human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 39 of 111
Quote:Yours was Don't burn forests. Don't melt the permafrost. That is NOT a solution. It is wishful thinking. A solution shows how to recapture the carbon when the forests burn and the permafrost melts because those unfortunate events will keep happening. Planting more trees is NOT a solution, especially when the rich will decide the forest would be of more use if it was sold as lumber, plywood, and fuel instead of used only as a place to store carbon. Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, won't be President forever, but somebody just like him will have the same stupid plans for the Amazon Rain forest that Bolsonaro has -- sell all the trees and burn what is leftover. In Russia, somebody like Putin will decide Siberia would be better if it was hotter, therefore all the permafrost should be melted in order to release the methane to increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over Siberia. Tough luck if you want Siberia to remain frozen.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I already addressed the issues of forest fire and permafrost. Try to keep up.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:wrong. I was posting about (among other things) increasing the carbon content if the soil. You can do that with cover crops/green manure. But there is also a thing called "black soil" discovered in the Amazon, created by pyrolization of shrubs/understory which has not only remained for thousands of years, it is also incredibly fertile compared to the surrounding leached Amazonian soil. A study of reforestation -which I previously posted and linked- looked at the carbon balance of reforestation including the fuel needed to truck in the trees etc, and found that reforestation became a carbon sink after five years, but became an IMMEDIATE carbon sink if the trees were planted with pyrolized plant matter.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Yours was Don't burn forests. Don't melt the permafrost. That is NOT a solution. It is wishful thinking. A solution shows how to recapture the carbon when the forests burn and the permafrost melts because those unfortunate events will keep happening. Planting more trees is NOT a solution, especially when the rich will decide the forest would be of more use if it was sold as lumber, plywood, and fuel instead of used only as a place to store carbon. Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, won't be President forever, but somebody just like him will have the same stupid plans for the Amazon Rain forest that Bolsonaro has -- sell all the trees and burn what is leftover. In Russia, somebody like Putin will decide Siberia would be better if it was hotter, therefore all the permafrost should be melted in order to release the methane to increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over Siberia. Tough luck if you want Siberia to remain frozen.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I already addressed the issues of forest fire and permafrost. Try to keep up.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Plants DO have the capacity to store carbon, for millenia. Eons, even. Where do you think the coal beds and oil and gas fields came from in the first place?
BTW, trees used as lumber is still a storage of carbon.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I assume transportation is the highest.
California Wildfires Cancel-Out Two Decades Of Emissions Reductions
In 2020, greenhouse gas emission reductions by California were negated by the CO2 from wildfires.
That’s according to a new study by researchers from UCLA and the University of Chicago, “Up in smoke: California’s greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020 wildfires.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749122011022#bi
b1
*“Wildfire emissions in 2020 essentially negate 18 years of reductions in GHG emissions from other sectors,” the study’s authors concluded.*
Yet, comprehensive sensible policies could mitigate the wildfires. These policies include, especially, undergrounding power lines, which often spark onto dry wood, starting conflagrations.
According to the study, “We estimate that California’s wildfire carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from 2020 are approximately two times higher than California’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions since 2003. Without considering future vegetation regrowth, CO2e emissions from the 2020 wildfires could be the second most important source in the state above either industry or electrical power generation.”
Quote:
Their solution: “Our analysis suggests that significant societal benefits could accrue from larger investments in improved forest management and stricter controls on new development in fire-prone areas at the wildland-urban interface.” Those things would help.
But the state has lagged in dealing with its aging electricity infrastructure—a problem made worse, ironically, as more electric vehicles hit the road and need more juice from already overloaded power lines.
MORE AT
https://www.theepochtimes.com/study-wildfires-canceled-californias-co2
-gains_4813274.html
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not that I've seen. There were some university projects trying to grow algae under accelerated conditions (in seawater sandwiched between transparent plates and fed with CO2) harvested abd turned into oil but the capital costs far outweigh the product.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Not that I've seen. There were some university projects trying to grow algae under accelerated conditions (in seawater sandwiched between transparent plates and fed with CO2) harvested abd turned into oil but the capital costs far outweigh the product.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
Oh... You wouldn't see it. If you did, they'd have to kill you.
The NDAs the employees who did know have to sign include the lines "you are an employee for life", "if you tell anyone we will kill you, your family, everyone you've ever met and all of their families.", and "now that you've been given this offer and seen this NDA your two choices are to sign it or die immediately."
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm willing to bet that they've already figured out how to "grow" oil like they figured out how to "grow" diamonds.
False scarcity.
SIGNY: Not that I've seen. There were some university projects trying to grow algae under accelerated conditions (in seawater sandwiched between transparent plates and fed with CO2) harvested abd turned into oil but the capital costs far outweigh the product.
SIX: Oh... You wouldn't see it. If you did, they'd have to kill you.
The NDAs the employees who did know have to sign include the lines "you are an employee for life", "if you tell anyone we will kill you, your family, everyone you've ever met and all of their families.", and "now that you've been given this offer and seen this NDA your two choices are to sign it or die immediately."
Hahaha!
Well I'm still alive so clearly I haven't been let in on the secret!
Anyway I don't see the point of trying to recapitulate 110 million years of history just to obtain a product that needs a lot of ADDITIONAL processing just to make it useful.
How old is oil?
https://phys.org/news/2005-05-world-age-oil.html
They'd be a lot farther ahead sticking with simpler chemistry.
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy
George Olah and two others
The author gave hubby the book. One of these days I'm going to read it.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's like Beyond Meat, but it's Beyond Oil.
Just don't tell your fiancee you paid 50 to 70 percent less for that lab grown diamond than you would have for the ones that De Beers had black people half a world away killed for or the wedding is off. What she doesn't' know won't hurt her. There's nearly zero actual value in the diamond whether it's real or not since just about the only material on earth that's more common than diamonds is sand, and the lab grown diamonds are probably actually worth more in reality. And, yanno... black people half a world away didn't die before it got to your local Helzburg diamonds.
You would probably do a lot better buying stock in Beyond Oil than you would if you were a poor sucker who bought Beyond Meat stock in January, but there will never be an IPO for it because you're never going to get a slice of that pie.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Consumption of fossil fuels is growing faster than ever.
Last year, according to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in both the US, and the world as a whole, the growth in hydrocarbons — oil, natural gas, and coal — far exceeded the growth of wind and solar by huge margins.
Let’s start with a look at what is happening in the US. According to updated figures from BP’s Statistical Review, in 2021, US oil use grew by 2.8 exajoules (EJ).
(An exajoule, EJ, is roughly equal to one quadrillion Btu, or the energy contained in 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.)
For comparison, solar energy use grew by 0.3 EJ, and wind energy increased by 0.4 EJ, for a total increase of 0.7 EJ. Thus, last year, US oil use grew four times faster times than the growth seen in wind and solar combined. Meanwhile, coal use jumped by 1.4 exajoules, or twice the growth in wind and solar. Even with a slight decline in natural gas use, the BP numbers show that US hydrocarbon use increased by 4 EJ last year, that’s more than five times the growth seen in wind and solar.
An almost identical trend can be seen in the global data. Last year, the use of oil, gas, and coal grew by 10.5, 7.7, and 8.7 EJ respectively, resulting in a total one-year increase in hydrocarbon consumption of 26.9 EJ. Meanwhile, in 2021, wind and solar grew by 3.4 and 2.1 EJ, respectively, for a total of 5.5 EJ. Thus, in 2021, global hydrocarbon use grew nearly five times faster than the growth in wind and solar combined.
Here’s another way to think about those numbers: Last year, just the increase in global hydrocarbon use — which as I mentioned above totaled 26.9 EJ — was roughly equal to the output of all of the wind and solar projects on Earth. Last year, global wind output was 17.5 EJ and solar contributed 9.7 EJ — for a total of 27.2 EJ. If you think last year was an anomaly, think again. The same trends can be seen in data going back to the mid-1980s. Between 1985 and 2021, global hydrocarbon use jumped by 224 EJ, that’s more than eight times the increase seen in wind and solar, which as I mentioned above, now provide about 27.2 EJ to the global energy mix.
The undeniable takeaway from the BP numbers is that wind and solar energy are not displacing hydrocarbons. Instead, they are being added to our existing energy mix. Why aren’t they making more headway? The reasons are readily apparent: wind and solar simply cannot provide the staggering scale of energy the world needs at prices consumers can afford. Furthermore, large-scale wind and solar projects are being rejected all around the world. As I have documented in the Renewable Rejection Database, since 2015, more than 370 communities across the US have rejected or restricted wind projects. And more than 90 have rejected solar projects. Over the last year alone, about 40 townships in Ohio have banned the construction of wind and solar projects.
More at https://quillette.com/2022/10/18/hyping-the-energy-transition/
BP Statistical Review of World Energy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-re
view-of-world-energy.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Consumption of fossil fuels is growing faster than ever.
Last year, according to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in both the US, and the world as a whole, the growth in hydrocarbons — oil, natural gas, and coal — far exceeded the growth of wind and solar by huge margins.
Let’s start with a look at what is happening in the US. According to updated figures from BP’s Statistical Review, in 2021, US oil use grew by 2.8 exajoules (EJ).
(An exajoule, EJ, is roughly equal to one quadrillion Btu, or the energy contained in 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.)
For comparison, solar energy use grew by 0.3 EJ, and wind energy increased by 0.4 EJ, for a total increase of 0.7 EJ. Thus, last year, US oil use grew four times faster times than the growth seen in wind and solar combined. Meanwhile, coal use jumped by 1.4 exajoules, or twice the growth in wind and solar. Even with a slight decline in natural gas use, the BP numbers show that US hydrocarbon use increased by 4 EJ last year, that’s more than five times the growth seen in wind and solar.
An almost identical trend can be seen in the global data. Last year, the use of oil, gas, and coal grew by 10.5, 7.7, and 8.7 EJ respectively, resulting in a total one-year increase in hydrocarbon consumption of 26.9 EJ. Meanwhile, in 2021, wind and solar grew by 3.4 and 2.1 EJ, respectively, for a total of 5.5 EJ. Thus, in 2021, global hydrocarbon use grew nearly five times faster than the growth in wind and solar combined.
Here’s another way to think about those numbers: Last year, just the increase in global hydrocarbon use — which as I mentioned above totaled 26.9 EJ — was roughly equal to the output of all of the wind and solar projects on Earth. Last year, global wind output was 17.5 EJ and solar contributed 9.7 EJ — for a total of 27.2 EJ. If you think last year was an anomaly, think again. The same trends can be seen in data going back to the mid-1980s. Between 1985 and 2021, global hydrocarbon use jumped by 224 EJ, that’s more than eight times the increase seen in wind and solar, which as I mentioned above, now provide about 27.2 EJ to the global energy mix.
The undeniable takeaway from the BP numbers is that wind and solar energy are not displacing hydrocarbons. Instead, they are being added to our existing energy mix. Why aren’t they making more headway? The reasons are readily apparent: wind and solar simply cannot provide the staggering scale of energy the world needs at prices consumers can afford. Furthermore, large-scale wind and solar projects are being rejected all around the world. As I have documented in the Renewable Rejection Database, since 2015, more than 370 communities across the US have rejected or restricted wind projects. And more than 90 have rejected solar projects. Over the last year alone, about 40 townships in Ohio have banned the construction of wind and solar projects.
More at https://quillette.com/2022/10/18/hyping-the-energy-transition/
BP Statistical Review of World Energy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-re
view-of-world-energy.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
These are fake numbers.
This is the same thing as Joe Biden* claiming he created all those millions and millions of new jobs when it was just people getting back to work after a 2 year shutdown by Democrats. Or when he cut the deficit by 1.6 Trillion by not giving away 1.6 Trillion in Covid handouts (and then later giving away most of what he was claiming to have cut).
Driving was awesome 2 years ago. Even a year ago it wasn't terrible. Now it sucks again.
Quote:
Here’s another way to think about those numbers: Last year, just the increase in global hydrocarbon use — which as I mentioned above totaled 26.9 EJ — was roughly equal to the output of all of the wind and solar projects on Earth. Last year, global wind output was 17.5 EJNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME