SuzukiSavage.com - Breaking the Climate Spell

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #60 - 08/17/18 at 08:57:34

verslagen1 wrote on 08/17/18 at 08:45:43:

You're supposed to be a big boy, tie your own shoes and wipe your nose.

You should know the old saying vers, "when you assume you make an a$$ out of U and ME."
Well then, what was the point of you listing the pollution generated from coal fired power plants?

Are you saying a billion metric tons is huge? Are you saying it's no big deal?

I'm sure you had a point.

In case anyone needs clarification - my response was to agree that a billion tons is far too much pollution.

Back to top

IP Logged

verslagen1

YaBB Moderator
ModSquad

Offline

Where there's a
will, I want to be
in it.

Posts: 29042
L.A. California
Gender: male

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #61 - 08/17/18 at 10:24:27

Ya killin me smalls...
verslagen1 wrote on 08/16/18 at 13:39:11:

Quote:

CO2 emissions by U.S. electric power sector by source, 2017

Source Million metric tons Share of sector total
Coal   1,207 69%
Natural gas 506    29%
Petroleum   19    1%
Other2    12       <1%
Total 1,744

says it all.

even better...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

13% total generated by renewable or nuclear

YOU made the assumption that electric vehicles don't pollute.
AND every conservative has pointed out to you that they do by either extra manufacturing processes required or indirectly by consuming power generated by mostly coal... the dirtiest kind of coal too.

But unless you've got solar panels on your roof to support your total power use... you're burning coal.

Quote:

Whenever I sing the praises of solar PV as a means to hugely reduce U.S. carbon emissions while strengthening the security of the grid, I get people complaining that I'm not disclosing the carbon impacts of solar panel production.

So let's get this straight.. solar panels are at least 20x better on the climate than coal, kWh for kWh. I say at least because the most often cited report is by Danish utility Vattenfall from 1999. It looks at only 3 countries -- Japan, Sweden and Finland -- all of which are fairly dark and dreary, and it does not account for recent advances in PV production (new solar panels are significantly more efficient).

Based on that study, solar PV works out to about 50g of CO2 per kWh compared to coal's 975g of CO2 per kWh, or about 20x "cleaner."

Back to top

Versey's Place
Tech Section Index

IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #62 - 08/17/18 at 11:01:09

verslagen1 wrote on 08/17/18 at 10:24:27:

Ya killin me smalls...
verslagen1 wrote on 08/16/18 at 13:39:11:

Quote:

CO2 emissions by U.S. electric power sector by source, 2017

Source Million metric tons Share of sector total
Coal   1,207 69%
Natural gas 506    29%
Petroleum   19    1%
Other2    12       <1%
Total 1,744

says it all.

even better...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

13% total generated by renewable or nuclear

YOU made the assumption that electric vehicles don't pollute.

I said they produce far less emissions. In the case of fully electric vehicles, in their use, they produce no emissions.

AND every conservative has pointed out to you that they do by either extra manufacturing processes required or indirectly by consuming power generated by mostly coal... the dirtiest kind of coal too.

But that is negated by them not producing emissions in their life cycle.

But unless you've got solar panels on your roof to support your total power use... you're burning coal.

True - which is why we should stop using coal. Like I said - it's dirty.

Quote:

Whenever I sing the praises of solar PV as a means to hugely reduce U.S. carbon emissions while strengthening the security of the grid, I get people complaining that I'm not disclosing the carbon impacts of solar panel production.

So let's get this straight.. solar panels are at least 20x better on the climate than coal, kWh for kWh. I say at least because the most often cited report is by Danish utility Vattenfall from 1999. It looks at only 3 countries -- Japan, Sweden and Finland -- all of which are fairly dark and dreary, and it does not account for recent advances in PV production (new solar panels are significantly more efficient).

Based on that study, solar PV works out to about 50g of CO2 per kWh compared to coal's 975g of CO2 per kWh, or about 20x "cleaner."

So then, we're in agreement....? I guess the "big boy" comment was directed mn?

Back to top

IP Logged

verslagen1 YaBB Moderator ModSquad Offline Where there's a will, I want to be in it. Posts: 29042 L.A. California Gender:	Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Reply #63 - 08/17/18 at 12:19:14 T And T Garage wrote on 08/17/18 at 11:01:09: I said they produce far less emissions. In the case of fully electric vehicles, in their use, they produce no emissions. Is this spin or are you full on ultra liberal delusional? Far less = 80% of gas in consumables plus 20% more manufacturing every 5 years.
Back to top	Versey's Place Tech Section Index IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #64 - 08/17/18 at 13:04:24

verslagen1 wrote on 08/17/18 at 12:19:14:

T And T Garage wrote on 08/17/18 at 11:01:09:

I said they produce far less emissions. In the case of fully electric vehicles, in their use, they produce no emissions.

Is this spin or are you full on ultra liberal delusional?

Far less = 80% of gas in consumables plus 20% more manufacturing every 5 years.

Not sure where you got those numbers - (to use your prose) are you full on conservative/big oil delusional?

Suffice it to say vers, using a hybrid car, while utilizing a slightly "dirtier" manufacturing process will negate that "dirt" over its lifetime compared to a standard gas vehicle.

If you can prove otherwise, please do.

Until then, I'll defer to the experts:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/ta...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-cars-c...

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

Back to top

IP Logged

LostArtist

Ex Member

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #65 - 08/17/18 at 14:37:35

let's put some numbers on this, I've found this so far, is it reliable, idk, is it correct, again, idk, but it sounds logical and at least it's a start.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car

How much energy is required to build an electric car?

"You will spend 13.5 GJ per year if you commute using an EV (electric vehicle) and will produce 2,750 kg of CO2.

You will spend 21.3 GJ per year if you commute using an ICV (internal combustion vehicle) and will produce 5,300 kg of CO2."

there's a link in this article to a fairly scientific paper called "Energy-Consumption and Carbon-Emission Analysis of Vehicle and Component Manufacturing"

https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicle_and_components_manufacturing
oh, this downloads a pdf so if you aren't comfortable with that don't click it.

I wish I could understand it, but it seems to break down to that yes, there is added pollution and CO2 and more energy required to produce an electric vehicle, but as said here before, over the life of the vehicle, this is negated by the clean running of the vehicle.

Back to top

IP Logged

MnSpring

Serious Thumper

Online

Younger than most
people my age.

Posts: 10589
Minn
Gender: male

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #66 - 08/17/18 at 14:57:56

verslagen1 wrote on 08/17/18 at 12:19:14:

Is this spin or are you full on ultra liberal delusional?..."

You are talking to someone who want to buy Ocean Front lots in Iowa.

If you sprinkle a bit of Fairy Dust, Just before you plug in your elect car.
The Electricity the ‘Fairy Dust Sprinkler’ puts in it.
Will, NOT, be produced by ‘dirty’ coal.

The spin goes on, the spin goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da

Back to top

Ben Franklin once said: "If you give up a freedom, for the sake of security, you will have neither".
Which is More TRUE, today, than yesterday.('06, S-40, Stock) well, mostly .

IP Logged

MnSpring Serious Thumper Online Younger than most people my age. Posts: 10589 Minn Gender:	Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Reply #67 - 08/17/18 at 15:02:38 LostArtist wrote on 08/17/18 at 14:37:35: "... this is negated by the clean running of the vehicle. Is that vehicle towing a really long trailer, with solar panels on it ? Or did the Electricity used to power it, just magically appear, with the correct application, of Fairy Dust ?
Back to top	Ben Franklin once said: "If you give up a freedom, for the sake of security, you will have neither". Which is *More TRUE, today, than yesterday.('06, S-40, Stock) well, mostly* . IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #68 - 08/17/18 at 15:02:39

MnSpring wrote on 08/17/18 at 14:57:56:

verslagen1 wrote on 08/17/18 at 12:19:14:

Is this spin or are you full on ultra liberal delusional?..."

You are talking to someone who want to buy Ocean Front lots in Iowa.

Who? Me? When did I ever say that? Are you just lying for kicks? What do you hope to accomplish by that?

If you sprinkle a bit of Fairy Dust, Just before you plug in your elect car.
The Electricity the ‘Fairy Dust Sprinkler’ puts in it.
Was, NOT, produced by ‘dirty’ coal.

There's no such thing as fairy dust mn. You should know that. Don't be silly.

But to educate you, in IL at least, most of our power comes from nuclear. So there's that.

Back to top

IP Logged

verslagen1

YaBB Moderator
ModSquad

Offline

Where there's a
will, I want to be
in it.

Posts: 29042
L.A. California
Gender: male

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #69 - 08/17/18 at 15:31:23

Great info Lost, I might decipher it in a week or two.
Quote:

Table 8 concludes an EV requires 50 GJ and 3,250 CO2 to manufacture while a normal ICV requires 34 GJ and 2,000 kg of CO2.

They compare an ICV vs an EV
They say to make an EV is 50% to mfg than a ICV, which let's assume that's the battery cost. (1250 co2 or 16 GJ)

What they don't discuss is that you need to replace the battery after x years of use and they don't add that into the calculations. I guess they'll just launch the whole thing to Mars.

Quote:

EV will indirectly produce 2,750 kg of CO2 yearly, while an IC Vehicle will almost double that at 5,300 kg of CO2 per year.

This is the cost of travel not including the battery, 1250co2.
And I bet it does not include power transmission efficiencies.

SO if I ride a m/c to work and my mpg twice that of the studied ICV... do my farts smell good too?
and factor in that traffic means sh!t to me, my commute times are stable and I'm not grid locked and cussing. Cool

Back to top

Versey's Place
Tech Section Index

IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #70 - 08/17/18 at 16:54:02

verslagen1 wrote on 08/17/18 at 15:31:23:

Great info Lost, I might decipher it in a week or two.
Quote:

Table 8 concludes an EV requires 50 GJ and 3,250 CO2 to manufacture while a normal ICV requires 34 GJ and 2,000 kg of CO2.

They compare an ICV vs an EV
They say to make an EV is 50% to mfg than a ICV, which let's assume that's the battery cost. (1250 co2 or 16 GJ)

What they don't discuss is that you need to replace the battery after x years of use and they don't add that into the calculations. I guess they'll just launch the whole thing to Mars.

Um, where is there data on having to replace the batteries?

Quote:

EV will indirectly produce 2,750 kg of CO2 yearly, while an IC Vehicle will almost double that at 5,300 kg of CO2 per year.

This is the cost of travel not including the battery, 1250co2.
And I bet it does not include power transmission efficiencies.

SO if I ride a m/c to work and my mpg twice that of the studied ICV... do my farts smell good too?
and factor in that traffic means sh!t to me, my commute times are stable and I'm not grid locked and cussing. Cool

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Reply #71 - 08/18/18 at 17:38:14 For those who have been convinced that CO2 is a pollutant. I call that ridiculous. Increased CO2 causes plants to grow. Which balances the CO2. Buncha People running around in circles because someone told them to.
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

T And T Garage

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9839

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #72 - 08/18/18 at 18:13:53

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 08/18/18 at 17:38:14:

For those who have been convinced that CO2 is a pollutant.
I call that ridiculous.
Increased CO2 causes plants to grow.
Which balances the CO2.
Buncha People running around in circles because someone told them to.

Yeah, it's just fine on Venus.... oh, wait....

A greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Back to top

IP Logged

Eegore Serious Thumper Offline SuzukiSavage.com Rocks! Posts: 9914	Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Reply #73 - 08/18/18 at 18:23:23 CO2 concerns are about excess CO2 or more emission than what plants can effectively process. CO2 is fine but not when there's too much, just like everything else in the world. The idea that we can continue to reduce plant life and increase CO2 is the problem.
Back to top	IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 14448

Gender: male

Re: Breaking the Climate Spell
Reply #74 - 08/19/18 at 05:06:19

If renewable energy / energy storage worked, it would have taken over the energy industry by now much in the manner cell phones destroyed the Ma-Bell land lines most of us grew up with and assumed would be around forever.

Some technology will be developed that transforms energy use in the future but its not here yet and forcing changed with exaggerated temperature predictions isn't helping. The problem now is we've got an entire industry built around a false premise and breaking that spell (the point of this thread) is hard because the prosperity and careers of so many are dependent upon it.

Imagine if you came up with a full proof method of nuclear fuel rod storage or disposal which would open the door for thousands of coal plants to be replaced with nuclear plants. Think about how hard it would be to basically eliminate two industries, coal production and the climate change industry? It's different than cell phones because they sold directly to consumers and were made overseas mostly. For energy, we have a couple middle men to go, governments and distribution companies. They are able to use regulations to insulate themselves. Remember how "landline" companies struggled with all the long distance plans as a way to avoid losing business to cell phones? It took a while but the public basically decided the fate of that industry and dragged AT&T into the cell phone world. The technology and life changing benefits were to great. Momentum was too strong.

"Climate change" momentum is fake, it's driven by questionable science so it requires those governmental middlemen to maintain it.

Back to top

IP Logged