Well so much for the Paris accord eh?

[justoffal]

Balkan leaders meet to support new gas project rivaling Russia –...

A top European Union official is joining the leaders of four Balkan countries on a tour Tuesday of liquefied natural gas facilities being built in northern Greece to challenge Russia’s energy dominance in the region. Charles Michel, who heads the European Council, met Greek Prime Minister...

thehornnews.com

You just can't make this shit up!

Jo

 

[Dekster]

Balkan leaders meet to support new gas project rivaling Russia –...

A top European Union official is joining the leaders of four Balkan countries on a tour Tuesday of liquefied natural gas facilities being built in northern Greece to challenge Russia’s energy dominance in the region. Charles Michel, who heads the European Council, met Greek Prime Minister...

thehornnews.com

You just can't make this shit up!

Jo

If gas replaces coal, then that is a step toward carbon reduction.

 

[justoffal]

If gas replaces coal, then that is a step toward carbon reduction.

Not really....CO2 is CO2....
You may have less nox and sox.
This effort will renew interest in hydrocarbon power not the other way around. But that's fine with me.

 

[Dekster]

Not really....CO2 is CO2....
You may have less nox and sox.
This effort will renew interest in hydrocarbon power not the other way around. But that's fine with me.

The goal is to reduce to a certain level (or contain to a certain level), not eliminate that which cannot be eliminated. Going from coal to gas will be a step down in output that is doable today on scale until the next step down can be sorted. The US CO2 rates have been falling precisely because we started shifting toward natural gas because it was cheap and wasn't affected by Obama's war on coal.

 

[elektra]

Coal, society can't live without it

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not really....CO2 is CO2..

And natural gas emits 50% less than coal.

So yes, really.

 

[justoffal]

And natural gas emits 50% less than coal.

So yes, really.

No...that's not actually true.

And natural gas emits 50% less than coal.

So yes, really.

Somehow I don't think you understand combustion science. It doesn't actually emit less.... It's harder to burn and so less efficient and so more gets used. I've run both types of plants. A hydrocarbon combustion transaction is a hydrocarbon combustion transaction..... Yes it's easier to get the heat from a gas burn than a coal burn....but in the end you're still producing CO2 in an effort to reach a minimum amount of BTU transferral.

You are partially correct.

However if gas is being replaced by....gas....where is the gain?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No...that's not actually true.

Somehow I don't think you understand combustion science. It doesn't actually emit less.... It's harder to burn and so less efficient and so more gets used. I've run both types of plants. A hydrocarbon combustion transaction is a hydrocarbon combustion transaction..... Yes it's easier to get the heat from a gas burn than a coal burn....but in the end you're still producing CO2 in an effort to reach a minimum amount of BTU transferral.

You are partially correct.

However if gas is being replaced by....gas....where is the gain?

Somehow, I think you talked yourself into a confused knot, there.

Natural gas emits 50% less co2 than coal to produce the same amount of energy. A rough figure, as the emissions if coal can vary.

I am not saying it is clean, because it isn't.

 

[justoffal]

Somehow, I think you talked yourself into a confused knot, there.

Natural gas emits 50% less co2 than coal to produce the same amount of energy. A rough figure, as the emissions if coal can vary.

I am not saying it is clean, because it isn't.

Ok...that's correct...but once again it's not coal that's being replaced.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok...that's correct...but once again it's not coal that's being replaced.

True. Our entire standard of living and all of modern civilization is based on cheap energy. But the way we get it now is also a threat to modern civilization and our standard of living.. So we better wake the fuck up and start finding better ways.

 

[LaDairis]

True. Our entire standard of living and all of modern civilization is based on cheap energy. But the way we get it now is also a threat to modern civilization and our standard of living.. So we better wake the fuck up and start finding better ways.

... if you have an IQ under 5, you believe that...


If you paid any attention and had a few working brain cells....

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

• The film suggests that the (90% of Earth ice on) Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

... if you have an IQ under 5, you believe that...


If you paid any attention and had a few working brain cells....

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

• The film suggests that the (90% of Earth ice on) Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Always easy to spot the ignorant moron deniers. Sitting in the special Ed class, drawing mustaches on pictures of AL Gore. Nice effort sweetie *pats head* time for your juice box and nap.

 

[justoffal]

True. Our entire standard of living and all of modern civilization is based on cheap energy. But the way we get it now is also a threat to modern civilization and our standard of living.. So we better wake the fuck up and start finding better ways.

I have always been an advocate for better sources. I just don't think we are gaining anything from wind and solar. Most of the clean up is stack related. I'm pretty sure we will transition to fusion because our total demands will outstrip even Hydrocarbon potential frankly.

Much progress has been made but the containment issue is still a bit of a puzzle. We're talking about a small spot of 1x10 to the 8th deg f. We will get there.

 

[LaDairis]

Always easy to spot the ignorant moron deniers. Sitting in the special Ed class, drawing mustaches on pictures of AL Gore. Nice effort sweetie *pats head* time for your juice box and nap.

"Denier" - not PARROTING along = go call the Ministry of TRUTH


And never explain how Co2 melted North America while at the same time froze Greenland....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just don't think we are gaining anything from wind and solar.

Wind is not a large scale replacement. It fits where it fits.

Solar tech will keep improving. We just have to get past the capacitor plateau. Once we do, it's on like Donkey Kong.

Nuclear on paper is great, but NIMBY limits it, as does our apparently complete inability to form a good plan for the waste.

Also, nuclear disasters are so profound, good luck building a new one within sight of a city.

So we need to be pouring resources into r&d for all 3.

 

[justoffal]

Wind is not a large scale replacement. It fits where it fits.

Solar tech will keep improving. We just have to get past the capacitor plateau. Once we do, it's on like Donkey Kong.

Nuclear on paper is great, but NIMBY limits it, as does our apparently complete inability to form a good plan for the waste.

Also, nuclear disasters are so profound, good luck building a new one within sight of a city.

So we need to be pouring resources into r&d for all 3.

Well a fusion plant is quite different than a fission plant.

Unfortunately we may be 20 to thirty years away from real containment.

I like solar for some things....I'm an advocate of direct solar. Not a photovoltaic conversion but a solar water heater, A green house for drying clothes...they work amazingly well. A solar oven for the back yard.

Five months now with the EV.
I like it... But I am extremely fortunate to have an employer who offers free charging.

Jo

 

[LaDairis]

Well a fusion plant is quite different than a fission plant.

Unfortunately we may be 20 to thirty years away from real containment.

I like solar for some things....I'm an advocate of direct solar. Not a photovoltaic conversion but a solar water heater, A green house for drying clothes...they work amazingly well. A solar oven for the back yard.

Five months now with the EV.
I like it... But I am extremely fortunate to have an employer who offers free charging.

Jo

Fusion only exists in stars as far as we know.

We have wasted tens of billions of dollars only to be reminded of that.

To get fusion sustained, you need the gravity of a star, and you cannot re-created that here...

 

[LaDairis]

So we need to be pouring resources into

Translation


I am a PARROTING MORON

I am SCARED to things that are really TOTAL BULLSHIT

I am for making trillions of American taxdollars VANISH because I am scared

 

[Concerned American]

Not really....CO2 is CO2....
You may have less nox and sox.
This effort will renew interest in hydrocarbon power not the other way around. But that's fine with me.

This could be a boon for the weak Greek economy. EU would welcome it for a number of reasons.

 

[justoffal]

This could be a boon for the weak Greek economy. EU would welcome it for a number of reasons.

Yes just what I was thinking.