Why is the climate changing. (Page 199)
GeraldtheGnome: You both made some errors there. At present there is no way of not having an oil free situation in most or in every part of the world, even in the air aircrafts are not free of the use of it even if you exclude what oil can be converted into. Most water going methods of getting about need it and so too do Submarines. Civilzation doesn’t run on oil, people within each one depends on oil though. Spaces were needed, not too many full stops and a comma shouldn’t be before the word and at all.
Each politician, despite pretending otherwise, doesn’t really want oil gone, they all make too much money out of it, Joe Biden is no exception there. The higher the price the more money Joe Biden his mates, those who oppose him and everyone in the tax office gets as well as that of the fuel and oil companies. Even if there ever becomes a time when it is the first year that 100 % of all oil and fuel can be replaced by what is as bad or worse than it then it won’t be replaced. Look at why long ago Hemp was no longer used and paper as well as other material was used. There’s more money to be made by using paper after all. For everyone in The United States of America, look at what the earliest still intact flag was created from.
ghostgeek: Carbon emissions from fossil fuels will hit record levels this year, according to a comprehensive analysis. The finding represents a brutal contrast with the need to cut emissions by half by 2030 to restrict global heating to 1.5C and avoid the most devastating impacts of the climate crisis.
There is no sign of the decline needed, the researchers said, heaping further pressure on the countries whose representatives are meeting at the UN Cop27 climate summit in Egypt to deliver real and rapid action. Other scientists described the news as “bleak” and “deeply depressing”.
[ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/10/carbon-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-will-hit-record-high-in-2022-climate-crisis ]
ghostgeek: Notwithstanding what grandstanding politicians say, our love affair with fossil fuels shows no sign of withering, so perhaps we should resort to Plan B: cut the cant and learn to live with a warming world.
kittybobo34: Russia is something like 25% of the total world market, with that gone and world demand growing, we can't pump enough oil to satisfy demand. This situation really shows that we should have been moving toward green energy ages ago. Along with better batteries, nuclear and hydrogen break throughs. We will likely come out of this with a revamped energy grid , but it will be painful.
As far as learning to live with a warming world, as if all it will take is removing your sweater. A warming world means desert for equatorial nations, sinking for island nations, war for resources with everyone else.
GeraldtheGnome: You made a lot of mistakes there. We aren’t pumping the oil, some people are. You are both implying what you believe to be so rather what is so. If I agree with you both on your emotional responses then I might as well agree with Creationists on their emotional responses to religion. There is no difference that way. Doomsday science must come to an end.
If I was here in front of you as a Creationist what would you have done to at least try get me onto your side when it comes to evolution ? Space out the paragraphs.
(Edited by GeraldtheGnome)
ghostgeek: With eight billion people all wanting a share of the good life, are we really going to delude ourselves that windmills and solar panels are going to provide earth's energy needs?
ghostgeek: When produced using renewable electricity, hydrogen could be an invaluable tool to decarbonise sectors which are difficult to electrify, such as steelmaking, and to store energy from renewables when their supply is scarce.
But aside from some limited uses, for the most part it is both cheaper and more efficient to simply use renewable electricity directly, rather than adding the extra step of producing hydrogen. For this reason, renewable hydrogen does have a place in the future energy mix, but a limited one. Our efforts are much better spent cutting energy demand, ramping up renewables, and electrifying as much as possible.
Fossil fuel lobbyists are claiming that hydrogen could provide up to a quarter of the EU’s energy by 2050 – up from just 2% today – and are encouraging the EU and national governments in Europe to fund the construction of hydrogen infrastructure in line with this figure. This risks locking us into hydrogen dependency, increasing demand for hydrogen above what can (or reasonably should) be produced with renewables, to a level that can only be filled by fossil hydrogen.
This wouldn’t help us reach our climate targets, and in fact the vast amount of CO2 released through fossil hydrogen production would only move us further away from them. The only people it would help are fossil fuel companies who are trying every trick in the book to prop up their dying industry, and avoid the long overdue debate about winding down the fossil gas industry.
[ https://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/problem-hydrogen/ ]
GeraldtheGnome: You just became the science equivalent of Blackshoes and Zeffur on this forum with your last few messages.
kittybobo34: Something, not to many have thought of is storing energy in the form of heat. Very large sand batteries could store heat in excess of a 1000 degrees. That heat could be used for so many things without going through the process of turning into electrcity, and back to heat.. Solar arrays are ideal for generating that heat.
(Edited by kittybobo34)
GeraldtheGnome: You made some mistakes there. Something that a lot of people don’t think of is how solar panels are made and what happens to them once they themselves become useless. I’m not referring to some far right bloke or sheila for some traditional way of thinking, I mean someone of the far left who is now criticised by many of the far left for not being far left enough. Sometimes what is considered to be bad is better than any current alternative. What’s with the extra full stop and the comma before the word and by the way ?
ghostgeek: When you have 100% cloud cover and the wind's blowing from the Pole, how much heat are you going to generate with solar arrays?
GeraldtheGnome: I wish Ghostgeek didn’t use the extra capital, used one more space and didn’t have that comma as well the symbol. The thing is though that he made a very good point which was a very big issue even with my own house for a while. Turbines/Modern Windmills as I prefer to name them can compensate for loss of solar rays, in most ways heat can be brought about by wind power but that will not store heat, it will only produce heat by turning it into electricity.
The South Australian energy crisis years ago proved that renewable energy in Australia is unreliable. On a different subject what it takes to make and scrap solar panels, electric vehicles (where even the problem in most countries is recharging them) and wind power as well to scrap them is worse than every standard alternative to them. If all of that is successfully countered then things would be different.
ghostgeek: “If we are to address the reality of climate change - whilst keeping our country’s lights turned on, our homes heated and our economy working - then we have to face up to the fact that we need a mix of energy which combines renewable sources, like wind and solar, with the reliable base load electricity capacity that comes from gas and zero carbon nuclear, to see us through all those times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
“Those advocating a renewables only energy policy cannot just shrug their shoulders on cloudy, windless days, or when it is dark, and pretend that more windmills and solar panels on their own can keep the lights on. They have to accept that unless and until there is a scientific breakthrough on carbon capture or solar storage, then a balanced energy supply mix -which includes nuclear and gas as the only reliable shows in town - is a reality."
[ https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/65-low-wind-days-march-17 ]
GeraldtheGnome: The reality is that what it is reality is not what you think it is, you’re being as delusional as what Bob and Zeffur are when they tell us that creationism is something that is true.
wJust_woW: huge sunspot over the southeast limb, note size is larger than the earth
The spot that making solar storms ...
Planet x kept causes trouble not only on earth but on entire the solar sys
Nasa hiding and Elon musk admitted 😂
wJust_woW: But The pressure of the leaks and the space agencies made them admit it little by little , Despite her nose
ghostgeek: Welcome to the wonderful world of electric cars:
Mercedes-Benz is to offer an online subscription service in the US to make its electric cars speed up quicker.
For an annual cost of $1,200 (£991) excluding tax, the company will enable some of its vehicles to accelerate from 0-60mph a second faster.
It comes after rival manufacturer BMW offered a subscription feature earlier this year - for heated seats.
Mercedes has confirmed to BBC News it currently does not plan to introduce "Acceleration Increase" in the UK.
It will be available for purchase in the US on the Mercedes-EQ EQE 350 and EQS 450 vehicles, as well as their SUV counterparts.
According to the Mercedes US online store, the feature "electronically increases" the output of the car's motor, as well as the torque.
All told, it estimates this amounts to a 20-24% increase in output, allowing a Mercedes-EQ 350 SUV to accelerate from 0-60mph in about 5.2 seconds, as opposed to 6.2 seconds without the subscription.
[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63743597 ]
ghostgeek: In July, BMW faced a backlash when it announced customers could pay £25 per month to unlock heated seats and steering wheels in their cars.
And in December 2021, Toyota announced it would charge some drivers $8 per month to remotely start their cars using a key fob.
In 2019, Tesla introduced "Acceleration Boost", which makes its Model 3 vehicles accelerate from 0-60mph half a second faster for a one-time fee of $2,000.
The Acceleration Increase subscription is listed as "coming soon" on the US Mercedes storefront, with no exact date given for its release.
[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63743597 ]
GeraldtheGnome: Using more electricity is supposed to be the opposite of what everyone of the far left wants. So why does so many of the far left push what is the exact opposite of what they want when it comes to electricity use. I’m no fan of Michael Moore and his mate, this though is an issue that I fully agree with them about though. In most cases conventional electricity sources are used and in all cases to make the vehicles an increased use of standard energy is used.