Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:01 am

Daysleeper wrote:
Edited to add: The conversation in here, either rightly or wrongly has gotten a little confrontational. I am not trying to insult you or your intelligence, I’m just trying to understand why you have reached the conclusions you have, as I know your not alone in your views. And if the world is going to fix this issue we need to work out where and why the there has been a misunderstanding.


I think there is no point in arguing it anymore. There is no time. The best is just to ignore them completely. Sad but true. Denying climate change, anti-vaxers, flat earthers, believing in bigfoot, all makeup for a nice story, but that's just it, it is a story, nothing more.
If these people are influenced by the pro-fossil fuel lobby - can be very powerful as we have seen with smoking -, or they just don't want to change their own life, or are cynical in that they are older and will not see the end result of their ways anyway, or have any other real reason to deny science, I do not know. What I do know is that we need to act now and have no time anymore to indulge ourselves and entertain the notion that nothing is wrong. It is a stupid way to look at things, a very naive way.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:23 am

Dieuwer wrote:
Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257
.

Yes, let's set our energy policies according to what a deranged high school dropout wants. :roll:
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16809
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:03 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257
.

Yes, let's set our energy policies according to what a deranged high school dropout wants. :roll:


Young activists concerned about the future adults are leaving them are deranged? Very mature...
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:36 am

Aaron747 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257
.

Yes, let's set our energy policies according to what a deranged high school dropout wants. :roll:


Young activists concerned about the future adults are leaving them are deranged? Very mature...


She is deranged.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16809
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:53 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:
Yes, let's set our energy policies according to what a deranged high school dropout wants. :roll:


Young activists concerned about the future adults are leaving them are deranged? Very mature...


She is deranged.


Entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is nothing in the DSM that would concur with that determination about her.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:56 am

Aaron747 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Young activists concerned about the future adults are leaving them are deranged? Very mature...


She is deranged.


Entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is nothing in the DSM that would concur with that determination about her.


Geez I might be just about to show my age here but what are you referring by DSM?

To me DSM is the Distinguished Service Medal to which I highly doubt you are talking about.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:06 pm

A101 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:

She is deranged.


Entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is nothing in the DSM that would concur with that determination about her.


Geez I might be just about to show my age here but what are you referring by DSM?


Not your age, just the limitation of your knowledge: DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
 
737307
Posts: 2945
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:20 pm

Well, looks like Germany made a move and suspended the approval of Nord Steam 2.

A German regulator on Tuesday suspended its certification of Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline intended to transport natural gas directly to Germany from Russia that has been the source of a long-running dispute between Berlin, Washington and Brussels.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/busi ... eline.html
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:49 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is nothing in the DSM that would concur with that determination about her.


Geez I might be just about to show my age here but what are you referring by DSM?


Not your age, just the limitation of your knowledge: DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.



Well thank you for that Dutchy it’s not something that I was overly familiar with my background as I am not in the medical profession

It might be best if people want to use such terms that they not only use the abbreviation but the name to what one refers to avoid confusion
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:58 pm

L410Turbolet wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:
Yes, let's set our energy policies according to what a deranged high school dropout wants. :roll:


Young activists concerned about the future adults are leaving them are deranged? Very mature...


She is deranged.



I suspect that you are not the only person who has come to that conclusion,

She certainly comes across as it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMrtLsQbaok
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:30 pm

You have to laugh about all this climate stuff going around, they talk about reducing fossil fuels and the EU are praised for using biomass, but we get hammered in the UK for doing exactly that using biomass for fuel

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/b ... uxbndlbing
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:19 pm

I'm actually impressed by the UK's use of biomass. It's a shame though that they can't source most of it locally instead of shipping it so far

A promising technology is to use biomass to create methanol fuels and sustainable jet . Here in the States where I live there are tons of wood chips generated by urban forests. I don't think much is being used for fuel.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16809
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:48 pm

A101 wrote:
You have to laugh about all this climate stuff going around, they talk about reducing fossil fuels and the EU are praised for using biomass, but we get hammered in the UK for doing exactly that using biomass for fuel

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/b ... uxbndlbing


Except there is no laughing matter on these issues. Would do well to read the contrast of Croseus and Cassandra, as told by Carl Sagan in 1990:

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/culture/c ... arl-sagan/

https://youtu.be/9Xz3ZjOSMRU

He warned, very accurately, that we would have great difficulty working on these issues due to reactions of people needing incentives and political inability to conceptualize transgenerational action.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:49 am

Spending a billion in incentives to import anything is idiotic. If you need to import, then don't incentivitize it, give the money to a local alternative instead, so they can compete. There are all kinds of biomass, wood is only one of them. And burning wood only makes sense if you produce the wood, sustainably.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:28 am

Aesma wrote:
Spending a billion in incentives to import anything is idiotic. If you need to import, then don't incentivitize it, give the money to a local alternative instead, so they can compete. There are all kinds of biomass, wood is only one of them. And burning wood only makes sense if you produce the wood, sustainably.



Yes when considering the availability of coal in the UK and majority of the fuel is sourced from overseas
 
DN4CAAD
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:17 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257
.

Yes, let's set our energy policies according to what a deranged high school dropout wants. :roll:


Just out of curiosity, what are your credentials on energy policy and climatology
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13758
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:51 am

737307 wrote:
Well, looks like Germany made a move and suspended the approval of Nord Steam 2.

A German regulator on Tuesday suspended its certification of Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline intended to transport natural gas directly to Germany from Russia that has been the source of a long-running dispute between Berlin, Washington and Brussels.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/busi ... eline.html


It's a hiccup, that will be sorted fairly quickly.

The watchdog said on Tuesday it had temporarily halted the certification process because the Swiss-based consortium behind Nord Stream 2 first needed to form a German subsidiary company under German law to secure an operating licence.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:08 am

Kiwirob wrote:
737307 wrote:
Well, looks like Germany made a move and suspended the approval of Nord Steam 2.

A German regulator on Tuesday suspended its certification of Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline intended to transport natural gas directly to Germany from Russia that has been the source of a long-running dispute between Berlin, Washington and Brussels.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/busi ... eline.html


It's a hiccup, that will be sorted fairly quickly.

The watchdog said on Tuesday it had temporarily halted the certification process because the Swiss-based consortium behind Nord Stream 2 first needed to form a German subsidiary company under German law to secure an operating licence.


Given the subject of this thread, NS2 is a waste of money anyway. Pure a geopolitical Russian project because they do not want to use Ukrainian soil. It is there, so fine to use it, but let's reduce the EU's dependence on fossil fuels, including natural gas.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:09 am

A101 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Spending a billion in incentives to import anything is idiotic. If you need to import, then don't incentivitize it, give the money to a local alternative instead, so they can compete. There are all kinds of biomass, wood is only one of them. And burning wood only makes sense if you produce the wood, sustainably.



Yes when considering the availability of coal in the UK and majority of the fuel is sourced from overseas


And how are you going to burn coal, sustainable? Given CCS isn't a proven technique.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:34 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Spending a billion in incentives to import anything is idiotic. If you need to import, then don't incentivitize it, give the money to a local alternative instead, so they can compete. There are all kinds of biomass, wood is only one of them. And burning wood only makes sense if you produce the wood, sustainably.



Yes when considering the availability of coal in the UK and majority of the fuel is sourced from overseas


And how are you going to burn coal, sustainable? Given CCS isn't a proven technique.


How is burning biomass wood pellets any different to coal when it comes to CCS, when the article mentions that Draxis putting out over 13 million tonnes of C02 and using around 7 million tonnes of wood pellets, the equivalent of about 25 million trees, plus we haven’t talked about transport either

Remember when I said the EU is getting accolades for using biomass but they whine about the UK using it and its effects, what happens when people harvest the wood faster than trees can grow, it causes deforestation.

How are you going to fix that?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13758
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:14 am

Dutchy wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
737307 wrote:
Well, looks like Germany made a move and suspended the approval of Nord Steam 2.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/busi ... eline.html


It's a hiccup, that will be sorted fairly quickly.

The watchdog said on Tuesday it had temporarily halted the certification process because the Swiss-based consortium behind Nord Stream 2 first needed to form a German subsidiary company under German law to secure an operating licence.


Given the subject of this thread, NS2 is a waste of money anyway. Pure a geopolitical Russian project because they do not want to use Ukrainian soil. It is there, so fine to use it, but let's reduce the EU's dependence on fossil fuels, including natural gas.


It's not even close to being a waste of money, it's only an incredibly stupid individual who believes oil and gas will be phased out in Europe by the 2030's. Nordstream2 will start operating next year.
 
Redd
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:56 am

We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:06 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:


Yes when considering the availability of coal in the UK and majority of the fuel is sourced from overseas


And how are you going to burn coal, sustainable? Given CCS isn't a proven technique.


How is burning biomass wood pellets any different to coal when it comes to CCS, when the article mentions that Draxis putting out over 13 million tonnes of C02 and using around 7 million tonnes of wood pellets, the equivalent of about 25 million trees, plus we haven’t talked about transport either

Remember when I said the EU is getting accolades for using biomass but they whine about the UK using it and its effects, what happens when people harvest the wood faster than trees can grow, it causes deforestation.

How are you going to fix that?


Go and search the internet if you do not know the answer to a question. If you fail to understand the difference to burn coal and wood then I am not the one the educate you on that. As it comes to CCS, as I have said, it is not a proven technique and if it works as advertised, it is extremely expensive, so why talk about it?

Not going to answer your silly questions about fixing that either, why would I, I don't want to go your path, your framework because it is the wrong question to ask, sorry.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:08 pm

Redd wrote:
We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice


Nuclear is a technology. Not very interested in technology, let experts figure out the ideal energy mix for the EU, or anywhere else.
 
Redd
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:39 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Redd wrote:
We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice


Nuclear is a technology. Not very interested in technology, let experts figure out the ideal energy mix for the EU, or anywhere else.


I'm fine with experts figuring this stuff out, the problem is the politicians and interest groups are the ones responsible for solving our problems, or at least for deciding how they should be solved. Most politicians couldn't solve their way out of a basic math equation, let alone a climate crisis. That's why I'm a bit worried. ;)
 
M564038
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:44 pm

Burning coal introduces co2 that isn’t in the natural cycle. Burning trees includes carbon already in the cycle and is renewable by planting new trees.

It’s easy, really.

However, this is rather problematic when including the fact that newly planted trees won’t catch much CO2 in a decade or two. Young, small trees doesn’t do much good. So biomass is not on level with nuclear when it comes to real clean energy needed to reduse real lige CO2 emissions which after all is what the climate cares about.

It does give us some strange results that skewes the official numbers on CO2.
Denmark: Uses lots of biofuel, but neutralizes their number by planting trees, thus looking good on paper. In reality their net CO2 emissions are very high because those trees won’t be effective for a couple of decades.

Norway: Has an incredible amount of wild forest growth. So much it in real net CO2 more than offsets their emissions on paper. But wild growth doesn’t count, so the two countries looks similar on paper.

The system isn’t perfect. But it is a lot better than nothing.
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:


Yes when considering the availability of coal in the UK and majority of the fuel is sourced from overseas


And how are you going to burn coal, sustainable? Given CCS isn't a proven technique.


How is burning biomass wood pellets any different to coal when it comes to CCS, when the article mentions that Draxis putting out over 13 million tonnes of C02 and using around 7 million tonnes of wood pellets, the equivalent of about 25 million trees, plus we haven’t talked about transport either

Remember when I said the EU is getting accolades for using biomass but they whine about the UK using it and its effects, what happens when people harvest the wood faster than trees can grow, it causes deforestation.

How are you going to fix that?
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:48 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

And how are you going to burn coal, sustainable? Given CCS isn't a proven technique.


How is burning biomass wood pellets any different to coal when it comes to CCS, when the article mentions that Draxis putting out over 13 million tonnes of C02 and using around 7 million tonnes of wood pellets, the equivalent of about 25 million trees, plus we haven’t talked about transport either

Remember when I said the EU is getting accolades for using biomass but they whine about the UK using it and its effects, what happens when people harvest the wood faster than trees can grow, it causes deforestation.

How are you going to fix that?


Go and search the internet if you do not know the answer to a question. If you fail to understand the difference to burn coal and wood then I am not the one the educate you on that. As it comes to CCS, as I have said, it is not a proven technique and if it works as advertised, it is extremely expensive, so why talk about it?

Not going to answer your silly questions about fixing that either, why would I, I don't want to go your path, your framework because it is the wrong question to ask, sorry.


:rotfl: Geez you are a funny bugger

You are the one who brought up CCS all I said was that both coal and biomass produce CO2 they both pollute, so using you question about CCS coal and biomass is in the same boat, you are the one questioning CCS not me.

Out of the ywo only one we have to dig out of the ground and we have been doing that for some time in the UK and have enormous quantities of it available giving work to the UK economy instead of importing vast amounts of biomass from overseas money that directly leaves the UK economy

If both are producing the harmful effects that you want to stop, i'd prefer the commodity that helps the UK economy more in the long run which is coal

You have the problem with it so its up to you to provide the answers to the problem, not me :D :D
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:55 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Redd wrote:
We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice


Nuclear is a technology. Not very interested in technology, let experts figure out the ideal energy mix for the EU, or anywhere else.


strange answer

Yes nuclear is technology, but you say you are not interested in technology. But its going to take technology to solve the problem.

Do you see your dilemma if you are not interested in technology :D
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:10 pm

M564038 wrote:
Burning coal introduces co2 that isn’t in the natural cycle. Burning trees includes carbon already in the cycle and is renewable by planting new trees.


That does not make sense,

You are removing the natural carbon capture then putting additional carbon in the atmosphere, but as you pointed out it takes a number of years before the new growth captures that carbon again plus the carbon from burning in the 1st place, cant see how its any worse than coal considering deforestation happens at a faster rate than coal mining will ever do, its generally 15 plus years before it can be used again depending on the species

Pretty much the uproar Australia got pelted with during the bush-fires a little while ago in regards to climate change
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:42 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

How is burning biomass wood pellets any different to coal when it comes to CCS, when the article mentions that Draxis putting out over 13 million tonnes of C02 and using around 7 million tonnes of wood pellets, the equivalent of about 25 million trees, plus we haven’t talked about transport either

Remember when I said the EU is getting accolades for using biomass but they whine about the UK using it and its effects, what happens when people harvest the wood faster than trees can grow, it causes deforestation.

How are you going to fix that?


Go and search the internet if you do not know the answer to a question. If you fail to understand the difference to burn coal and wood then I am not the one the educate you on that. As it comes to CCS, as I have said, it is not a proven technique and if it works as advertised, it is extremely expensive, so why talk about it?

Not going to answer your silly questions about fixing that either, why would I, I don't want to go your path, your framework because it is the wrong question to ask, sorry.


:rotfl: Geez you are a funny bugger

You are the one who brought up CCS all I said was that both coal and biomass produce CO2 they both pollute, so using you question about CCS coal and biomass is in the same boat, you are the one questioning CCS not me.

Out of the ywo only one we have to dig out of the ground and we have been doing that for some time in the UK and have enormous quantities of it available giving work to the UK economy instead of importing vast amounts of biomass from overseas money that directly leaves the UK economy

If both are producing the harmful effects that you want to stop, i'd prefer the commodity that helps the UK economy more in the long run which is coal

You have the problem with it so its up to you to provide the answers to the problem, not me :D :D


Not going into an endless and pointless debate with you. You are twisting everything in order to score some debating points, fine, I did that at university as well. But I also realize that debatingstyle of arguing doesn't lead to anything. And if you do not agree on the big picture (facts) then it is pointless to debate the finer points. As you have demonstrated, you do not agree on the big picture: climate change by human activity, so I will not go into the framework of your choosing: burning coal. The world has passed that station, so there is no point. If you wish to debate it some more, feel free, but not with me.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:44 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Redd wrote:
We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice


Nuclear is a technology. Not very interested in technology, let experts figure out the ideal energy mix for the EU, or anywhere else.


strange answer

Yes nuclear is technology, but you say you are not interested in technology. But its going to take technology to solve the problem.

Do you see your dilemma if you are not interested in technology :D


Technology in itself isn't that interesting, that is a consequence of the end picture, not the beginning. To see that, you have to think at a more abstract level.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:49 pm

Redd wrote:
I'm fine with experts figuring this stuff out, the problem is the politicians and interest groups are the ones responsible for solving our problems, or at least for deciding how they should be solved. Most politicians couldn't solve their way out of a basic math equation, let alone a climate crisis. That's why I'm a bit worried. ;)


I agree with that. Politicians seem to be afraid to tackle the real issues because of what might happen in the next election. It only takes about 2% of the GDP to pay for the energytransition, given that, it should be politically duable and in the long run, much cheaper than doing nothing.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:01 pm

Redd wrote:
We've solved the green energy problem, many-a-decade ago. With 'new' and clean nuclear energy (thorium molten salt reactors) there is very little waste, and that waste has a multi-decade long half life (not multi-millennium like current reactors) It's cheap, green and offers infinite energy that can be available to power the whole of the EU in a decade to 15 years, if we started building and implementing today. It's also impossible for the core to have a melt down, so it's pretty much 100% safe, and doesn't require infinite amounts of water to cool. Science brought us a solution decades ago, politics are messing it up. At least China is developing it.

Environmentalists' should be advocating going 100% nuclear where hydroelectric and other renewables are unavailable or impractical. And in the EU, wind and solar are not very practice


I love the idea of Thorium reactors, but with my limited research, there are still some technical issues to work out.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:20 pm

What is the return on investment for us consumers burning fossil fuel?
 
M564038
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:17 pm

It does make sense, as you are not adding carbon to the cycle from outside sources, net carbon being no more and no less, whereas using coal is adding carbon from the outside.


A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Burning coal introduces co2 that isn’t in the natural cycle. Burning trees includes carbon already in the cycle and is renewable by planting new trees.


That does not make sense,

You are removing the natural carbon capture then putting additional carbon in the atmosphere, but as you pointed out it takes a number of years before the new growth captures that carbon again plus the carbon from burning in the 1st place, cant see how its any worse than coal considering deforestation happens at a faster rate than coal mining will ever do, its generally 15 plus years before it can be used again depending on the species

Pretty much the uproar Australia got pelted with during the bush-fires a little while ago in regards to climate change
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:48 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Go and search the internet if you do not know the answer to a question. If you fail to understand the difference to burn coal and wood then I am not the one the educate you on that. As it comes to CCS, as I have said, it is not a proven technique and if it works as advertised, it is extremely expensive, so why talk about it?

Not going to answer your silly questions about fixing that either, why would I, I don't want to go your path, your framework because it is the wrong question to ask, sorry.


:rotfl: Geez you are a funny bugger

You are the one who brought up CCS all I said was that both coal and biomass produce CO2 they both pollute, so using you question about CCS coal and biomass is in the same boat, you are the one questioning CCS not me.

Out of the ywo only one we have to dig out of the ground and we have been doing that for some time in the UK and have enormous quantities of it available giving work to the UK economy instead of importing vast amounts of biomass from overseas money that directly leaves the UK economy

If both are producing the harmful effects that you want to stop, i'd prefer the commodity that helps the UK economy more in the long run which is coal

You have the problem with it so its up to you to provide the answers to the problem, not me :D :D


Not going into an endless and pointless debate with you. You are twisting everything in order to score some debating points, fine, I did that at university as well. But I also realize that debatingstyle of arguing doesn't lead to anything. And if you do not agree on the big picture (facts) then it is pointless to debate the finer points. As you have demonstrated, you do not agree on the big picture: climate change by human activity, so I will not go into the framework of your choosing: burning coal. The world has passed that station, so there is no point. If you wish to debate it some more, feel free, but not with me.


The answer for you is simple, if you do not like the response i give to you do not respond to my posts then. see simples
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:50 pm

M564038 wrote:
It does make sense, as you are not adding carbon to the cycle from outside sources, net carbon being no more and no less, whereas using coal is adding carbon from the outside.


correct, the long carbon cycle versus the short carbon cycle.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:56 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Nuclear is a technology. Not very interested in technology, let experts figure out the ideal energy mix for the EU, or anywhere else.


strange answer

Yes nuclear is technology, but you say you are not interested in technology. But its going to take technology to solve the problem.

Do you see your dilemma if you are not interested in technology :D


Technology in itself isn't that interesting, that is a consequence of the end picture, not the beginning. To see that, you have to think at a more abstract level.



The problem here is everything has there pro and cons, everything man does creates the greenhouses gases that you are so desperately trying to stop and that is going to have implications for everyone in climate and economic matters
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:14 pm

M564038 wrote:
It does make sense, as you are not adding carbon to the cycle from outside sources, net carbon being no more and no less, whereas using coal is adding carbon from the outside.


A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Burning coal introduces co2 that isn’t in the natural cycle. Burning trees includes carbon already in the cycle and is renewable by planting new trees.


That does not make sense,

You are removing the natural carbon capture then putting additional carbon in the atmosphere, but as you pointed out it takes a number of years before the new growth captures that carbon again plus the carbon from burning in the 1st place, cant see how its any worse than coal considering deforestation happens at a faster rate than coal mining will ever do, its generally 15 plus years before it can be used again depending on the species

Pretty much the uproar Australia got pelted with during the bush-fires a little while ago in regards to climate change


But you are releasing and replacing it with from within both sources from the natural carbon sinks,Forrest just do not capture CO2 from fossil fuels. The forests which cannot be replaced fast enough to pull the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere its certainly not carbon neutral hence the uproar about Drax

If its so good to burn wood why are some nations planning on banning wood fires heaters for domestic use?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:31 pm

A101 wrote:
The problem here is everything has there pro and cons


Correct, and to give a balanced view and get the right mix of sustainable energy, you need to be an expert in that field. I am pretty sure no one is on this site an expert, so why promote a single technology? That's why the only logical conclusion is that the technology in itself is not all that interesting.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:52 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
The problem here is everything has there pro and cons


Correct, and to give a balanced view and get the right mix of sustainable energy, you need to be an expert in that field. I am pretty sure no one is on this site an expert, so why promote a single technology? That's why the only logical conclusion is that the technology in itself is not all that interesting.


I am not promoting anything, you are reacting to a post I made about how they are complaining about biomass fuels use in the UK but the EU is getting accolades for its use of biomass,

see the problem?
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:20 pm

It's quoted that a mature tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. However when that tree dies and decays it releases some of that stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So it would probably be best if only dead trees and timber by products are used to generate heat or power. Where I live tons of dead trees

Coal on the other hand only releases CO2 when its burned
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:06 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
It's quoted that a mature tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. However when that tree dies and decays it releases some of that stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So it would probably be best if only dead trees and timber by products are used to generate heat or power. Where I live tons of dead trees

Coal on the other hand only releases CO2 when its burned


Correct from what I can ascertain that biomass would work if only dead or the waste was used to make the fuel, but unfortunately they use the whole tree or in this case whole forests to which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than does fossil fuels, its only when the regenerated forest is left standing and unaffected by other natural occurring problems like bush-fires it could in theory take 100 years to become carbon neutral from the net primary production of biomass in the first place.
 
M564038
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:31 am

Say what?
No one is suggesting burning trees is the ideal solution, but, worse than coal??
How do you even come up with this?

A101 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
It's quoted that a mature tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. However when that tree dies and decays it releases some of that stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So it would probably be best if only dead and timber by products are used to generate heat or power. Where I live tons of dead trees

Coal on the other hand only releases CO2 when its burned


Correct from what I can ascertain that biomass would work if only dead or the waste was used to make the fuel, but unfortunately they use the whole tree or in this case whole forests to which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than does fossil fuels, its only when the regenerated forest is left standing and unaffected by other natural occurring problems like bush-fires it could in theory take 100 years to become carbon neutral from the net primary production of biomass in the first place.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:41 am

M564038 wrote:
Say what?
No one is suggesting burning trees is the ideal solution, but, worse than coal??
How do you even come up with this?

A101 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
It's quoted that a mature tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. However when that tree dies and decays it releases some of that stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So it would probably be best if only dead and timber by products are used to generate heat or power. Where I live tons of dead trees

Coal on the other hand only releases CO2 when its burned


Correct from what I can ascertain that biomass would work if only dead or the waste was used to make the fuel, but unfortunately they use the whole tree or in this case whole forests to which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than does fossil fuels, its only when the regenerated forest is left standing and unaffected by other natural occurring problems like bush-fires it could in theory take 100 years to become carbon neutral from the net primary production of biomass in the first place.


Because you have to consume more biomass than fossil fuels to produce the same energy outputs which in turn releases more co2 into the atmosphere Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity than coal

The European Academies Sciences Advisory Council says;

that using woody biomass for power “is not effective in mitigating climate change and may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change.”
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13758
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:27 am

seb146 wrote:
What is the return on investment for us consumers burning fossil fuel?


A warm house, personal and public transport, plastics, pharmaceuticals, roads..............
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:27 am

Two things in favor of wood biomass -

1) the ash is not toxic like coal ash. In fact it can be used a soil fertilizer.
2) wood biomass can be used to make methanol which does burn really clean
3.8 lbs of CO2 per gallon of methanol
22.38 lbs of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel
 
M564038
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:39 am

So you still do not understand the basic premise of not introducing new(old) carbon into the cycle?

No one is pretending this to be an end all solution, but comparing it to fossils is ridiculous.

The amount one can use, how and where, from which source and properly absorb with planting, and in which time-frame, is something which I rather leave to the experts than to the logic of a climate denier on a internet discussion forum.

A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Say what?
No one is suggesting burning trees is the ideal solution, but, worse than coal??
How do you even come up with this?

A101 wrote:

Correct from what I can ascertain that biomass would work if only dead or the waste was used to make the fuel, but unfortunately they use the whole tree or in this case whole forests to which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than does fossil fuels, its only when the regenerated forest is left standing and unaffected by other natural occurring problems like bush-fires it could in theory take 100 years to become carbon neutral from the net primary production of biomass in the first place.


Because you have to consume more biomass than fossil fuels to produce the same energy outputs which in turn releases more co2 into the atmosphere Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity than coal

The European Academies Sciences Advisory Council says;

that using woody biomass for power “is not effective in mitigating climate change and may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change.”
 
M564038
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:43 am

Much of, for your use potentially has already switched away from fossil sources. I know you still drive fossil, but I rather doubt your house is warmed by fossil sources.

Kiwirob wrote:
seb146 wrote:
What is the return on investment for us consumers burning fossil fuel?


A warm house, personal and public transport, plastics, pharmaceuticals, roads..............
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:56 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Two things in favor of wood biomass -

1) the ash is not toxic like coal ash. In fact it can be used a soil fertilizer.
2) wood biomass can be used to make methanol which does burn really clean
3.8 lbs of CO2 per gallon of methanol
22.38 lbs of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel

We are going of track here but;


Fly Ash as a byproduct after the combustion cycle can be used in many everyday things, predominantly fly ash used used to make cement and bricks.

But did you know that it can also be used in various other thing like
Consumer Products and Home Uses:
Kitchen counter tops
Cosmetics
Toothpaste
Utensils and Tool Handles
Picture frames
Carpet Backing
Dog houses
Boat Hulls
Driveways
Running Tracks
Bowling Balls
Flotation Devices

Construction and Building Materials:
Raw feed for cement clinker (in kiln)
Cement replacement (in concrete)
Roofing granules
Carpet backing
Binding agent
Flooring & ceiling tile
Flowable fill
Asphalt roads
Slate-like roof tiles
Wood-like decking
Structural insulated housing panels
House siding & trim
Fireplace mantles
Aggregate
Soil modification & stabilization
Grout
Stucco
Cinder block
Roofing shingles
Paints & undercoatings
Ceiling Tile
Road base/Sub-base
Blasting Grit
Recycled plastic lumber
Utility poles & crossarms
Railway sleepers
Highway sound barriers
Drywall
Roofing tiles & panels
Marine pilings
Doors
Scaffolding, non-catastrophic failure
Window frames
Sign posts
Crypts

Architectural interiors & exteriors

Columns
Rail road ties
Bricks
PVC Pipe
Vinyl flooring
Paving stones
Paints & plastics filler
Shower Stalls
Garage doors
Park benches
Landscape timbers
Planters
Pallet blocks
Molding
Mail boxes
Artificial Reef
Agriculture:
Soil amendment & fertilizer
Dairy feedlot pads
Cattle Feeders
Agricultural stakes
Soil stabilization - stock feed yards
Recycled drywall soil amendment
Loose Application on Roads, Rivers, and as Fill:
Dumping on rivers to melt ice
Land contour & golf course fill
Structural fills & embankments
Mining applications/minefill
Snow & ice traction on roads and parking lots
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alias1024, NIKV69, tomaheath and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos