Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[R-T-B]

"Carbon based fuel." Fuel implies burning. What is the result of burning carbon? Carbon oxides, including carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is about 0.04% of the air. Even if it reached 0.2% it's not really going to change much.

Name one carbon based fuel that when burned does not produce other polutants.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Modern diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines with catalytic converters. Yes, if the room is not ventilated, the air can become poisonous in time but such is also the case of a human breathing in an air tight space. The diesel and gasoline products are purified hydrocarbon chains so there's not much in the way of pollutants in it.

The same is also mostly true of "clean coal" which uses environmental scrubers to pull the pollutants out of the exhaust and properly dispose of it.

 

[Vya Domus]

Name one carbon based fuel that when burned does not produce other polutants.

Well, name any sort of fuel of any type that doesn't produce some sort of pollutant through it's production/processing.

 

[R-T-B]

Well, name any sort of fuel of any type that doesn't produce some sort of pollutant through it's production/processing.

Hydroelectric. Wind. Solar. Nuclear if atmospheric is all we are counting.

 

[Vya Domus]

Hydroelectric. Wind. Solar. Nuclear if atmospheric is all we are counting.

What about the plants you need to build and all the technology required that goes into it ? That doesn't come with no cost in terms of pollution, people always exclude that from the equation. When you really start looking into it, nothing is truly 100% clean.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Hydroelectric. Wind. Solar. Nuclear if atmospheric is all we are counting.

Hydroelectric, wind, and solar cause massive ecological damage as well: hydroelectric via dams destroying habitats in front (raises water level) and behind (lowers water level) the placement of the dam, wind kills an enormous amount of birds, and solar is literally replacing the surface of the planet with absorptive (causes local warming) plans of silicon. Wind turbines require an enormous investment in metals for how much energy they produce, solar requires an enormous investment in silicon for the amount of energy they produce, and hydroelectric dams...most nations already dammed all that is reasonable to dam, there's no means to expand it to meet growing energy requirements.

What about the plants you need to build and all the technology required that goes into it ? That doesn't come with no cost in terms of pollution, people always exclude that from the equation. When you really start looking into it, nothing is truly 100% clean.

Only fusion comes damn close. There's still materials required for construction but the amount of energy that comes out of it is staggering. Fission is the next best choice but uranium is usually acquired through strip mining at a very low efficiency.

 

[R-T-B]

You guys are moving goal posts. I was only talking about air pollutants from the fuel itself. And most of the " BUT IT TAKES POLLUTION TO BUILD IT!" is a bogus argument because where do you think coal plants come from? Seeds?

As a Washintonian, I am well aware of the impacts alternative energy pose. Our salmon runs for example may never recover. This is likely to impact the local Orca pop as well.

I still think it's a helluva lot better than the low property values and general poverity surrounding Centralia, home of Washingtons one coal fired power station (closing this year).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You guys are moving goal posts. I was only talking about air pollutants from the fuel itself. And most of the " BUT IT TAKES POLLUTION TO BUILD IT!" is a bogus argument because where do you think coal plants come from? Seeds?

Solar is pretty damn terrible in terms of chemical pollution (panels are mostly getting cheaper because manufacturing has moved to countries that don't make clean up mandatory). Wind and hydroelectric air pollution mostly stems from steel foundries and transportation of materials. Once instead, they don't pollute until they have to be decommissioned and destroyed. Then you're dealing with dust.

Clean coal exhaust is mostly carbon, oxygen, and some traces of nitrogen compounds. These elements are literally already #1, #2, and #5 in the air naturally. Coal is literally the result of plant and animal decay.

 

[R-T-B]

Solar is pretty damn terrible in terms of chemical pollution. Wind and hydroelectric air pollution mostly stems from steel foundries and transportation of materials. Once instead, they don't pollute until they have to be decommissioned and destroyed. Then you're dealing with dust.

Yep. The centralia coal plant is also largely steel. I will give you the solar point (batteries suck), never been much of a fan myself... but moreso than coal by far.

Atmospheric polution remains my point, and largely our biggest issue besides maybe ocean pollution (landfills work, mostly).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The coal plants that are heavily polluting were built in the 60s-80s. They're reaching the end of their useful life and being replaced by natural gas in the USA. China is mostly building clean coal power plants because it is the best option available to them.

Coal literally pulled China out of poverty.

Dependence on coal is not just a Chinese problem, though. Countries around the world—even European nations that tout their environmental track records—have found themselves unable to wean themselves from coal. Germany, though often celebrated for its embrace of solar and wind energy, not only gets more than half its power from coal but opened more coal-fired power plants in 2013 than in any year in the past two decades. In neighboring Poland, 86 percent of the electricity is generated from coal.

Unless humanity is ready to immediately embrace nuclear, coal is going to remain a major electric fuel.


Even my electric provider that wants to be the first in the world to go entirely green, they got 12,290 GWh from coal compared to 11,305 GWh from wind (my neck of the woods is among the windiest average in the world).


We're kind of going in circles. No governmental bodies really want to embrace nuclear. Wind is unreliable for a grid that needs constant supply. Solar is all kinds of stupid. Hydro isn't reasonably expandable nor is geothermal. Fusion isn't ready yet. Natural gas only works where it is available (especially North America but not elsewhere). So what's left the fill demand? Coal. Everyone hates coal but they would hate losing all of our nice electric things more. It's the skeleton in the closet no one talks about but is ever present.

If I didn't want to promote the use of coal power, I would have to cut my electric consumption in half. It's not possible because I rely on electric heating for the winter (can get down to -20 F/-29 C). I'd rather they burn coal 50 miles away than me burn it in my house. The only other alternatives are various forms of oil (propane or fuel oil) which are less efficient than that coal power plant and much more dangerous or chopping down trees (which there aren't many around) to burn. I'll let them keep burning that coal, spank you very much.

I'd rather destitute countries like Haiti have access to coal power rather than them deforest (which they already did) their nation too. In the grand scheme of things, coal is win-win. The downsides are minor compared to what having no reliable electricity means.

 

[R-T-B]

I suggest you read my posts and quit ignoring points like this:

As such, in first world nations like the US, it makes little sense not to push for non-carbon based energy...

Then maybe we'll quit talking about haiti and similar which I said nothing about being it's third world. It may also stop us talking in circles.

No governmental bodies really want to embrace nuclear.

Some do. Not American ones though.

 

[MrGenius]

2H2(g) + O2(g) → 2H2O(g) + energy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Then maybe we'll quit talking about haiti and similar which I said nothing about being it's third world. It may also stop us talking in circles.

I did address your "it makes little sense not to push for non-carbon based energy" argument directly. The "non-carbon based energy" sources have major scaling problems.

Some do. Not American ones though.

The cost is prohibitive ($25 billion for 2.5 GW), especially considering the fact Westinghouse went under. China is really trying but China also hasn't faced a nuclear crisis like USA, Russia (technically Ukraine), and Japan did. Their resolve maybe shaken just like it was elsewhere.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

Well, summing some in a scenario I would buid a gargantuan solar aray(photovoltaic) out in GSO and wirelessly sent the energy to a receptor station, all of the outer Earth parts beeing built from non Earth resources mostly 99%, all this in a contrast that a be it the same type of a photovoltaic panel yelds different results placed on Earths surface vs LEO/ GSOoE peaking at efficacy in "Space" for the material technology from wich solar panels are made from. Dyson swarm? Dyson mini-swarm perhaps.

 

[Assimilator]

wind kills an enormous amount of birds

No, it actually doesn't.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's only one source for that and it's from a Law School.

Even if wind literally had no environmental downsides, it is still a finite resource. Every turbine wind has to pass through removes kinetic energy from the wind and imparts it on to the blade. Only so many turbines can be installed in a region before the drop in efficiency makes it too costly to warrant installation.

 

[R-T-B]

There's only one source for that and it's from a Law School.

Even if wind literally had no environmental downsides, it is still a finite resource. Every turbine wind has to pass through removes kinetic energy from the wind and imparts it on to the blade. Only so many turbines can be installed in a region before the drop in efficiency makes it too costly to warrant installation.

That doesn't mean the resource is finite ford, it simply means there is a production cap.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is what happens when you don't have a sensible energy policy:
Wanted: An Australian energy policy to kickstart A$25 billion of investment
Electric bills are soaring, blackouts everywhere, and not even Musk can install enough battery capacity to fix it. The irony: Australia is rich in coal and it seems like they remembered that:
Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
IPCC is losing the war because they aren't bringing forward practical solutions to energy problems that are also eco-friendly.

 

[Assimilator]

This is what happens when you don't have a sensible energy policy:
Wanted: An Australian energy policy to kickstart A$25 billion of investment
Electric bills are soaring, blackouts everywhere, and not even Musk can install enough battery capacity to fix it. The irony: Australia is rich in coal and it seems like they remembered that:
Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning
IPCC is losing the war because they aren't bringing forward practical solutions to energy problems that are also eco-friendly.

Oh come on, now you're just being disingenuous. Australia's power problems have nothing to do with renewables or the IPCC and everything to do with having a bloody rotating door in their prime minister's office. And you can hardly blame renewables or the IPCC either for constant one-upmanship as both sides play hot potato with energy policy to pander to their voters and corporate backers.

 

[sepheronx]

Wind mills are eating up a lot of land that could be used for farming here. I like the idea of the wind farms built in the water. But I imagine the maintenance costs alone is bad and same with potential ecological issues in building them in the water (not sure about that).

One that is constantly being produced, clean to burn and just ridiculous amounts of already existing is Natural Gas. LNG/CNG is very useful and in growing demand. Everything from heating to powering facilities to even powering cars. Very efficient, clean and in plentiful supply with continuous replenishment through mother nature alone (dead plants, etc). Natural gas energy plants are very expensive mind you, but they are a growing demand next to nuclear due to high efficiency and overall low costs. One is built not far from where I live and it produces a huge portion of the energy for the city. And electricity is rather cheap here too.

 

[bug]

Wind mills are eating up a lot of land that could be used for farming here. I like the idea of the wind farms built in the water. But I imagine the maintenance costs alone is bad and same with potential ecological issues in building them in the water (not sure about that).

One that is constantly being produced, clean to burn and just ridiculous amounts of already existing is Natural Gas. LNG/CNG is very useful and in growing demand. Everything from heating to powering facilities to even powering cars. Very efficient, clean and in plentiful supply with continuous replenishment through mother nature alone (dead plants, etc). Natural gas energy plants are very expensive mind you, but they are a growing demand next to nuclear due to high efficiency and overall low costs. One is built not far from where I live and it produces a huge portion of the energy for the city. And electricity is rather cheap here too.

Wind also needs a lot of cleaning. I mean a lot.
When debris starts to stick to the rotors' arms, their efficiency goes down fast. A whole industry has grown providing this service. There are helicopters used to do the job. You don't see a lot of talk about this.

 

[Assimilator]

Wind also needs a lot of cleaning. I mean a lot.
When debris starts to stick to the rotors' arms, their efficiency goes down fast. A whole industry has grown providing this service. There are helicopters used to do the job. You don't see a lot of talk about this.

You say this like a new industry is a bad thing. Maybe it'll help some former coal miners to find a new and productive job.

... hah, who am I kidding, American coal miners lack any sort of initiative or ability to better themselves. That's why they all voted for Trump, and that's why one day, when I visit America, I'm going to travel down to one of those dead coal mining towns and laugh at the inhabitants. Hopefully they won't all be ghost towns by then.

 

[bug]

You say this like a new industry is a bad thing. Maybe it'll help some former coal miners to find a new and productive job.

... hah, who am I kidding, American coal miners lack any sort of initiative or ability to better themselves. That's why they all voted for Trump, and that's why one day, when I visit America, I'm going to travel down to one of those dead coal mining towns and laugh at the inhabitants. Hopefully they won't all be ghost towns by then.

Well, keeping all that under wraps when discussing wind costs is smelly at least.

And you should really, really visit America before badmouthing people over there. It's not what you know or imagine, I promise you that

 

[R-T-B]

It's not what you know or imagine, I promise you that

Depending on the segment you visit, it can be.

 

[bug]

Depending on the segment you visit, it can be.

Just acknowledging there are segments/areas, it isn't
I can't tell you how many times I got asked "how much does a house in US cost?", only to answer "that's about as wise as asking how much a house in Europe costs". The less funny part is when you realize how many people hate the US that don't even know what the US is about. Spoiler alert: it's far from perfect, yet still better than most alternatives.