Saving the Planet One Generator at a Time

[JohnDB]

Grand time to John

all my suppliers do is b*tch about some ship lost in the pacific.....
~S~

Half of squareD is coming out of Brazil with plants spread out almost to the border with Bolivia and the rest is Asia....used to be eurotrash France or Germany. But they don't have the juice to produce stuff like they used to. So the production moved.

Gotta be the shipping costs.

I was talking with several various businesses and they are telling me that their labor costs have skyrocketed as well. Not just more expensive per man/hr but the production of that labor has fallen massively. What used to require 2 hrs now requires 4-5.

I'm OK with switching from coal to other fuels because coal puts too much mercury into the surrounding area which has disastrous consequences like birth defects. Scrubbers work and so does "clean coal tech" (nothing more than turning coal into diesel before using it) but the Jax(byproducts) doesn't really have an aftermarket like drywall is with coal ashes.

So I dunno....but they better figure it out soon.

 

[sparky]

Might be due to big oil being a cartel or near monopoly.

More an Oilocracy Gip

Ironically the same sorts now sellin us the green machine

~S~

 

[sparky]

I was talking with several various businesses and they are telling me that their labor costs have skyrocketed as well. Not just more expensive per man/hr but the production of that labor has fallen massively. What used to require 2 hrs now requires 4-5.

Gawd yes, every job site i'm on lacking labor is taking on sorts that can't chew gum and walk now John

while paying top $$$ for them

masks my excuse of being old & slow look better every day.....

~S~

 

[JohnDB]

Gawd yes, every job site i'm on lacking labor is taking on sorts that can't chew gum and walk now John

while paying top $$$ for them

masks my excuse of being old & slow look better every day.....

~S~

Even in my gimping around I can still run 250ft/day of single pipe. Give me an apprentice and depending on how hard I'm allowed to beat him I'll run 600-800.
Kids think I'm either lying, crazy or a machine. I'm not...just a grumpy old guy who doesn't play and act like I'm God's gift to electricity.
So these days I'm a primadonna....not a drama queen. But with my production I'm allowed. The kids run 70 ft and then act like they done something.

 

[Crick]

Guess you don’t understand graphs. Yours shows coal going down and natural gas and oil skyrocketing to compensate.

Have a 5 year old homeschooled kid explain it.

As the left hand side explains, the total supported by fossil fuels shrank. It was replaced by renewables.

 

[Crick]

Transition from unleaded to diesel?

Buy a truck.

View attachment 853980

Pretty machine.

Transition from fossil fuels to non-emitting technology

 

[fncceo]

Pretty machine.

Transition from fossil fuels to non-emitting technology

I'm almost 95% certain that diesel generator emit.

 

[Crick]

I'm almost 95% certain that diesel generator emit.

Of course. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear and geothermal don't.

 

[JohnDB]

Of course. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear and geothermal don't.

But all of these create "brown sites" and generate tons of other waste in other areas. Most "green technology " is not very green.

 

[Crick]

But all of these create "brown sites" and generate tons of other waste in other areas. Most "green technology " is not very green.

It's a fuck of a lot greener than any fossil fuel technology.

 

[ding]

It's a fuck of a lot greener than any fossil fuel technology.

<ahem> natural gas

 

[JohnDB]

It's a fuck of a lot greener than any fossil fuel technology.

No it isn't.
Most Green tech starts with silicon based microchips in some fashion. The purification for the silicon is some nasty poisonous stuff that explodes on contact with water and if it comes in contact with skin you have to chop off body parts to save your life. And that's just the chips and diodes. Nevermind the carbon fiber laminates...or the aluminum smelting....or the radiatioactive waste from a defunct, unusable reactor core and its parts. Or the acid pools from trying to purify the lithium after mining....nevermind the rainforest destroyed by people digging out "rare earth" metals.

There's a lot of crap made by this green technology.
And green tech still uses a LOT of petroleum products. Gas and diesel are only two products our of the millions made out of the stuff.

 

[Crick]

No it isn't.
Most Green tech starts with silicon based microchips in some fashion. The purification for the silicon is some nasty poisonous stuff that explodes on contact with water and if it comes in contact with skin you have to chop off body parts to save your life. And that's just the chips and diodes.

You're right. That's just chips and diodes. You could probably carry the world's total production in the back of an F-150. How sensible is it to worry about that but ignore the billions of tons of coal, petroleum and gas we burn.

Nevermind the carbon fiber laminates...or the aluminum smelting....or the radiatioactive waste from a defunct, unusable reactor core and its parts. Or the acid pools from trying to purify the lithium after mining....nevermind the rainforest destroyed by people digging out "rare earth" metals.

There's a lot of crap made by this green technology.
And green tech still uses a LOT of petroleum products. Gas and diesel are only two products our of the millions made out of the stuff.

The vast majority of fossil fuels burned are used to make power and drive transportation. The fuel used to manufacture solar cells and wind turbines is compensated for in a matter of days to weeks by the fuel NOT burned to produce their electrical output. There are several reputable sources that go through the numbers if you'd care to look it up.

 

[JohnDB]

You're right. That's just chips and diodes. You could probably carry the world's total production in the back of an F-150. How sensible is it to worry about that but ignore the billions of tons of coal, petroleum and gas we burn.

The vast majority of fossil fuels burned are used to make power and drive transportation. The fuel used to manufacture solar cells and wind turbines is compensated for in a matter of days to weeks by the fuel NOT burned to produce their electrical output. There are several reputable sources that go through the numbers if you'd care to look it up.

Nope.
Not much coal is used anymore here in the USA. It accounts for roughly a third of all US power grid. Natural gas is king...and nuclear is a good portion. Overall we don't manufacture like we once did. So our usage is much less. Collectively our homes independently use more juice than an office building. (And people are working from home still) Apartments are the biggest energy wasters around. No insulation!....and enough lobbyists for it to remain that way. We don't use steam like we used to.

Your concept of smaller carbon footprint is idiotic at best. It's not the CO² that is the problem it's the heat generated by energy usage that causes the issues. It's overall heat generated by energy use in the huge cities that is causing issues. We are at the very limit of how much heat our upper atmosphere can give off to the vacuum of outer space.

CO² levels havn't risen sufficiently to cause a global catastrophe. It is still such a minor percentage of our atmosphere that 4%CO² is a toxic amount. If they had you wouldn't be breathing now. It's a toxic gas that you can't inhale....try breathing the bubbles off a soda....you will choke.

There's a lot of cheaper ways to make power than Green Tech and electricity is not always the answer. Thinking electricity is the best is rather small minded. Sure it's transmissible...but that's not everything.

 

[ding]

How sensible is it to worry about that but ignore the billions of tons of coal, petroleum and gas we burn.

It's sensible to worry about particulate pollution and energy conservation. It's nonsensical to worry about climate change.

 

[ding]

The vast majority of fossil fuels burned are used to make power and drive transportation.

Of the 88 million barrels of oil per day produced, 65 million barrels are refined as gasoline and diesel. Which is the equivalent energy needed to calculate the lithium required to make enough batteries to hold one day of charge. And would have to be replaced 10 years. It's a huge number and impossible to practically supply.

 

[Crick]

Nope.

Nope, you don't care to look at the numbers? Why am I not surprised?

Not much coal is used anymore here in the USA.

It's use has certainly declined and it is on its way out, but in 2022 the US still burned 513 million tons (1,026,000,000,000 pounds). Worldwide, we burned 8.3 billion tons (16,600,000,000,000 pounds). I really don't think that yet qualifies for the adjective "not much".

It accounts for roughly a third of all US power grid. Natural gas is king...and nuclear is a good portion.

The point is that fossil fuel use is declining and renewables and other non-emitting technologies are increasing; as I said.

Overall we don't manufacture like we once did.

True. We have become a service economy.

So our usage is much less.

Our use of electrical power and transportation has certainly NOT declined.

Collectively our homes independently use more juice than an office building.

Why don't you try to reword that into something intelligible. You appear to be saying that the combined power consumption of all American homes is greater than that of a single office building. That, of course, is nonsene. It is also nonsense to claim that a typical American home uses more power than a typical office building. So I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're trying to say here.

(And people are working from home still) Apartments are the biggest energy wasters around. No insulation!....and enough lobbyists for it to remain that way. We don't use steam like we used to.

I hope all this babbling is going to eventually get around to some sort of point.

Your concept of smaller carbon footprint is idiotic at best.

Really? And what might be my "concept of a smaller carbon footprint"? That humans should stop burning fossil fuels? If so, I have to demur. I am not responsible for that concept. But if you think that is an idiotic idea, we should talk.

It's not the CO² that is the problem it's the heat generated by energy usage that causes the issues.

Oi vey...

It's overall heat generated by energy use in the huge cities that is causing issues.

Is this a conclusion that you have reached on your own or something you've read?

We are at the very limit of how much heat our upper atmosphere can give off to the vacuum of outer space.

Are we? What, exactly creates a limit in that regard?

CO² levels havn't risen sufficiently to cause a global catastrophe.

They have increased 50%. According to very detailed calculations by the world's leading experts, CO2 and the greenhouse effect is directly responsible for over 1C of the 1.1C of global warming we've experienced. Look at this upper right section of this graph:

Note the title for that section: "Change in Global Surface Temperature". Each of those bars represent the temperature change caused specifically by those components: CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC+HCFC+HFC, NOx, etc.

If you'd like to fall in with the rest of the unwashed ignorati here, now is the point you claim that those data are simply manufactured lies. "Anyone can make a pretty graph".

It is still such a minor percentage of our atmosphere that 4%CO² is a toxic amount.

I don't think anyone is worred about toxicity yet. We are worried about the amount of warming that a 50% or a 100% or a 150% increase in CO2 will create.

If they had you wouldn't be breathing now. It's a toxic gas that you can't inhale....try breathing the bubbles off a soda....you will choke.

John, you've wandered off on a bit of a tangent.

There's a lot of cheaper ways to make power than Green Tech and electricity is not always the answer. Thinking electricity is the best is rather small minded. Sure it's transmissible...but that's not everything.

Hmm... I noted in some of your earlier posts you spoke of your experience with engines and mechanics. Can I ask where your particular expertise lies?

Renewables and other non-emitting technologies are not being selected because of their cost - though the zero fuel cost for wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, OTEC and others is significant. They are desirable because they make electricity without emitting CO2 or any other greenhouse gases (GHGs). And I have to say I have never heard anyone suggest that humans could move away from electricity. That IS a new one. What are you picturing? Each home with a big 12 cylinder diesel, PTOs for the kitchen appliances and lighting from grinder sparks?

 

[JohnDB]

Nope, you don't care to look at the numbers? Why am I not surprised?

It's use has certainly declined and it is on its way out, but in 2022 the US still burned 513 million tons (1,026,000,000,000 pounds). Worldwide, we burned 8.3 billion tons (16,600,000,000,000 pounds). I really don't think that yet qualifies for the adjective "not much".

The point is that fossil fuel use is declining and renewables and other non-emitting technologies are increasing; as I said.

True. We have become a service economy.

Our use of electrical power and transportation has certainly NOT declined.

Why don't you try to reword that into something intelligible. You appear to be saying that the combined power consumption of all American homes is greater than that of a single office building. That, of course, is nonsene. It is also nonsense to claim that a typical American home uses more power than a typical office building. So I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're trying to say here.

I hope all this babbling is going to eventually get around to some sort of point.

Really? And what might be my "concept of a smaller carbon footprint"? That humans should stop burning fossil fuels? If so, I have to demur. I am not responsible for that concept. But if you think that is an idiotic idea, we should talk.

Oi vey...

Is this a conclusion that you have reached on your own or something you've read?

Are we? What, exactly creates a limit in that regard?

They have increased 50%. According to very detailed calculations by the world's leading experts, CO2 and the greenhouse effect is directly responsible for over 1C of the 1.1C of global warming we've experienced. Look at this upper right section of this graph:

View attachment 854604

Note the title for that section: "Change in Global Surface Temperature". Each of those bars represent the temperature change caused specifically by those components: CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC+HCFC+HFC, NOx, etc.

If you'd like to fall in with the rest of the unwashed ignorati here, now is the point you claim that those data are simply manufactured lies. "Anyone can make a pretty graph".

I don't think anyone is worred about toxicity yet. We are worried about the amount of warming that a 50% or a 100% or a 150% increase in CO2 will create.

John, you've wandered off on a bit of a tangent.

Hmm... I noted in some of your earlier posts you spoke of your experience with engines and mechanics. Can I ask where your particular expertise lies?

Renewables and other non-emitting technologies are not being selected because of their cost - though the zero fuel cost for wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, OTEC and others is significant. They are desirable because they make electricity without emitting CO2 or any other greenhouse gases (GHGs). And I have to say I have never heard anyone suggest that humans could move away from electricity. That IS a new one. What are you picturing? Each home with a big 12 cylinder diesel, PTOs for the kitchen appliances and lighting from grinder sparks?

Nope....
Everything you just said is slanted and unequal relationships. (Apples and avacados instead of even oranges) in order to claim a truth that is not there. Even YOUR data demonstrates that the USA is more clean than any other economy in the world....preach your lies at them.

Tell those lies to someone who might believe them instead of someone who actually IS "boots on the ground" and actually plays in energy commodity markets. (And makes profits by doing so)

You got nothing but lies....and I did have hopes of an honest conversation.

 

[ding]

Apparently with feedbacks baked in which apparently no one can tell how much it is. Brilliant.

 

[Crick]

Nope....
Everything you just said is slanted and unequal relationships. (Apples and avacados instead of even oranges) in order to claim a truth that is not there.

I disagree of course. Could you specify one or more of my statements that you believe "slanted and unequal"? And perhaps you could explain what you mean by that.

Even YOUR data demonstrates that the USA is more clean than any other economy in the world....preach your lies at them.

I am not lying John. If you think I am, you're going to have to demonstrate it. And that the US has made great strides in reducing emissions has not saved us (the human race) from the need for further action.

Tell those lies to someone who might believe them instead of someone who actually IS "boots on the ground" and actually plays in energy commodity markets. (And makes profits by doing so)

Again, I have told you no lies. That you "play in energy commodity markets" doesn't help much in a discussion of physics, chemistry or thermodynamics.

You got nothing but lies....and I did have hopes of an honest conversation.

So did I. Again, what lies do you believe I have told you?