'Murica! (377 Viewers)

[Seven]

This is under the guise that CO2 is a deadly toxin and creates climate change. Coal burning can also create sulfur and mercery emissions, which are more proven to be harmful than CO2, but are emitted at rates that pale in comparison to CO2. I actually wrote some industry analysis back in college for a firm that wanted to "trap" carbon emissions from coal power plants in order to recycle its use in some capacity. The idea is that the CO2 combustion could be used a catalyst to drive some other type of energy production, such as the mining of coal itself. I think there are a few power plants now that have actually succeeded in converting CO2 emissions to be used in useful fossil fuel extraction downstream, which is a pretty cool idea. But like I said, this idea was created under the assumption that CO2 is driving climate change. Climates have always changed.

CO2 is not deadly? That's a first.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[IliveForJuve]

Climate change deniers

 

[General]

Very creationasty

 

[Osman]

Clean energy doesn't really exist either according to some. I mean, even to create the turbines used in wind farms requires some type of metallurgy, which most likely creates some type of CO2 emission. Even solar panels which are thought to be very clean have to be disposed of, and in turn are considered hazardous waste once depleted. So "clean energy" is a myth to begin with.

Whats next? Common cold makes you sick too, so there is no point getting rid of cancer?

 

[Enron]

I already know about his assignment and owner. What i wanted to know was; is he a known/important figure in usa.

Oh ok. No he isn't. But he does have a lot of middle east experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Average premiums and overall healthcare costs have increased after its implementation. I see it in my own benefits year over year. My CAO even argued this in an all-staff meeting of my supposed liberal company. As insurance companies pull out of creating the supply, of course costs will go up. It was always a simple Econ 101 problem that anybody with half a brain could predict.

Don't healthcare costs and premiums have an upward trend for the past 50 years or so?

- - - Updated - - -

This is under the guise that CO2 is a deadly toxin and creates climate change. Coal burning can also create sulfur and mercery emissions, which are more proven to be harmful than CO2, but are emitted at rates that pale in comparison to CO2. I actually wrote some industry analysis back in college for a firm that wanted to "trap" carbon emissions from coal power plants in order to recycle its use in some capacity. The idea is that the CO2 combustion could be used a catalyst to drive some other type of energy production, such as the mining of coal itself. I think there are a few power plants now that have actually succeeded in converting CO2 emissions to be used in useful fossil fuel extraction downstream, which is a pretty cool idea. But like I said, this idea was created under the assumption that CO2 is driving climate change. Climates have always changed.

If we listened to the market we would never mine coal over nat gas or oil. Costs are just too much to sustain the industry.

 

[Bjerknes]

CO2 is not deadly?

Anyways, coal is anything but clean. Saying the words "clean" and "coal" next to each other is retarded and should be ridiculed by anyone with half a brain cell.

CO2 isn't deadly, unless your atmosphere is devoid of oxygen. But in that case you would die anyway. You're thinking of carbon monoxide which is deadly even at moderate ppm.

Never at the rates seen currently, and almost certainly caused by the imbalance in the carbon cycle due to human activity. CO2's toxicity/non-toxicity has got nothing to do with.

Also, CO2 is an extremely stable molecule and cannot 'combust'.

I'd be careful with using words like "never" in climate science. The earth is billions of years old, dude. Geological records only date back for millions. And even then it is debatable with respect to carbon dioxide levels.

Dude. It's ridiculous to say 'clean coal'. Our use of solar energy has not been great so far, but obviously it's much more likely to be a sustainable and cleaner form of energy than friggin' coal. There is no defending his point of view, which is obviously just there because he struck a deal with coal companies.

Solar is expensive and not efficient; a lot of it is wasted heat. We need better technology to sufficiently capture this energy source so that it can be useful. The use of energy has its life cycles as well -- we use the cheapest energy now while we wait for better technology in the future to capture alternative forms. There's no sense in not using the cheapest, most efficient energy while we have it. Most power firms use a variety of sources, anything from nat gas to nuclear and coal in order to sustain a balanced portfolio of resources to hedge against market imbalances. No way will solar or wind create the supply needed to run economies unless there is some major technological finding.

Oh ok. No he isn't. But he does have a lot of middle east experience.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't healthcare costs and premiums have an upward trend for the past 50 years or so?

- - - Updated - - -



If we listened to the market we would never mine coal over nat gas or oil. Costs are just too much to sustain the industry.

Costs are artificially high because of regulation, but nat gas is great. Problem for the greenies is that nat gas has methane emissions. So I guess we have to shut down the economy completely so we can get a new ice age.

 

[campionesidd]

CO2 isn't deadly, unless your atmosphere is devoid of oxygen. But in that case you would die anyway. You're thinking of carbon monoxide which is deadly even at moderate ppm.



I'd be careful with using words like "never" in climate science. The earth is billions of years old, dude. Geological records only date back for millions. And even then it is debatable with respect to carbon dioxide levels.



Solar is expensive and not efficient; a lot of it is wasted heat. We need better technology to sufficiently capture this energy source so that it can be useful. The use of energy has its life cycles as well -- we use the cheapest energy now while we wait for better technology in the future to capture alternative forms. There's no sense in not using the cheapest, most efficient energy while we have it. Most power firms use a variety of sources, anything from nat gas to nuclear and coal in order to sustain a balanced portfolio of resources to hedge against market imbalances. No way will solar or wind create the supply needed to run economies unless there is some major technological finding.




Costs are artificially high because of regulation, but nat gas is great. Problem for the greenies is that nat gas has methane emissions. So I guess we have to shut down the economy completely so we can get a new ice age.

We receive 120,000 TW of solar radiation. It is completely idiotic to not harness any of it, just because it's inefficient.
BTW, Natural Gas IS methane.

 

[General]

nuclear energy all the way to support industry

 

[Ronn]

Solar is expensive and not efficient; a lot of it is wasted heat. We need better technology to sufficiently capture this energy source so that it can be useful. The use of energy has its life cycles as well -- we use the cheapest energy now while we wait for better technology in the future to capture alternative forms. There's no sense in not using the cheapest, most efficient energy while we have it. Most power firms use a variety of sources, anything from nat gas to nuclear and coal in order to sustain a balanced portfolio of resources to hedge against market imbalances. No way will solar or wind create the supply needed to run economies unless there is some major technological finding.

That "wasted heat" is wasted even without a solar panel harvesting it so that statement doesn't make any sense. Price of solar has been on decline consistently for more than a decade now, and will go lower with larger scale installations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-costs-drop-as-fossil-fuels-increase-iea-says

 

[Ronn]

Also, efficiency of coal-fired power plants are not that great anyway, and stands at around 32%. This is the electrical energy you generate from the plant divided by total energy (electrical+heat). For natural gas it is around 43% (source: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html, efficiency=3412/heat rate).
Efficiency of commercial solar panels stands around 21-22%. Some energy is lost in power electronic circuits, which makes the whole system 19-20% efficient. Given that the source of the energy is free, I'd say it is not that bad at all.

 

[s4tch]

http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201703019426/research/trump-and-truth-study-political-misinformation

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Isn't it about time we change the thread title?

 

[icemaη]

Isn't it about time we change the thread title?

Better?

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Better?

Perfect

 

[Ronn]

great title

 

[Osman]

@Hustini @Juve_fanatic

 

[DAiDEViL]

Matt Damon's best Movie.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Excellent

 

[Hust]

@Hustini @Juve_fanatic

some of us were singing that today

 

[campionesidd]

CO2 is not deadly? That's a first.

It's not. It is a greenhouse gas though, don't know why Bjernkes keeps denying climate change.