This is the real reason to move away from fossil fuels

[Crazyhole]

Part of the UN study last decade got seriously debunked because they only looked at 25 year temperatures of western Europe and the eastern US, which is completely explained by North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). There is also a reason why the gulf stream is slowing down, as it did in the '70s too, and even more so in the '30s.

I.e., this current NAO 'cold cycle' of the '10s is more like the '30s, than the '70s. It's going to get worse into the early '20s, just like it did in the early '40s as well.

E.g., the winters like those during Operation Barbossa are coming. And the US and even the Atlantic seaboard had hurricane seasons and northerly pushes in the '30s just like we had in the '70s, including a Cat-5 hit Tampa directly in '35.

Anyone who doesn't factor that in deserves to be proven wrong, as part of the UN study was within 10 years.

At the same time, the other half of the UN study isn't wrong. We're warming up, and it's CO2-related because of man. That's the thing, you have to look at this over centuries, not just years.

I'm not entirely sold on the premise that it's man-made, but quite honestly that isn't my biggest gripe about it. It's the doomsday predictions that keep passing without happening and the entire premise that warmer temps = devastation, famine, etc. Last I checked, we are still told that the earth had much higher temps in the past and life went on. Some species adapt and thrive, others don't. Humanity is the most resilient species in our history so I am pretty confident that we'll make it.

 

[UCFWayne]

You do realize that your source agrees with mine..and proves your statement 100% wrong? Right? USA is #2 in CO2 production. That is not insignificant.



Maybe because no one was talking about plastic waste to begin with, and you just completely changed the subject? Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong, just like your statement about India being the biggest producer of CO2.

Maybe try educating yourself instead of blindly following your parties lines on this matter.

I never said the us wasnt #2 ninja. way to put words in my mouth and then argue against things i didnt actually say.

i never said india was the biggest producer of c02. i said india and asia as whole produce the most. for someone who proclaims themselves to have a superior intellect your reading comprehension sucks.

i notice you didnt really dispute the math though...

the plastic part is relevant because alot of these countries simply dont have accurate ways of reporting the information. considering how much of the trash these countries produce simply get burned or burried or get this... thrown into rivers. not much of this crap gets reported up. so the data isnt great and because of that the full picture isnt able to be seen.

this problem is extremely complex and people like you who come in here telling everyone else they are stupid only hurts the ability of making significant change. bravo.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I never said the us wasnt #2 ninja. way to put words in my mouth and then argue against things i didnt actually say.

i never said india was the biggest producer of c02. i said india and asia as whole produce the most. for someone who proclaims themselves to have a superior intellect your reading comprehension sucks.

i notice you didnt really dispute the math though...

the plastic part is relevant because alot of these countries simply dont have accurate ways of reporting the information. considering how much of the trash these countries produce simply get burned or burried or get this... thrown into rivers. not much of this crap gets reported up. so the data isnt great and because of that the full picture isnt able to be seen.

this problem is extremely complex and people like you who come in here telling everyone else they are stupid only hurts the ability of making significant change. bravo.

lol, no need to get all pissy because you got called out on bullshit. You either:

1) knowingly tried to downplay the US's contribution to global warming.
2) (more likely) didn't know the US was #2 in CO2 production because you swallow your parties garbage hook line and sinker

I didn't even bring up US or the Paris treaty, that was all you. All I'm saying is something needs to be done.

 

[UCFBS]

You do realize that your source agrees with mine..and proves your statement 100% wrong? Right? USA is #2 in CO2 production. That is not insignificant.

The China and US have similar land masses (#4-5), which is a heavy, contributing factor. China is only behind on standard of living in rural areas, which is why China is increasing as more gain access. That's why their per-capita, held artificially low by 2/3rds to 3/4ths of their country still living non-industrial, is skyrocketing, and will only get worse.

Maybe because no one was talking about plastic waste to begin with, and you just completely changed the subject?

Actually, there are multiple, unrelated items in this thread already. Again, CO2 != particulate matter.

Sans the fact that increased particulate matter does reduce the greenhouse effect. To me, particulate matter is the bigger enemy, so we have to address it, and we have for the past half-century. But it's also why we've accelerated the greenhouse effect from the '70s to now, worse than it was the prior century of the industrial revolution.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong, just like your statement about India being the biggest producer of CO2.

India, per-capita industrial, is a massive producer, both CO2 and, worse yet (like China), particulate matter. Should India ever get more people living in better conditions, they will fly past China. But that's unlikely, given the lack of jobs and opportunity.

What India is doing is trying to get their particulate matter under control.

Maybe try educating yourself instead of blindly following your parties lines on this matter.

You're picking and choosing arguments as well. That's why I've largely bowed out of these.

That and I'm tired of EU nations individually looking at aggregate total, instead of per-capita. This includes Canada as well. Canada does not have much of an argument against the US per-capita, as they are even more spread out. Australia is a mix.

 

[UCFBS]

All I'm saying is something needs to be done.

Which is why environmental policy is getting worse in the US. The 'Church of Popular Environmentalism' is making things worse out of 'something needs to be done.'

Even the Swiss make fun of our Progressives for this reason. They are actually more capitalist in their approach ... which works.

Until American consumers actually take responsibility for their consumption and resulting impact, it will not get better. Even the Germans are going more Swiss-route. Their legislation has largely failed, especially in their auto industry.

Consumers having to care with their pocketbooks, instead of playing special interest games in blaming others, is the solution. The Obama administration has made this a joke, like Clinton before.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Target, Amazon, Apple and other corporations are installing more solar panels onsite than ever to save money on their power bills and meet their sustainability goals. Large U.S. corporations installed 326 megawatts of solar panels in 2017, up 2 percent from 2016, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Target completed more than 43 megawatts of solar-panel installations last year, by far the most that any other company installed in 2017. The giant retailer has panels installed at 425 locations and aims to install panels at 75 more, to reach its goal of generating solar power at 500 buildings by 2020. Target stores that have panels use the power they generate for between 15 percent and 30 percent of the electricity the stores consume, said Target spokesman Lee Henderson.

"It saves us money, it saves us energy and it does good by the local communities," he said. "We’re really focused on the planet and wanting to do things today that will ensure that we’re around tomorrow, for the business and for the planet."

The Minneapolis-based company also has installed electric storage batteries, along with solar panels, at six of its seven stores in Hawaii: in Honolulu; Kailua; Kahului; Kapolei; Hilo; and Kailua Kona.

Amazon, which ranked third for 2017 corporate solar installations, added 17.5 megawatts of on-site solar in 2017, toward its goal to install at least 50 solar systems on the rooftops of the company’s fulfillment and sortation centers by 2020.

Power generation from U.S. non-utility small-scale solar installations, as a group, jumped more than 30 percent this year through February, to more than 3,400 gigawatt-hours, compared to a year earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. More companies are installing batteries and panels together, particularly in California and Hawaii, as a way to save on their power bills and respond to local regulations.

More than half of the commercial solar-panel and solar-plus-storage systems installed in 2017 were financed and owned by third parties, while the rest were owned by the property owners, according to an April report by GTM Research.

The price of a commercial solar system was about $1.50 a watt, or $150,000 for a 100-kilowatt installation, on average, as of the end of 2017, slightly below the average price a year earlier, according to a March report by SEIA and GTM Research.

U.S. developers installed more than 2,100 megawatts of commercial and other non-residential solar projects in 2017, up 28 percent from the previous year, according to the report.

Going forward, new solar installations are widely expected to grow at a much slower pace than in previous years, due to tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed in January on imported solar panels and cells, the devices inside the panels that convert sunlight into electricity. The tariffs start at 30 percent this year, and decline by 5 percent a year, to 15 percent in 2021.

More than 130 companies have pledged to go 100 percent renewable, as part of their sustainability goals, according to RE100, and those companies widely are expected to continue to buy solar and other renewable power, regardless of market changes.

 

[sk8knight]

Seeing first-hand the air pollution coming from China as it travels across SE Asia, I find it hard to believe that China is not in the lead in any of these studies. They've been caught reporting false data before and there's no reason to think they aren't doing it now. Which is part of the problem when we start talking about making radical global policy changes.

Everyone in this thread is talking about air pollution as if that is the only variable when our energy solutions and their impacts are, in fact, far more complicated than that. For example, there are recycling costs involved in batteries, groundwater contamination risks, and we are starting to see studies that there may be long-term health risks involved in some of the battery technologies. As usual though, we're charging headlong into it without the full understanding of where we are going.

I think it's going to end up being a mixed solution. Fossil fuels are great for local (individual) generation of power as needed when using a community (individual) grid is impractical or impossible. Rather than straight-up demonizing them, we should scale back responsibly and continue to research cleaner methods of utilizing fossil fuels in generators and small engines.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Fossil fuels are great for local (individual) generation of power as needed when using a community (individual) grid is impractical or impossible. Rather than straight-up demonizing them, we should scale back responsibly and continue to research cleaner methods of utilizing fossil fuels in generators and small engines.

Actually microgrids that utilize clean tech with battery storage are ideal for off-grid/low-grid communities.

 

[sk8knight]

Actually microgrids that utilize clean tech with battery storage are ideal for off-grid/low-grid communities.

Yes, but your "clean" isn't really clean. You have totally avoided toxicity of solar panel technology (much less the toxicity of batteries); in the production and the waste disposal of spent panels. By some accounts, solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear plants. As of now, there are few national plans for dealing with this waste production. The recycling technologies are still insufficient, meaning that there will be far more waste generated than can be recycled even if production doesn't ramp up from current rates.

Hopefully, innovation will render all of this moot. But you really can't argue for one side of it as if there isn't another side. And the policy makers shouldn't be rushing from one technology to another without regard for all of the variables.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Yes, but your "clean" isn't really clean. You have totally avoided toxicity of solar panel technology (much less the toxicity of batteries); in the production and the waste disposal of spent panels. By some accounts, solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear plants. As of now, there are few national plans for dealing with this waste production. The recycling technologies are still insufficient, meaning that there will be far more waste generated than can be recycled even if production doesn't ramp up from current rates.

Hopefully, innovation will render all of this moot. But you really can't argue for one side of it as if there isn't another side. And the policy makers shouldn't be rushing from one technology to another without regard for all of the variables.

Hold on, you were talking about local/distributed power generation and now you're talking about nuclear. Which topic would you like to discuss? I'm nuclear friendly. I also think that natural gas has a place in the energy mix, although I'm not enamored with some methods of extraction. On the sole topic of microgrids, you're far better off with a mix of clean energy that includes nat gas, solar, wind and battery storage.

There is no panacea in production of energy; but, I'll take solar and wind over coal and diesel every day of the week.

 

[sk8knight]

Hold on, you were talking about local/distributed power generation and now you're talking about nuclear. Which topic would you like to discuss? I'm nuclear friendly. I also think that natural gas has a place in the energy mix, although I'm not enamored with some methods of extraction. On the sole topic of microgrids, you're far better off with a mix of clean energy that includes nat gas, solar, wind and battery storage.

There is no panacea in production of energy; but, I'll take solar and wind over coal and diesel every day of the week.

The point I was trying to make is that there are issues with solar that are being ignored. Nuclear was the first comparison I had at hand but it did jump my thread around. I'm all for future but, again, we need to acknowledge and plan for the negatives as we adopt "clean" technologies.

I do have some anecdotal experience with this: I work with Army organizations that deploy out on military and humanitarian missions and they are experimenting with portable solar but it their systems aren't yet at the point where they are strong enough or rugged enough to suffice for full-scale deployments. Fossil fuels provide them strong on-demand power anywhere regardless of weather conditions in any location. Given the infrastructure investment, you're not going to simply replace all of that easily even if the technology was ready at this given moment.

I will say, the device and man-portable solutions that we had at my last ATD were great. But they weren't running the server box truck, the STT's, or any of the other high-power needs capabilities.

 

[SublimeKnight]

I'm always amazed that people fall for the "long tailpipe" argument.

People will keep digging deeper and deeper into the construction of EVs or solar panels to find any degree of pollution. Then they compare them to conventional counterparts where their raw materials and consumables just magically pop into existence.

My favorite is when they say, "An EV plugged into a grid fueled by coal gives off (making up a number) 95% of the CO2 of fuel efficient gas car". When you read the numbers, they account for the emissions of the electricity production, down to the methane the guy at the power plant farts out. The gasoline is somehow delivered into the tank of the gas car by pixie dust, because they don't account for transporting, pumping it, or and here's the big one, refining it.

 

[UCFBS]

Actually microgrids that utilize clean tech with battery storage are ideal for off-grid/low-grid communities.

Agreed.

Solar is the ultimate, end-point, self-generation solution, that almost works everywhere (with varying differences, based on climate) as a fixed investment. The investment requires area, but not much else. It can also be used for heat generation too, along with geo-thermal (which is often an overlooked investment). This is unlike fossil fuels and other 'plants,' which affect the surrounding area, and have far more logistical (potential energy importation) requirements.

Now most facilities don't put 'all-their-eggs-in-one-basket' and have a large, diesel plant, or even hydrogen fuel cells, or some other solution, as a backup. But solar is an excellent, primary solution.

The point I was trying to make is that there are issues with solar that are being ignored.

Agreed as well. There is no 0 impact solution.

However, when it comes to end-point generation, end-point being ideal because it's at the location of use, which means mitigating transmission loss and other logistics, solar is most ideal, if the space is there.

Wind is next, but has far, far more impact on the local area, even if far more efficient per area used.

I do have some anecdotal experience with this: I work with Army organizations that deploy out on military and humanitarian missions and they are experimenting with portable solar but it their systems aren't yet at the point where they are strong enough or rugged enough to suffice for full-scale deployments.

No one is saying solar (or wind for that matter) is ideal everywhere, and neither are very 'portable.' But for fixed-local investments at the end-point, solar is pretty ideal.

There is initial cost and much initial 'waste' in the grand scheme of things, but after 15 years, it's quite the 'bonus' versus 15 years of the added logistics (even before we talk emissions) of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels provide them strong on-demand power anywhere regardless of weather conditions in any location. Given the infrastructure investment, you're not going to simply replace all of that easily even if the technology was ready at this given moment.

Which is why military and portable solutions will always use them. It's really a simple case of thermodynamics -- put your hand in the sun v. put your hand in a flame. No comparison.

But for fixed-local investments, solar (and wind, where applicable) are outstanding, 15+ year investments in comparison.

I'm always amazed that people fall for the "long tailpipe" argument.

That's not what @sk8knight was saying at all!

He was merely pointing out that there are many applications where fossil fuels will still rule. Portable, potential energy -- of which fossil fuels are, by far, still the best (nuclear has greater, but has so many other requirements) -- and neither wind nor solar will ever best them. And neither wind nor solar are portable in an usable reality. That's why even the ESA, NASA and others use RTGs, unless the device is so low-power, so little mobility, solar becomes feasible.

There is just only so much energy from solar photons, and no 'we just need more efficient solar panels' argument will. That's the same BS as 'we just need faster charging eV cars,' when the problem isn't charging, but the sheer amount of energy required and involved in automobiles.

If you don't believe me, argue with Einstein -- he won't the Nobel Prize for it (yes, not relativity).

People will keep digging deeper and deeper into the construction of EVs or solar panels to find any degree of pollution.

Because people ignore there is impact in any solution.

Now there are some quite 'clean' solar panel designs, but they are not remotely as efficient. So we build far more 'nasty' ones. But just in a few years, it's worth that 'initial impact.'

Then they compare them to conventional counterparts where their raw materials and consumables just magically pop into existence.

And 'Popular Environmentalists' ignore the fact that electric engines have some rather exotic components that aren't everyday too. I have to point that out too many times, and people think I'm a right-winger ... no, just a degreed EE!

I mean, there's a reason why most eVs have an engine -- alone -- that costs far more than the entire ICE car ... a nice one!

That said ... with China cutting off Japan from rare Earth metals, we finally do have a new electric engine capable of high output that does not require most of them now. So we're seeing some new innovation on this front.

My favorite is when they say, "An EV plugged into a grid fueled by coal gives off (making up a number) 95% of the CO2 of fuel efficient gas car". When you read the numbers, they account for the emissions of the electricity production, down to the methane the guy at the power plant farts out. The gasoline is somehow delivered into the tank of the gas car by pixie dust, because they don't account for transporting, pumping it, or and here's the big one, refining it.

Methane != CO2 -- Don't talk out of your (pun)@$$(pun)

More seriously now, here's the deal ...
- It's still reduced overall emissions to use even a fossil fuel plant to generate the electricity for an eV because power plants have far more filtration than an ICE
However ...
- The CO2 generated can actually be worse by using a fossil fuel plant, for an eV, than just using fossil fuels in an ICE vehicle -- especially natural gas

So, sorry, but that's actually a very true argument. We do not want a power grid of fossil fuels generating electricity for eVs. Sorry. Furthermore ...

There is also transmission loss and other things that occur ... which goes back to endpoint generation. The more businesses and homes are generating electricity close to where they use it, the better. We should do everything we can to encourage eV owners to have local power, and everyone in general too as well.

Now we do want to get to eVs eventually. But we should get there after much of the power grid is renovated. Doing so beforehand is a major impact not only on the power grid, but can actually result in more CO2 being used, because we haven't mitigated fossil fuels and those logistics.

North America's powergrid will be 30% solar-wind by 2040, and the EU 40%, largely because the EU has no shale for natural gas-petroleum like North America, hence their rush.

Again, I'm all for solar and wind, but 'Popular Environmentalism' has resulted in people believing things are right-winger non-sense, when they are -- in fact -- often true.

 

[sk8knight]

Agreed.Again, I'm all for solar and wind, but 'Popular Environmentalism' has resulted in people believing things are ring-winger non-sense, when they are -- in fact -- often true.

WTF is "ring-winger"?

 

[UCFBS]

WTF is "ring-winger"?

It's someone who can't spell.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Hmm...

It’s as if Apple started using a Microsoft operating system.

Exxon, one of the world’s largest oil-and-gas corporations, put out a request-for-proposal for contracts on at least 100 MW of solar and wind power, and possibly up to 250 MW for the right contracts.

The contracts would be for between 12 and 20 years long, according to Bloomberg reporters who have seen the confidential RFP. It’s also unclear whether the power is intended to fuel the company’s Irving, Texas, headquarters or whether Exxon would re-sell the power to other offtakers.

It’s not unusual to see oil companies dabble in renewable energy. After all, as Bloomberg points out, Shell and BP have already (re)entered the solar markets and are actively exploring entering wind. But Exxon, the legacy company of John D. Rockefeller’s oil conglomerate, has long held to the precept that it should stick with what it knows.

There is no indication of what has changed the company’s mind, but if Exxon joins the renewable revolution, its importance can’t be overestimated. As Kyle Harrison, a New York-based analyst at Bloomberg NEF, said:

"I have never seen an oil and gas company doing a corporate PPA anywhere near that size. If you’re seeing the biggest oil and gas companies going out and making investments in clean energy, it shows that renewables are cost-competitive. This can be a way for them to show a commitment to sustainability without suffering economically."

It would indeed be something of a game-changer, particularly in Texas (where the RFP is for). Texas is one of the largest wind-producing states in the country, and even solar is becoming cost-competitive with coal in the Lone Star State. What a revolution it would be to see this once and future oil capital of the world slowly but surely move on toward a renewable future. You’d expect that kind of future in states like California and Arizona (and even Massachusetts). But in Texas? A move to renewables – especially by a company like Exxon – would really change the conversation around renewable energy, in the best way possible.

 

[NinjaKnight]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals

Impact of high levels of toxic air ‘is equivalent to having lost a year of education’

Only a year? Seems awfully conservative after spending time on this board (pun intended).

 

[NinjaKnight]

New reason: snow crabs will probably be extinct within the decade. Population declines by 90% (!!!) and Alaska just canceled the entire harvesting season. No more tasty crab legs.

Alaska cancels snow crab season, threatening key economic driver

Scientists are still evaluating the cause or causes of the snow crab collapse after a stretch of record-breaking warmth in Bering Sea waters spiked in 2019.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Nautiknight]

Inhaling vehicle exhaust is not healthy . All these companies installing solar or wind, cool , go for it . That's the free market at work. I think we should build more nuclear facilities that generate power 24/7 with no carbon emissions and they don't stop if the wind stops or at night. We should embrace a do it all approach for energy.

I think the market ,not government should push innovation on EVs and such. Electric motors do generate significantly more torque and power than combustion motors. The gap is this. Lithium versus octane is interesting. Octane is 330 times more energy dense than lithium battery tech per pound or material. Gas and Diesel engines do a lot of work on trucks, tractors and ships and trains . Lithium woks great getting around town but electric trucks and tractors (farm equipment) are not practical for industrial type applications. The battery technology can't produce enough juice to say plow a field all day or haul all that crap from an Amazon fulfillment center across country .

I would buy an EV Toyota Tundra ( if they made It) that could get me 600 miles of range towing a load of 7,000 to 10,000 pounds . I use my Tundra for work and play and I tow everything from a boat to a utility cargo trailer. I both need and want a vehicle that can haul stuff .

Lastly,. Oil that dirty no good for nothing sludge is the heart and soul of the industrial revolution and the majority of advances in the 20th century. Those cool space game uniforms we saw last night are largely made from oil. That iPhone on your hand is heavily made from oil. The plastics in the Tesla you drive and the tires it rolls on and the interior seats and carpet and such all from oil.

We need to distinguish here between saying weaning off of coal and building more nuclear and the renewables stuff versus killing the oil industry all together . Oil saves lives. It currently saves more lives than the pollution takes. Watch what happens when winter comes and European and American homes suffer from heating oil shortages and price hikes. More people die from cold every year than hot weather. American hospitals and their state of the art surgical rooms are outfitted with sterile plastics and advanced hepa air filtration systems all made from oil. I will grant you that air pollution causes lung disease and such but all those heart surgeries using plastic catheters save significantly more lives.

I am not anti EV or Anti Green but our way of life in 2022 is made possible because of petroleum. We don't want to kill that industry . I don't know about you but I have no desire to live like it's 1822 because without oil that's kind of how it will be.

I would also suggest this. Oil drives our farms with advanced equipment and it's combined with other minerals like phosphate to make fertilizers . Without modern farming the world starves . Ok, maybe what I should say is because of oil and industrial farming the world's population has grown beyond what 18th century agriculture could produce. So because of oil the earth's carrying capacity, or k, as biologist like to say, is greatly elevated . If you take away oil and K drops , you will see massive famine.

So, sure ICE motors produce air pollution and some people will die and get sick from it. Those sane ice motors powering our farms , trucks and ships bring significantly more food to more people globally extending their lives . I am curious if you add up all the benefits of petroleum to mankind and weigh the negatives which column gives us net cost or net benefit? Petroleum has in my estimation been a significantly more positive thing for humanity than a negative especially from medicine and food perspective .

Buy an EV, put solar on your roof and do all that. It is good for whole variety of reasons. Be careful though about the idea of killing the oil industry because solar panels won't help us grow more food and they can't be put into your heart to open up those arteries .

 

[Heupelupthemiddle]

Inhaling vehicle exhaust is not healthy . All these companies installing solar or wind, cool , go for it . That's the free market at work. I think we should build more nuclear facilities that generate power 24/7 with no carbon emissions and they don't stop if the wind stops or at night. We should embrace a do it all approach for energy.

I think the market ,not government should push innovation on EVs and such. Electric motors do generate significantly more torque and power than combustion motors. The gap is this. Lithium versus octane is interesting. Octane is 330 times more energy dense than lithium battery tech per pound or material. Gas and Diesel engines do a lot of work on trucks, tractors and ships and trains . Lithium woks great getting around town but electric trucks and tractors (farm equipment) are not practical for industrial type applications. The battery technology can't produce enough juice to say plow a field all day or haul all that crap from an Amazon fulfillment center across country .

I would buy an EV Toyota Tundra ( if they made It) that could get me 600 miles of range towing a load of 7,000 to 10,000 pounds . I use my Tundra for work and play and I tow everything from a boat to a utility cargo trailer. I both need and want a vehicle that can haul stuff .

Lastly,. Oil that dirty no good for nothing sludge is the heart and soul of the industrial revolution and the majority of advances in the 20th century. Those cool space game uniforms we saw last night are largely made from oil. That iPhone on your hand is heavily made from oil. The plastics in the Tesla you drive and the tires it rolls on and the interior seats and carpet and such all from oil.

We need to distinguish here between saying weaning off of coal and building more nuclear and the renewables stuff versus killing the oil industry all together . Oil saves lives. It currently saves more lives than the pollution takes. Watch what happens when winter comes and European and American homes suffer from heating oil shortages and price hikes. More people die from cold every year than hot weather. American hospitals and their state of the art surgical rooms are outfitted with sterile plastics and advanced hepa air filtration systems all made from oil. I will grant you that air pollution causes lung disease and such but all those heart surgeries using plastic catheters save significantly more lives.

I am not anti EV or Anti Green but our way of life in 2022 is made possible because of petroleum. We don't want to kill that industry . I don't know about you but I have no desire to live like it's 1822 because without oil that's kind of how it will be.

I would also suggest this. Oil drives our farms with advanced equipment and it's combined with other minerals like phosphate to make fertilizers . Without modern farming the world starves . Ok, maybe what I should say is because of oil and industrial farming the world's population has grown beyond what 18th century agriculture could produce. So because of oil the earth's carrying capacity, or k, as biologist like to say, is greatly elevated . If you take away oil and K drops , you will see massive famine.

So, sure ICE motors produce air pollution and some people will die and get sick from it. Those sane ice motors powering our farms , trucks and ships bring significantly more food to more people globally extending their lives . I am curious if you add up all the benefits of petroleum to mankind and weigh the negatives which column gives us net cost or net benefit? Petroleum has in my estimation been a significantly more positive thing for humanity than a negative especially from medicine and food perspective .

Buy an EV, put solar on your roof and do all that. It is good for whole variety of reasons. Be careful though about the idea of killing the oil industry because solar panels won't help us grow more food and they can't be put into your heart to open up those arteries .

What are you babbling about? You have to be the absolute dumbest poster in here. You just posted a manifesto consisting of 3rd grade grammatically incorrect, gibberish in which you brag insecurely once again about how lavish of a life that you’re living because you own a Toyota Tundra, a boat and a utility cargo trailer to hall cow manure. Your post makes no sense and takes no stand. Are you drunk or taking quaaludes @Nautiknight ?

 

[Nautiknight]

What are you babbling about? You have to be the absolute dumbest poster in here. You just posted a manifesto consisting of 3rd grade grammatically incorrect, gibberish in which you brag insecurely once again about how lavish of a life that you’re living because you own a Toyota Tundra, a boat and a utility cargo trailer to hall cow manure. Your post makes no sense and takes no stand. Are you drunk or taking quaaludes @Nautiknight ?

I agree with the sentiment of the exhaust created by an internal combustion engine is not something you want to inhale. I agree with Duke energy investing in solar .

I was off on my numbers on octane versus lithium. I was pulling a number from my head from a video I saw a few months back.

I am however, not off, on the benefits of petroleum . Oil is in everything or almost everything you buy and own from clothes to the plastics in your home, the operating room and oil is key to farming from fuel, fertilizers and unfortunately pesticides. Oil is used to make solar panels . It's is in the composite materials used to make wind turbines .

I inject what I know as a consumer into my observations. Yah, I live in the country and drive a 2008 pick up truck. I recognize all the contractors, plumbers, handymen, farmers and the such need , for their jobs , vehicles that haul heavy loads and do it at some distances. Without the trucking industry this country is set back 100 years . There is zero EV technology that can replace a semi truck .

I am sorry you don't understand organic chemistry and realize the huge advancements of the 20th century are directly related to our ability to take crude oil and make stuff from it, feed the world from it and so forth. Perhaps you should research how we get lithium from ore ? It is far from environmentally friendly but since it happens in China and Pakistan and places like that you don't have to worry about it.

There are trade offs to all energy sources . You can't get something from nothing.

I am all for advancing technology and I recognize the limits of it.

70% of our electric power is from coal . I agree we should get off of coal because we need coal to make structural steel . I have family in the nuclear industry and I am a huge proponent of it. We spend billions training and operating nuclear power plants on ships in the US Navy , I think we can do it really safe on the land . There are limits to solar and wind . I am sorry you can't see it. I am not in the power industry so if Duke and all these companies want to invest in it, so be it .

Here is a good video on internal combustion engines and EVs .

 

[Nautiknight]

What are you babbling about? You have to be the absolute dumbest poster in here. You just posted a manifesto consisting of 3rd grade grammatically incorrect, gibberish in which you brag insecurely once again about how lavish of a life that you’re living because you own a Toyota Tundra, a boat and a utility cargo trailer to hall cow manure. Your post makes no sense and takes no stand. Are you drunk or taking quaaludes @Nautiknight ?

I agree with the sentiment of the exhaust created by an internal combustion engine is not something you want to inhale. I agree with Duke energy investing in solar .

I was off on my numbers on octane versus lithium. I was pulling a number from my head from a video I saw a few months back.

I am however, not off, on the benefits of petroleum . Oil is in everything or almost everything you buy and own from clothes to the plastics in your home, the operating room and oil is key to farming from fuel, fertilizers and unfortunately pesticides. Oil is used to make solar panels . It's is on the composite materials used to make wind turbines .

I inject what I know as a consumer into my observations. Yah, I live in the country and drive a 2008 pick up truck. I recognize all the contractors, plumbers, handymen, farmers and the such need , for their jobs , vehicles that haul heavy loads and do it at some distances. Without the trucking industry this country is set back 100 years . There is zero EV technology that can replace a semi truck at the present time .

I am sorry you don't understand organic chemistry and realize the huge advancements of the 20th century are directly related to our ability to take crude oil and make stuff from it, feed the world from it and so forth. Perhaps you should research how we get lithium from ore ? It is far from environmentally friendly but since it happens in China and Pakistan and places like that you don't have to worry about it.

There are trade offs to all energy sources . You can't get something from nothing.

I am all for advancing technology and I recognize the limits of it.

70% of our electric power is from coal . I agree we should get off of coal because we need coal to make structural steel . I have family in the nuclear industry and I am a huge proponent of it. We spend billions training and operating nuclear power plants on ships in the US Navy , I think we can do really safe on the land . There are limits to solar and wind . I am sorry you can't see it. I am not in the power industry so if Duke and all these companies want to invest in it, so be it .

Here is a good video on internal combustion engines and EVs .

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

What are you babbling about? You have to be the absolute dumbest poster in here. You just posted a manifesto consisting of 3rd grade grammatically incorrect, gibberish in which you brag insecurely once again about how lavish of a life that you’re living because you own a Toyota Tundra, a boat and a utility cargo trailer to hall cow manure. Your post makes no sense and takes no stand. Are you drunk or taking quaaludes @Nautiknight ?

You summed up 99% of his posts perfectly. He never misses an opportunity to tell everyone about all the shit he owns because he’s been sooooooo successful peddling chocolate. But he doesn’t drink, amazingly. He’s just that dopey and awkward at life.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

New reason: snow crabs will probably be extinct within the decade. Population declines by 90% (!!!) and Alaska just canceled the entire harvesting season. No more tasty crab legs.

Alaska cancels snow crab season, threatening key economic driver

Scientists are still evaluating the cause or causes of the snow crab collapse after a stretch of record-breaking warmth in Bering Sea waters spiked in 2019.

www.nbcnews.com

So Jameis was just getting stocked up before the shortage. It all makes sense now.

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

Science Direct aka left wing socialist rag

coo koo, coo koo

 

[DaShuckster]

I am all for advancing technology and I recognize the limits of it.

The groundbreaking news we've heard this week that scientists have developed a new form of fusion-based energy from lasers means that we're probably a decade away from a new form of clean energy that will eventually make fossil fuels obsolete.

U.S. Scientists Confirm Major Breakthrough In Nuclear Fusion Energy

Researchers just got closer than anyone has before to replicating the reaction that fuels the sun — but you might not want to get overly excited just yet.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

To;Dr - crap in the air kills you.

A new study shows that, on average, an increase in pollution particles in the air of 10 micrograms per cubic meter cuts victims' life expectancy by 9-11 years - more than previously thought.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X17301693?via=ihub

I used to measure air quality for Pratt & Whitney jet engine testing. So many cities have such health problem causing air quality. And you're correct, it's getting worse in a non-linear fashion!

 

[goodknightfl]

Invest in Pixie dust. Lost boys mine digging it up at record rates. Think happy thoughts.

 

[UCFBS]

Invest in Pixie dust. Lost boys mine digging it up at record rates. Think happy thoughts.

It's funny how the Church of Popular Energy/Environmentalism/Science only looks at half the pollution, because the 'other half' is 'Green Pollution' and fine ... until it's a massive problem 20+ years from now.

There is no worse Greenwashing right now that what lobbying and the oligarchy are pushing. Americans stupidly think there is no impact to some types of consumption. There is always impact ... always.