Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

 Strange how no one in the climate alarmist crowd ever wish to use the scientific method...

The petrochemical giants all believe in climate change... those biased climate alarmists.

They also know it is far better to flare rather than release methane.

Sinopec

http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/en/socialresponsibility/Green/facc.shtml

 

Exxonmobile

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change

 

BP

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

 

Shell

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/sustainability-reporting-and-performance-data/performance-data/greenhouse-gas-emissions/climate-change-public-policy-position.html

 

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 42]

On 2/12/2019 at 11:18 PM, NickW said:

I bet there is massive potential for biogas in the USA from organic wastes. In the UK the potential is estimated at about 150TWH (1/6th of current gas usage). I'd estimate several hundred TWH of biogas for the USA. That would provide a significant proportion of the backup needed for intermittent renewables and help deal with a significant waste issue.

Of course you are right, not to mention the fact that an efficient electrified economy would use less than 1/3rd the energy we use now. Two examples, a) Volvo claims that because of zero idling, regenerative braking and 90% vs 30% engine efficiency an electrified service truck uses 1/5th the energy of a diesel truck. b) a coal powered electric hot water heater after mining energy, plant operation and line losses etc uses 15-18 kJ of coal/Litre/C. A heat pump hot water service driven off rooftop solar uses about 280 W.hr or 1 kJ/Litre/C

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/8/2019 at 2:07 AM, entertenter said:

Constantly rising CO2 concentration, without foreseeable end is a big problem. 

First, it makes oceans more acidic, as dissolve CO2 forms acid - H2CO3. It kills life in ocean, particularily coral reefs, making oceans less able to sink CO2. 

Many plants do not start to use more CO2 as concentration rise. Even vice versa, they react to higher concentration with less CO2 consumption. It will speed up atmospheric CO2 concentration rise.

Mammals, including humans breathing is regulated by CO2 concentration in inhaled air, not by oxygen concentration. CO2 concentration higher than 500ppm start to impair our brain abilities. 1000ppm CO2 concentration impairs brain function considerably. 1500ppm+ brain is able to function at less than half of its capacity. 2,5% means death. CO2 negative effects on humans are well documented. Until atomic submarines, diving time was mostly limited by CO2 concentration inside the submarine. We are already at mark 410ppm.
Soon we start to see hotels, office buildings and workspaces that offer low CO2 internal atmosphere of preindustrialisation era, with special equipment installed, to remove excess CO2. It would be a great business opportunity in a large cities first.

Actual references

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf97edac-77be-4442-aea4-9d2615f376e0/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 

10,000 ppm (1.0%) Typically no effects, possible drowsiness 15,000 ppm (1.5%) Mild respiratory stimulation for some people 30,000 ppm (3.0%) Moderate respiratory stimulation, increased heart rate and blood pressure, ACGIH TLV-Short Term 40,000 ppm (4.0%) Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) 50,000 ppm (5.0%) Strong respiratory stimulation, dizziness, confusion, headache, shortness of breath 80,000 ppm (8.0%) Dimmed sight, sweating, tremor, unconsciousness, and possible death The response to CO2 inhalation various greatly even in healthy individuals. The seriousnessof

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/what-level-of-co2-is-safe/

Edited February 16, 2019 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/12/2019 at 4:18 AM, NickW said:

I bet there is massive potential for biogas in the USA from organic wastes. In the UK the potential is estimated at about 150TWH (1/6th of current gas usage). I'd estimate several hundred TWH of biogas for the USA. That would provide a significant proportion of the backup needed for intermittent renewables and help deal with a significant waste issue.

My biogas topic https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf97edac-77be-4442-aea4-9d2615f376e0/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 2/12/2019 at 11:58 AM, NickW said:

Jesus Christ - I take it you dropped Kemistri and Fisiks aged ll?😂

Methane has an atmospheric half life of 7 years in the atmosphere. This can be replicated in Lab experiments along with measuring its infrared absorption properties

https://phys.org/tags/methane/

 

 

Sigh... if you bothered to actually read how they obtained the "half life" instead of posting synopsis BS.... you know actual SCIENCE, you will find values range from, months, to 100 years.  Why?  Because it COMPLETELY depends on how you use the variables wind and water roughness of the oceans.  Same reason CO2 sequestration/outgassing in the oceans varies wildly by an order of magnitude. 

Fact is, there is no Methane in the upper atmosphere to speak of even though it is A LIGHT gas.  Even though it is being emitted in massive amounts by animals/bacteria(of course other bacteria eat methane...)  Not to mention CH4 absorbs/emits 100% the exact same frequencies as water vapor where water vapor has 100% absorption to said frequencies and methane only 30%... but science you know..... who needs it....  

If you double the amount of water vapor/methane do you absorb more energy.... NO.  Hey, I know... if you 10000000000X water vapor/methane do you absorb more energy.... duh... no. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:39 PM, Enthalpic said:

The petrochemical giants all believe in climate change... those biased climate alarmists.

They also know it is far better to flare rather than release methane.

Sinopec

 

http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/en/socialresponsibility/Green/facc.shtml

 

 

 

Exxonmobile

 

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change

 

 

 

BP

 

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

 

 

 

Shell

 

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/sustainability-reporting-and-performance-data/performance-data/greenhouse-gas-emissions/climate-change-public-policy-position.html

 

 

 

What a joke.  They see the opportunity for PR and possibly making money due to massive subsidies.

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Wastral said:

Sigh... if you bothered to actually read how they obtained the "half life" instead of posting synopsis BS.... you know actual SCIENCE, you will find values range from, months, to 100 years.  Why?  Because it COMPLETELY depends on how you use the variables wind and water roughness of the oceans.  Same reason CO2 sequestration/outgassing in the oceans varies wildly by an order of magnitude. 

Fact is, there is no Methane in the upper atmosphere to speak of even though it is A LIGHT gas.  Even though it is being emitted in massive amounts by animals/bacteria(of course other bacteria eat methane...)  Not to mention CH4 absorbs/emits 100% the exact same frequencies as water vapor where water vapor has 100% absorption to said frequencies and methane only 30%... but science you know..... who needs it....  

If you double the amount of water vapor/methane do you absorb more energy.... NO.  Hey, I know... if you 10000000000X water vapor/methane do you absorb more energy.... duh... no. 

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

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Actual references

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf97edac-77be-4442-aea4-9d2615f376e0/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 

10,000 ppm (1.0%) Typically no effects, possible drowsiness 15,000 ppm (1.5%) Mild respiratory stimulation for some people 30,000 ppm (3.0%) Moderate respiratory stimulation, increased heart rate and blood pressure, ACGIH TLV-Short Term 40,000 ppm (4.0%) Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) 50,000 ppm (5.0%) Strong respiratory stimulation, dizziness, confusion, headache, shortness of breath 80,000 ppm (8.0%) Dimmed sight, sweating, tremor, unconsciousness, and possible death The response to CO2 inhalation various greatly even in healthy individuals. The seriousnessof

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/what-level-of-co2-is-safe/

That research is complete outdated.

If you don't believe me buy one of these https://isswww.co.uk/tsi-airflow-iaq-calc-7545?gclid=CjwKCAiAhp_jBRAxEiwAXbniXV3w86CcJDvuMeQMArvpuJKVfRWvmp_IhbS8XRlhiFmtH7EcTQQAYRoCH1IQAvD_BwE

and a bottle or two  of these

https://www.boconline.co.uk/shop/en/uk/carbon-dioxide-size-lk-40-lk?infinity=ict2~net~gaw~ar~295705425023~kw~~mt~~cmp~RM+-+Shopping+-+September+2018+-+Gas+-+UK~ag~Carbon+Dioxide+Cylinder&gclid=CjwKCAiAhp_jBRAxEiwAXbniXcNcI9LbYR4zRw0hERRYhibpi7Ih4hEtLyFwrhU7ChObf0VAAD7JMRoCougQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Get the CO2 levels up to 5000/10000ppm and see how you feel after an hour. 

Actual references to recent studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892924/

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Wastral said:

Sigh... if you bothered to actually read how they obtained the "half life" instead of posting synopsis BS.... you know actual SCIENCE, you will find values range from, months, to 100 years.  Why?  Because it COMPLETELY depends on how you use the variables wind and water roughness of the oceans.  Same reason CO2 sequestration/outgassing in the oceans varies wildly by an order of magnitude. 

Fact is, there is no Methane in the upper atmosphere to speak of even though it is A LIGHT gas.  Even though it is being emitted in massive amounts by animals/bacteria(of course other bacteria eat methane...)  Not to mention CH4 absorbs/emits 100% the exact same frequencies as water vapor where water vapor has 100% absorption to said frequencies and methane only 30%... but science you know..... who needs it....  

If you double the amount of water vapor/methane do you absorb more energy.... NO.  Hey, I know... if you 10000000000X water vapor/methane do you absorb more energy.... duh... no. 

So how did they obtain the half life then - please tell?

So those 100's of studies on the radiative forcing effects of Methane are all wrong and you are right? 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Wastral said:

What a joke.  They see the opportunity for PR and possibly making money due to massive subsidies.

What subsidies would they be? 

Most people on here are absolutely certain the Big Oil Co's get no subsidies but you say otherwise. Please give us more details. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

That research is complete outdated.

If you don't believe me buy one of these https://isswww.co.uk/tsi-airflow-iaq-calc-7545?gclid=CjwKCAiAhp_jBRAxEiwAXbniXV3w86CcJDvuMeQMArvpuJKVfRWvmp_IhbS8XRlhiFmtH7EcTQQAYRoCH1IQAvD_BwE

and a bottle or two  of these

https://www.boconline.co.uk/shop/en/uk/carbon-dioxide-size-lk-40-lk?infinity=ict2~net~gaw~ar~295705425023~kw~~mt~~cmp~RM+-+Shopping+-+September+2018+-+Gas+-+UK~ag~Carbon+Dioxide+Cylinder&gclid=CjwKCAiAhp_jBRAxEiwAXbniXcNcI9LbYR4zRw0hERRYhibpi7Ih4hEtLyFwrhU7ChObf0VAAD7JMRoCougQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Get the CO2 levels up to 5000/10000ppm and see how you feel after an hour. 

Actual references to recent studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892924/

I wholly agree about enclosed or indoor CO2 but don't see a direct correlation to outdoor CO2. High levels of CO2 are mainly found in poorly ventilated buildings or where dry ice is used etc. Plant life is essential to human life because of its production of Oxygen while using CO2.  The bumper crops in our corn and soybean fields just keep getting better. 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by ronwagn

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I wholly agree about enclosed or indoor CO2 but don't see a direct correlation to outdoor CO2. High levels of CO2 are mainly found in poorly ventilated buildings or where dry ice is used etc. Plant life is essential to human life because of its production of Oxygen while using CO2.  The bumper crops in our corn and soybean fields just keep getting better. 

 

As I have said for about 100x on here - providing other limitation factors are met. In the case of above through the provision of fertilisers and irrigation.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

As I have said for about 100x on here - providing other limitation factors are met. In the case of above through the provision of fertilisers and irrigation.

Yes, and real problems include overuse of both fertilizers and pesticides. These are real problems that need to be addressed. There are recent studies that are very concerning regarding plummeting numbers of insects and amphibians. The pollution of the oceans with nitrates is a real concern. CO2 is a lesser concern because plants breathe it and as they flourish they produce more O2. Reclaiming deserts and unproductive land should be goals with high priority. Good forestry management can avoid many wildfires and promote healthy forests which will be used for building materials eventually. Some areas should be left exactly as nature has left them, National Parks, Wilderness Areas etc. Most should be multiple use however. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/8/2019 at 3:18 AM, NickW said:

Try telling this to Ron😉

I recall reading that Dutch glasshouse operators raise CO2 levels to about 800ppm beyond which the effect flattens out irrespective of what other nutrients are input .

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. 

[Red + 252]

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It is common knowledge that plants benefit from high levels of CO2. It is undeniable except to Green fanatics. 

Plants are fine within the exceptionally small range of 300 - 1000ppm CO2.

1000ppm is not a high level.  Plants need millions of years to adapt to higher CO2 concentrations.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

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

http://notrickszone.com/2019/02/13/world-leading-ocean-expert-calls-sea-level-rise-claims-by-climate-scientists-anti-scientific-nonsense/

The Greenies are the ones ignoring reality and real science. It would be nice if we could all try to work out problems in a realistic manner. Natural gas is the best solution for base electricity production. Coal is the worst. This statement is anathema to Greenies. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

24 minutes ago, Red said:

Plants are fine within the exceptionally small range of 300 - 1000ppm CO2.

1000ppm is not a high level.  Plants need millions of years to adapt to higher CO2 concentrations.

It is high in comparison to 410 which is the present number. 

See also: Global warming, Climate change, Atmospheric methane, Holocene climate, and Quaternary climate

 

A model of the behavior of carbon in the atmosphere from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015. The height of Earth's atmosphere and topography have been vertically exaggerated and appear approximately 40 times higher than normal to show the complexity of the atmospheric flow.

 

This visualization shows global carbon dioxide concentrations (colored squares) in parts per million by volume (ppmv).

Carbon dioxide concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO₂ concentration increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.^[11] As of April 2018, the average monthly level of CO₂ in Earth's atmosphere exceeded 410 parts per million.^[12] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO₂ at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013^[13][14] although this concentration had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.^[15] It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) ^{[16][17][4][18][19]} which corresponds to approximately 3200 billion metric tons of CO₂, containing approximately 870 billion metric tons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO₂ in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 billion metric tons of carbon.^[20] The global mean CO₂ concentration is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.^[16][21][22] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppm which is negatively correlated with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO₂ concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations reach a peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins, and decline to a minimum in October, near the end of the growing season.^[22][23]

Since global warming is attributed to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO₂, scientists closely monitor atmospheric CO₂concentrations and their impact on the present-day biosphere. The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history."^[24] The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.^[7]

[Red + 252]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

http://notrickszone.com/2019/02/13/world-leading-ocean-expert-calls-sea-level-rise-claims-by-climate-scientists-anti-scientific-nonsense/

The Greenies are the ones ignoring reality and real science. It would be nice if we could all try to work out problems in a realistic manner. Natural gas is the best solution for base electricity production. Coal is the worst. This statement is anathema to Greenies. 

Ron, you have never at this site been able to respond to my questions on this topic with actual climate science.

Faux fear of "greenies" when matters are of simple economics suggests you do not know a great deal about some of the areas in which you post.  The reason why renewables attract more and more global investment dollars is due to them providing the greater profit when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/15/2019 at 4:14 AM, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Of course you are right, not to mention the fact that an efficient electrified economy would use less than 1/3rd the energy we use now. Two examples, a) Volvo claims that because of zero idling, regenerative braking and 90% vs 30% engine efficiency an electrified service truck uses 1/5th the energy of a diesel truck. b) a coal powered electric hot water heater after mining energy, plant operation and line losses etc uses 15-18 kJ of coal/Litre/C. A heat pump hot water service driven off rooftop solar uses about 280 W.hr or 1 kJ/Litre/C

All of those adaptations can also be used on a hybrid using natural gas, diesel, or gasoline. Unfortunately, batteries are still too expensive and too heavy. I would love to see batteries that could do the job in a cost effective manner. I am a natural gas promoter however. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, Red said:

Ron, you have never at this site been able to respond to my questions on this topic with actual climate science.

Faux fear of "greenies" when matters are of simple economics suggests you do not know a great deal about some of the areas in which you post.  The reason why renewables attract more and more global investment dollars is due to them providing the greater profit when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.

Red, you are so offensive to most on this site that I gave up on most communication with you. I just posted a scientific piece from National Geographic. You are dead wrong about using battery powered electric heavy duty vehicles. Maybe it will happen and I hope it does. Meanwhile natural gas vehicles and hybrids make great sense. You do not consider real facts about the costs of your technologies so time will teach you that cost matters. I am not anti wind or solar but just think that natural gas is a better choice. It also helps reduce carbon. That fact is lost on you because you are not aware of real costs. Just look at Germany which has about the most expensive energy of all large nations. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

That research is complete outdated.

If you don't believe me buy one of these https://isswww.co.uk/tsi-airflow-iaq-calc-7545?gclid=CjwKCAiAhp_jBRAxEiwAXbniXV3w86CcJDvuMeQMArvpuJKVfRWvmp_IhbS8XRlhiFmtH7EcTQQAYRoCH1IQAvD_BwE

and a bottle or two  of these

https://www.boconline.co.uk/shop/en/uk/carbon-dioxide-size-lk-40-lk?infinity=ict2~net~gaw~ar~295705425023~kw~~mt~~cmp~RM+-+Shopping+-+September+2018+-+Gas+-+UK~ag~Carbon+Dioxide+Cylinder&gclid=CjwKCAiAhp_jBRAxEiwAXbniXcNcI9LbYR4zRw0hERRYhibpi7Ih4hEtLyFwrhU7ChObf0VAAD7JMRoCougQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Get the CO2 levels up to 5000/10000ppm and see how you feel after an hour. 

Actual references to recent studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892924/

At 74 years old with cardiovascular issues I am very aware of the necessity for good air. About the only place I have to avoid is casinos or other places that allow smoking. I have not ever been in any other building that was a problem for me, but ventilation is vital. I do need to move slowly at very high altitudes but do still enjoy the mountains. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by ronwagn

[Red + 252]

 

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

red comments are mine

Red, you are so offensive to most on this site that I gave up on most communication with you. I regularly link the science that backs my claims and this causes many, like you, offence?

I just posted a scientific piece from National Geographic.  It confirmed what we knew - so what?

You are dead wrong about using battery powered electric heavy duty vehicles.  Not something I have claimed - in fact I have said hydrogen is possibly a better alternative Maybe it will happen and I hope it does. Meanwhile natural gas vehicles and hybrids make great sense.

You do not consider real facts about the costs of your technologies so time will teach you that cost matters.  I use the best available information on LCOE.

I am not anti wind or solar but just think that natural gas is a better choice. It also helps reduce carbon. Not when compared to renewables.That fact is lost on you because you are not aware of real costs.   Again, I use the best available data on costs. Just look at Germany which has about the most expensive energy of all large nations.  I get that claim time and again - it's false in respect of renewables as the cause.  But I will give you a chance to prove me wrong.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Red
germaine points

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

That fact is lost on you because you are not aware of real costs. Just look at Germany which has about the most expensive energy of all large nations.

In the absence of anything from you to back your claim, here are the facts in terms of cost of energy, based on January data for Europe:

"In addition to the lack of power plant output in Belgium and the United Kingdom, low electricity prices in Germany are one reason for the high German electricity exports. The average day-ahead stock market price in Germany in January was € 49.39 / MWh or 4.9 cents / kWh. This is significantly lower than in all direct neighboring countries. The highest prices in Switzerland were 62.33 € / MWh."

It's important to distinguish what nations pay for energy rather than what households pay after governments have mitigated costs to consumers.

[Arjun + 39]

On 2/4/2019 at 9:21 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Bonus article from the wags at ZeroHedge:

Winter Is Wreaking Havoc On Electric Vehicles

If there’s one thing electric vehicle owners are learning, it is that extremely cold temperatures are likely going to lead to frustration if they don’t take extra special care of their battery powered vehicles. Look at it as just another added benefit to "saving the world".

As we push through the cold that automakers are using as an excuse for poor sales this winter, customers of some companies – notably Tesla – are starting to realize that things are a little bit different with electric vehicles in the winter. Disgruntled owners of Model 3s have been widespread on social media and online forums, talking about numerous issues they’ve had with cold weather on their vehicles. People have complained about battery range draining and Model 3 door handles freezing up. ...

Shocking! Or as Alexandria "Occasionally thinks" Cortez - AKA Red Cortez would say : Millions of alligators are being slaughtered to make gatorade, we need to stop that!

[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. 

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.