Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
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 8:16 am

M564038 wrote:
So you still do not understand the basic premise of not introducing new(old) carbon into the cycle?

It does not matter if the CO2 inthe atmosphere is new or old, CO2 emitted today has the same impact irrespective if it comes from coal or biomass

M564038 wrote:
No one is pretending this to be an end all solution, but comparing it to fossils is ridiculous.


I dont think I have ever said that did :scratchchin:

M564038 wrote:
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.


The basic premises of the fact is that burning biomass made from trees releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than coal does pkWh, the time frame to recapture that excess release of CO2 from replanting is 40–100 years after clearcut, New plantations only capture CO2 when mature depending on the species of tree felled and what species replaces it with most clearcut being replaced with fast growing pine which absords CO2 at a slower rate than most hardwoods

In the end I applauded the reforestation by increasing the size of our natural carbon sinks without clear-felling areas to produce biomass will actually be better for the environment because those areas not cleared are continuing to absorb excess CO2 while new growth establishes itself to continue the process :coffee:
 
M564038
Posts: 917
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 12:17 pm

But you don't get it. Seriously.

So lets focus on the bit you don't seem to get in very simplistic terms:

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system. By burning fossils we introduce new carbon in the form of CO2 into the system, throwing it out of balance because the system can't bind the excess CO2.
That is the root of the problem of man made climate change.

Using energy sources within the system will therefore always be inherently better than bringing in an external carbon source.

A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
So you still do not understand the basic premise of not introducing new(old) carbon into the cycle?

It does not matter if the CO2 inthe atmosphere is new or old, CO2 emitted today has the same impact irrespective if it comes from coal or biomass

M564038 wrote:
No one is pretending this to be an end all solution, but comparing it to fossils is ridiculous.


I dont think I have ever said that did :scratchchin:

M564038 wrote:
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.


The basic premises of the fact is that burning biomass made from trees releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than coal does pkWh, the time frame to recapture that excess release of CO2 from replanting is 40–100 years after clearcut, New plantations only capture CO2 when mature depending on the species of tree felled and what species replaces it with most clearcut being replaced with fast growing pine which absords CO2 at a slower rate than most hardwoods

In the end I applauded the reforestation by increasing the size of our natural carbon sinks without clear-felling areas to produce biomass will actually be better for the environment because those areas not cleared are continuing to absorb excess CO2 while new growth establishes itself to continue the process :coffee:
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1228
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 1:14 pm

According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13789
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 1:27 pm

M564038 wrote:
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..............


Of course it isn't I live in Norway, my house is warmed by hydro and a tiny bit of wind, but some of my neighbour's still have oil fired central heating.
 
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 2:39 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.


Very good so 100% of fly ash is not recycled, yet you will still have the same problem with biomass to even greater extent as you have to burn more than coal for every kWh, yet there is a reason why they are moving to gas fired plant. Industrial waste is a has been problem since the start of the industrial revolution and continues in many industries not just power generation

Yes coal is a gift that keeps on giving as its relatively low cost has pulled a lot of people out of poverty, and I will say in 100 years we will still be mining coal because it still has its uses
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13789
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 2:45 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.


If you're burning biomass i.e. wood pellets then what happens to the ash left over from that? Before we decommissioned our fireplaces we always had to clean out ash, if you're burning on an industrial scale the amount of ash must be massive.
 
M564038
Posts: 917
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 3:18 pm

So you still don't understand why we simply can't use coal?

A101 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.


Very good so 100% of fly ash is not recycled, yet you will still have the same problem with biomass to even greater extent as you have to burn more than coal for every kWh, yet there is a reason why they are moving to gas fired plant. Industrial waste is a has been problem since the start of the industrial revolution and continues in many industries not just power generation

Yes coal is a gift that keeps on giving as its relatively low cost has pulled a lot of people out of poverty, and I will say in 100 years we will still be mining coal because it still has its uses
 
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 3:19 pm

M564038 wrote:
But you don't get it. Seriously.

So lets focus on the bit you don't seem to get in very simplistic terms:

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system. By burning fossils we introduce new carbon in the form of CO2 into the system, throwing it out of balance because the system can't bind the excess CO2.
That is the root of the problem of man made climate change.


No sorry that is wrong carbon, for burning fossil fuels is a natural part of the earth ecosystem and is naturally occurs with volcanic eruptions and we have approximately 40 odd eruptions happening right now, in 2020 we had 68 eruptions all burning fossil fuels those same fossil fuels we burn in power generation

The thing is you are saying we are in a climate emergency and we need to reduce our levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, but your defending biomass that increase the concentrations of CO2 at a higher rate than fossil fuels will ever do in power generation

Climate change is naturally occurring we know the earth is spinning on its axis we know that over time with that spinning the earth axis will tilt and reduce sunlight return the Northern hemisphere into another ice age, but dont fret thats not expected to happen for another 30000 years
 
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 3:59 pm

I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated

Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1228
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 4:04 pm

Coal ash is toxic.

Wood Ash is actually a fertilizer.
"Ash is also a good source of potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium. In terms of commercial fertilizer, average wood ash would be about 0-1-3 (N-P-K). In addition to these macro-nutrients, wood ash is a good source of many micronutrients needed in trace amounts for adequate plant growth"
 
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 4:41 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Coal ash is toxic.

Wood Ash is actually a fertilizer.
"Ash is also a good source of potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium. In terms of commercial fertilizer, average wood ash would be about 0-1-3 (N-P-K). In addition to these macro-nutrients, wood ash is a good source of many micronutrients needed in trace amounts for adequate plant growth"



Fly ash has been used in agriculture for many years, Fly ash has both the soil amending and nutrient enriching properties, is helpful in improving crop growth and yield in low fertility acid lateritic soils.
 
M564038
Posts: 917
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 5:06 pm

And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle. How is this hard to fathom?

A101 wrote:
I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated

Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW
 
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

Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:18 pm

bpatus297 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


I love the idea of Thorium reactors, but with my limited research, there are still some technical issues to work out.


It's an interesting discussion. They had one up and running with no issues back in 1965' to 1969', having it run for a total of 15000 hours or so at Oak Ridge. China is pursuing the technology and many companies as well, including Bill Gates' TerraPower.

The conspiracy theory that rings the loudest behind the reason why uranium reactors were chosen over Thorium, was just that it was good business. Building a 'traditional' power plant is huge money, while molten salt reactor power plants can literally be made to fit in a large shipping container. So the story goes, big business won out in the end.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

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

Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:26 pm

Redd wrote:
bpatus297 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


I love the idea of Thorium reactors, but with my limited research, there are still some technical issues to work out.


It's an interesting discussion. They had one up and running with no issues back in 1965' to 1969', having it run for a total of 15000 hours or so at Oak Ridge. China is pursuing the technology and many companies as well, including Bill Gates' TerraPower.

The conspiracy theory that rings the loudest behind the reason why uranium reactors were chosen over Thorium, was just that it was good business. Building a 'traditional' power plant is huge money, while molten salt reactor power plants can literally be made to fit in a large shipping container. So the story goes, big business won out in the end.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the byproduct was desirable for weapons production as well.
 
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 6:06 pm

M564038 wrote:
A101 wrote:
I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated
Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW


And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle.


You said this;

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system



For which i showed you were wrong, earth natural ecosystem burns fossil fuels so its all part of the one system.

Coal is to fossil fuel as trees are to biomass we are burning them on-mass in man made power generations system at a rate that exceeds to what naturally occurs.

M564038 wrote:
How is this hard to fathom?


You refuse to acknowledge that we are burning biomass at a higher rate than we would burn fossil fuel, the CO2 is released in man made quantities via both fossil fuel and biomass
 
M564038
Posts: 917
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 6:46 pm

You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
A101 wrote:
I also forgot to add that Australia has a coal seam burning underground for the last 5000 years they estimated
Hence the name burning Mountain in NSW


And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle.


You said this;

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system



For which i showed you were wrong, earth natural ecosystem burns fossil fuels so its all part of the one system.

Coal is to fossil fuel as trees are to biomass we are burning them on-mass in man made power generations system at a rate that exceeds to what naturally occurs.

M564038 wrote:
How is this hard to fathom?


You refuse to acknowledge that we are burning biomass at a higher rate than we would burn fossil fuel, the CO2 is released in man made quantities via both fossil fuel and biomass
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24184
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

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

Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:22 pm

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..............


I and many people here have electric heat. Our electric company gets power from renewable sources like wind and hydro. Some people do use stoves and fireplaces which use renewable wood. How renewable is fossil? Is it being replaced at the same rate as, say, wind or hydro? That was my question. Sorry I didn't make it clear...
 
windy95
Posts: 2802
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

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

Tue Nov 30, 2021 7:30 pm

M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:


And is a part of man-made global warming how, exactly? You seem like you simply refuse to understand that we can’t knowingly continue to introduce more CO2 to the cycle.


You said this;

The carbon cycle is a closed system. Biomass, and biofuels are a part of this closed circular system in balance.
Fossil fuels are not part of this closed system


Every time a global alarmist uses "scientific consensus" I cringe. Maybe the term political consensus should be used instead.


For which i showed you were wrong, earth natural ecosystem burns fossil fuels so its all part of the one system.

Coal is to fossil fuel as trees are to biomass we are burning them on-mass in man made power generations system at a rate that exceeds to what naturally occurs.

M564038 wrote:
How is this hard to fathom?


You refuse to acknowledge that we are burning biomass at a higher rate than we would burn fossil fuel, the CO2 is released in man made quantities via both fossil fuel and biomass
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1228
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 7:52 pm

"The official line on adding coal or smokeless fuel ash to the garden and particularly the vegetable plot, is don't do it. Apparently the ash can contain trace elements of arsenic and metals such as cadmium, iron, lead, zinc, aluminium and so forth" - Google

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12848
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 30, 2021 8:01 pm

M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14950
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:55 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.


Another nice consequence of coal mining, pumps that have to be run forever : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14950
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:21 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the byproduct was desirable for weapons production as well.


Yes, that was the main reason. And some technologies were furthermore chosen for that reason for early plants.

Now about molten salts reactors, they require the salts to be chemically processed "online", continuously. This is something that I have a hard time wrapping my head around. And in the US, nuclear waste reprocessing is illegal, I hear.

Thorium reactors can't start by themselves (that's why they're safe, they literally can't get critical), you need other more radioactive elements to start them.

I have no problem with billions being spent into looking into all kinds of solution though, in fact there is an argument that too much money has been spent on wind turbines in particular, not in research but in subsidizing them, to the detriment of research on nuclear energy.
 
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 11:06 pm

M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/

The group argues that EU institutions have failed to take account of scientific evidence showing that forest biomass harvesting and combustion for energy purposes exacerbates climate change by causing deforestation outside of Europe.

“The treatment of biomass as carbon neutral runs counter to scientific findings” [showing that burning wood for energy typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3 times more than natural gas, the plaintiffs point out.

The renewable energy directive was agreed last year despite warnings from a group of more than[800 scientists who said that deliberately harvesting wood for burning “will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries – even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.”

Because trees take time to regrow, harvesting them for energy use increases the world’s “carbon debt” for decades if not centuries, according to a research paper published in scientific journal Nature in September. Wood “typically emits 1.5x the CO2 of coal and 3x the CO2 of natural gas because of wood’s carbon bonds, water content and lower burning temperature,” they wrote.



MohawkWeekend wrote:

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html


Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events
 
M564038
Posts: 917
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 11:59 pm

Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.

A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/

The group argues that EU institutions have failed to take account of scientific evidence showing that forest biomass harvesting and combustion for energy purposes exacerbates climate change by causing deforestation outside of Europe.

“The treatment of biomass as carbon neutral runs counter to scientific findings” [showing that burning wood for energy typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3 times more than natural gas, the plaintiffs point out.

The renewable energy directive was agreed last year despite warnings from a group of more than[800 scientists who said that deliberately harvesting wood for burning “will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries – even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.”

Because trees take time to regrow, harvesting them for energy use increases the world’s “carbon debt” for decades if not centuries, according to a research paper published in scientific journal Nature in September. Wood “typically emits 1.5x the CO2 of coal and 3x the CO2 of natural gas because of wood’s carbon bonds, water content and lower burning temperature,” they wrote.



MohawkWeekend wrote:

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html


Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events
 
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 Dec 01, 2021 12:08 am

Aesma wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
According to the US EPA and Coal Ash Industry information, only 64% of coal ash is recycled. It is the one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the US. https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics

There is the monumental cost of cleaning up all the poorly buried coal ash from the last 150 years of consumption. And of course the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in Tennessee which cost over a billion dollars to clean up. Coal is the gift that keeps on giving.


Another nice consequence of coal mining, pumps that have to be run forever : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8



Pilot trials to turn old mines into green hydro power

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... rgy-future
 
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 Dec 01, 2021 12:22 am

M564038 wrote:
Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.

A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/

The group argues that EU institutions have failed to take account of scientific evidence showing that forest biomass harvesting and combustion for energy purposes exacerbates climate change by causing deforestation outside of Europe.

“The treatment of biomass as carbon neutral runs counter to scientific findings” [showing that burning wood for energy typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3 times more than natural gas, the plaintiffs point out.

The renewable energy directive was agreed last year despite warnings from a group of more than[800 scientists who said that deliberately harvesting wood for burning “will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries – even when wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.”

Because trees take time to regrow, harvesting them for energy use increases the world’s “carbon debt” for decades if not centuries, according to a research paper published in scientific journal Nature in September. Wood “typically emits 1.5x the CO2 of coal and 3x the CO2 of natural gas because of wood’s carbon bonds, water content and lower burning temperature,” they wrote.



MohawkWeekend wrote:

A101 - here is an article in today's USA Today that explains why biomass fuel works for some communities
"Switching to a pellet stove helps Maine in more ways than one" https://www.yahoo.com/news/switching-pe ... 00102.html


Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events


Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time

Indeed, the directive incorporates the view that forest biomass is inherently carbon neutral if harvested sustainably, wrote the signatories of the Nature article. “But sustainable does not equal low carbon,” they warn, saying harvesting and burning biomass reduces forests’ ability to absorb carbon and adds CO2 to the air “just like burning any other carbon fuel”.



the scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. “Trees do not grow back fast enough to compensate for these initial emissions, which means the wood is not generally a sensible alternative to fossil fuels,”


And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1470
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:51 pm

A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.

A101 wrote:

What you think I just pluck the information out of thin air?

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... le-energy/








Don’t get me wrong there is a place for burning wood, after all I used wood in my own wood heater using dead or fell trees knocked over on my property from severe weather events


Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time

Indeed, the directive incorporates the view that forest biomass is inherently carbon neutral if harvested sustainably, wrote the signatories of the Nature article. “But sustainable does not equal low carbon,” they warn, saying harvesting and burning biomass reduces forests’ ability to absorb carbon and adds CO2 to the air “just like burning any other carbon fuel”.



the scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. “Trees do not grow back fast enough to compensate for these initial emissions, which means the wood is not generally a sensible alternative to fossil fuels,”


And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop


People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:09 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.


Exactly, how much carbon or better carbon equivalents, can we admit before we reach the 1,5 degrees and that's not much anymore. Unless we remove carbon from the atmosphere, not cheap, we cannot admit too much carbon before we have reached the limits of our common carbon budget. And that's why academics reached the logical conclusion that half the world's fossil fuel 'assets' are worthless. Burning 100% of those assets will not fit in the carbon budget.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:55 pm

Aesma wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the byproduct was desirable for weapons production as well.


Yes, that was the main reason. And some technologies were furthermore chosen for that reason for early plants.

Now about molten salts reactors, they require the salts to be chemically processed "online", continuously. This is something that I have a hard time wrapping my head around. And in the US, nuclear waste reprocessing is illegal, I hear.

Thorium reactors can't start by themselves (that's why they're safe, they literally can't get critical), you need other more radioactive elements to start them.

I have no problem with billions being spent into looking into all kinds of solution though, in fact there is an argument that too much money has been spent on wind turbines in particular, not in research but in subsidizing them, to the detriment of research on nuclear energy.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I am excited about the future of nuclear power. I wish more funding would be put into it. Thorium and other fail safe reactor designs are very encouraging. In most current designs, you have to work to keep them from going critical where with newer designs, you have to work to keep them from shutting down.

The whole reprocessing of used nuclear fuel in the US is stupid, don't get me started.
 
windy95
Posts: 2802
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:30 pm

Dutchy wrote:
M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .


The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:43 pm

windy95 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .


The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.


so you do not believe in the scientific process? Or only believe the science that suits your believes? But thanks for proving my point.
 
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 Dec 01, 2021 8:11 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Your linked article says exactly the same I have been saying all along. They problematize breaking the cycle with net deforrestation, which is the same as bringing new CO2 (fossil fuels) into it. We can't do either of those.



Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time

Indeed, the directive incorporates the view that forest biomass is inherently carbon neutral if harvested sustainably, wrote the signatories of the Nature article. “But sustainable does not equal low carbon,” they warn, saying harvesting and burning biomass reduces forests’ ability to absorb carbon and adds CO2 to the air “just like burning any other carbon fuel”.



the scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. “Trees do not grow back fast enough to compensate for these initial emissions, which means the wood is not generally a sensible alternative to fossil fuels,”


And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop


People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.


Simple in theory; complicated in practice that’s the problem
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1470
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:48 pm

A101 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
A101 wrote:

Biomass is not the answer to fossil fuels either but using fossil fuels produce less C02 to the environment for which you want to reduce now not in 40-100years time





And remember you are adding 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and 3times more than gas.
After every harvest and burn it’s rinse and repeat like a self licking lollipop


People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.


Simple in theory; complicated in practice that’s the problem


The US could implement carbon taxes fairly easily. I don’t see it as very complicated. There would be a tax on natural gas, agricultural products, liquid fuels, coal, electricity. Most of these products are already overseen by the government, so changing the amount of tax is fairly easy… but I think people just don’t want to pay, So, they panic and start making stuff up. Some even say it is “too complicated.” Emissions are pretty easy to quantify. But I agree that mitigations are hard to quantify. That will be hard. This is all IF we care about carbon… or if this is about politics.
 
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 Dec 01, 2021 9:01 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
A101 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.


Simple in theory; complicated in practice that’s the problem


The US could implement carbon taxes fairly easily. I don’t see it as very complicated. There would be a tax on natural gas, agricultural products, liquid fuels, coal, electricity. Most of these products are already overseen by the government, so changing the amount of tax is fairly easy… but I think people just don’t want to pay, So, they panic and start making stuff up. Some even say it is “too complicated.” Emissions are pretty easy to quantify. But I agree that mitigations are hard to quantify. That will be hard. This is all IF we care about carbon… or if this is about politics.



Agree its easy to put additional tax on things that is the easy way out, but it does have real consequences to the economy. In most industrialized countries the tax burden of poor people has increased dramatically over the last few decades and continue the trend of the working poor

As always the rich get richer the poor get poor the only thing additional carbon tax does is to make the rich feel good about themselves
Last edited by A101 on Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
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 Dec 01, 2021 9:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
People are endlessly trying to complicate the problem. What matters is:

How much CO2 do we allow to be emitted
How much CO2 is being sucked up by plants or man made devices (not enough?)

That’s it. That’s the entire issue (substitute other greenhouse gases as needed). The details about mode choice don’t matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the carbon, and did you pay for a permit to emit the carbon.


Exactly, how much carbon or better carbon equivalents, can we admit before we reach the 1,5 degrees and that's not much anymore.


That is still up for debate

Dutchy wrote:
Unless we remove carbon from the atmosphere, not cheap, we cannot admit too much carbon before we have reached the limits of our common carbon budget.


I guess that is the only thing we agree on, but the only real correct way to do that is an increase in natural carbon sinks, but the pesky little problem of population growth the need for shelter and food will put a kibosh on that



Dutchy wrote:
And that's why academics reached the logical conclusion that half the world's fossil fuel 'assets' are worthless.


Academics will not determine the value of theses assets, the market will do 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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:43 pm

windy95 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
M564038 wrote:
You are simply not grasping the realities. This means you should listen to scientific consensus and trust your own opinion less.


unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .


The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.



Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade
 
M564038
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

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

Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 pm

Rather the opposite. It has come under so much scrutiny, negative propaganda and uneccesary delay we are years and decades to late in turning the ship around.
There are no one in the know that are doubting the precarious situation.

A101 wrote:
windy95 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

unfortunately, some in society don't take facts and scientists too seriously as we have seen on many occasions .


The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.



Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade
 
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 Dec 01, 2021 11:50 pm

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:
windy95 wrote:

The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.



Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade



There are no one in the know that are doubting the precarious situation.



And that its far from being remotely true, hence @windy95 comment and my own

As the notable climatologist Roy Spencer. Ph. D said "Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
 
M564038
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:29 am

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -by-humans
As for the 0.1%? That is a suprisingly low number considering the prevalence of mental illness, it might just be the strongest cosensus you can find on any topic outside 1+1=2.

As for Roy Spencer. You are looking to a discredited and de-bunked researcher working for these guys, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C. ... _Institute, to be a serious, neutral source for your (strong and bizarre)opinion in the matter?
Feel free to have a look on his former employers position on consensus in the matter:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Or give your local university or one of the following a call, and have them explain things to you:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
A101 wrote:
M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:


Yep the public theme of climate emergency and that "Our House is On Fire" and being unquestioned by most mainstream media and the "Sky is Falling Down" on our heads brigade



There are no one in the know that are doubting the precarious situation.



And that its far from being remotely true, hence @windy95 comment and my own

As the notable climatologist Roy Spencer. Ph. D said "Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
 
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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:30 am

M564038 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -by-humans
As for the 0.1%? That is a suprisingly low number considering the prevalence of mental illness, it might just be the strongest cosensus you can find on any topic outside 1+1=2.


Really a consensus?

Putting the 'con' in consensus;

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... ore-issues


M564038 wrote:
As for Roy Spencer. You are looking to a discredited and de-bunked researcher working for these guys, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C. ... _Institute, to be a serious, neutral source for your (strong and bizarre)opinion in the matter?



Seems to me if anyone comes up with an alternate view @ windy is right on the money
And why because he does not believe the modeling is correct and for that you dismiss what he says


The quasi-religious cult of global warming always shouts the words science or consensus in order to silence dissent.


Distorting the view of our climate future: The misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios
Climate science research and assessments under the umbrella of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have misused scenarios for more than a decade. Symptoms of misuse have included the treatment of an unrealistic, extreme scenario as the world’s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories. Reasons why such misuse arose include (a) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy relevant pathways, (b) the evolving role of the IPCC – which extended its mandate in a way that creates an inter-relationship between literature assessment and literature coordination, (c) unforeseen consequences of employing a temporary approach to scenario development, (d) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios, and (e) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of policy. Consequently, much of the climate research community is presently off-track from scientific coherence and policy-relevance. Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked. The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on future climate change and climate policy. Until reform is implemented, we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue, threatening the overall credibility of the IPCC and associated climate research. However, because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios, there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested - even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment.



And why the modeling should be questioned if the modeling is based on a flawed position from the start

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/th ... onceptions.

A 2015 literature review found almost 900 peer-reviewed studies published on breast cancer using a cell line derived from a breast cancer patient in Texas in 1976. But in 2007 it was confirmed that the cell line that had long been the focus of this research was actually not a breast cancer line, but was instead a skin cancer line. Whoops.

Even worse, from 2008 to 2014 — after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified — the review identified 247 peer-reviewed articles putatively on breast cancer that were published using the misidentified skin cancer cell line. A cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that studies continue to be published in 2020 mistakenly using the skin cell line in breast cancer research.

The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified. This is particularly the case when the flaws exist in databases that underlie research across an entire discipline.


M564038 wrote:
Feel free to have a look on his former employers position on consensus in the matter:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Which does not mean he is wrong, NASA is a very political organisation which relies on a lot of money to keep going

It would not be the 1st time or the last time they let people go because it does not suit the political situation. Have been in that situation before (not on this issue) with the head honchos taking a certain position only to be found out later that there position was wrong which cost an even lot more money to the organisation


M564038 wrote:
Or give your local university or one of the following a call, and have them explain things to you:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences




It would be interesting to find out if all their researchers agree 100% and if any whom were hounded out because they did not agree
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:50 am

M564038 wrote:
Or give your local university or one of the following a call, and have them explain things to yo


Kuddos for trying to convince people on the extreme left of the bell curve. I think it is no use. Some people just don't want to be convinced by facts and sound science. Some have a belief system and all that contradict it will be dismissed. You can see it with every subject, especially ones that might impact their own lives in a real sense. Climate change is such a subject. If you take it seriously, one does realize it does mean it will impact your life. It does impact everyone's life at this moment, but if you are older than say 60, the bulk of it will be there after you are gone and buried. And that will make changing things more difficult because you need to change your life for someone else, your children and grandchildren (if you have them), or even more difficult, for humanity's future.
I, for one, will not put any more effort into convincing people in the last 10% of the bell curve. There is a lot of evidence available, if you simply refuse to believe it, fine, then don't, one will not be convinced by facts, so why bother. It seems crazy to me, dismissing science like that, but it is in their provocative to do so and in mine just to ignore those comments.
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:41 pm

JJJ wrote:
M564038 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:


All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?


....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.


And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:43 pm

In the Civilian Aviation thread, there is a discussion on United Airlines flying the first passenger flight in the US with 100% sustainable aviation fuel.

This same debate is taking place regarding whether of not SAF is carbon neutral. Important as it's what the entire airline industry is counting on over the next 20 years to reduce their impact. Is it Greenwashing or a real improvement?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12848
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:27 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
In the Civilian Aviation thread, there is a discussion on United Airlines flying the first passenger flight in the US with 100% sustainable aviation fuel.

This same debate is taking place regarding whether of not SAF is carbon neutral. Important as it's what the entire airline industry is counting on over the next 20 years to reduce their impact. Is it Greenwashing or a real improvement?


It truly depends on how you make the SAF how sustainable it is. The problem with aviation is that there are hardly any real alternatives to make it sustainable. So the alternatives would be to reduce the number of flights in order to reduce the impact. Currently, we are still - pre-Corona that is of course - growing worldwide aviation with a larger percentage than any gains in efficiency.
 
M564038
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:55 pm

Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!

Aquila3 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
M564038 wrote:

All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?


....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.


And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5232
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:44 pm

We have the science and technology to 'have it all'. Reduce the use of fossil fuel as fast as we can (building, ground transportation, and industry), give aviation incentives AND a CO2 tax to facilitate their share, maybe off-sets. We have the ability to see that the world is fed, that much disease and death can be avoided, the people can be safely housed, and that people the world around can easily make it to 75 years of age. There are challenges, but mostly of a political nature dealing with the inherent selfishness of the human animal.
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:47 pm

M564038 wrote:
Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!

Aquila3 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.


And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.


Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand her.
 
M564038
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:01 pm

So yes,
You are going at it the wrong way and using the wrong numbers.
I drive a bit more than average, but my car also use a bit less than an average EV per km, and the meter show it has consumed 2503.55kWh over the last year. (Including transmission loss)

In addition, to find the actual draw on the grid, you need to subtract the savings in gasoline refinement which, according to those in the know is about about 1kWh/10km.

Combining these numbers with average driving distances, you’ll find that an average draw over 24hours for a EV is 125Wh.

To point you to where your numbers is off:
A car has 2 kW ratings:
1/The engine size: Maximum theoretical power output, just as an fossil car, where it was traditionally measured in Horse Power. You never actually reach even a fraction of this number. This is not an interesting number in measuring consumption.

2/The battery size, measured in kWh.
The most popular size for newer mid range EVs (Polestar, Tesla 3, Ioniq 5 etc) seems to be around 70kWh. This will get you around 400Km in real life. Upwards of 500Km in an M3 on a summers day.

Completely in line with what I measure myself of my owns car’s consumption, and what I see from the numbers I have access to from our housing area’s garage charging stations where we have closer to 200EVs with individual stations to measure.

Aquila3 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!

Aquila3 wrote:

And electric cars as well.

Since we do not want a nuclear power station for each middle sized city, I do not see another practical way to generate all the power needed for charging our thirtsy batteries in this century. Probably the C02 realease will set new records, because the electric generation and transport infrastructure will not be ready for decades, creating great inefficiences.
I hope to be wrong, but I do not see practically how else we will end up. That is sad, because with less ideology and more practical sense we could do much better until we wait for the Fusion (or any other holy grail to come). Yes, I mean humble things other posters have already discussed like Natural (or recycling) Gas, Hybrid with brake regeneration, biomass fuels including , ( OMG! I said that) diesel and kerosene.
Ah cars manufactures love electric for only one reason: it costs them less and sells for 50% more (incuding maintenence , read battery replacement). That guy that sells eco-friendly things like flamethrowers ans space trips is not stupid.


Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand 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

Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:51 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
We have the science and technology to 'have it all'. Reduce the use of fossil fuel as fast as we can (building, ground transportation, and industry), give aviation incentives AND a CO2 tax to facilitate their share, maybe off-sets. We have the ability to see that the world is fed, that much disease and death can be avoided, the people can be safely housed, and that people the world around can easily make it to 75 years of age. There are challenges, but mostly of a political nature dealing with the inherent selfishness of the human animal.



It seems like you are looking for utopia?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5232
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:33 am

A101 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
We have the science and technology to 'have it all'. Reduce the use of fossil fuel as fast as we can (building, ground transportation, and industry), give aviation incentives AND a CO2 tax to facilitate their share, maybe off-sets. We have the ability to see that the world is fed, that much disease and death can be avoided, the people can be safely housed, and that people the world around can easily make it to 75 years of age. There are challenges, but mostly of a political nature dealing with the inherent selfishness of the human animal.



It seems like you are looking for utopia?


Only what is easily possible. Not one thing is very difficult. Renewable energy is already cheaper than the alternatives. Some fossil fuels to cover shortages. EVs are about ready to predominate, battery shortages are the only real slow down. Modern public health care is surprisingly inexpensive. Agriculture presents some readily solivable challenges. Selfishness can wreck it all.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ben7x, FGITD, lentokone, SL1200MK2, stlgph, TheF15Ace, WildcatYXU and 29 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