still being given. The political bribes are mainly for extending the original life span of the plants. Even with that in the USA nuclear is about as dead as it can get IMHO. I know that many other counties would love to have nuclear plants and nuclear arms. Nuclear has proven to be a real money loser and polluter in the long run. Illinois has decided to extend nuclear plants after a lot of political donations. These plants are now being subsidized by ordinary citizens like me. Plants that were underway in South Carolina and Georgia have been stopped due to cost overruns. The loss still be born by the rate payers. California's large San Onofre plant on a bluff over the ocean has been closed for years but still stands. It is just too expensive to be properly dismantled and finding a place to dispose of the radioactive portion is not politically doable.