On November 17, 2019 at 15:51, djy said...
Another simple assertion. One needs to offer an argument (evidence) as to why one believes what one does.
your the one making the call to authority. If we both agree, then that makes it easy. But if we don't it is not up to me , for example, to explain why unemployed actress doesn't make someone an authority but up to you to give me qualifications for the person that makes them credible as an authority.
Once again, nit-picking a simple comparison – between today's beneficial atmospheric CO2 content and the possible concentration of a limnic style eruption.
wouldn't it be easier for me not to nitpick stupid stuff in your posts if you did not make exaggerated and stupid comments in the first place?
In my opinion, the damage I have seen being caused now makes the number we have now as way too high.
Another simple assertion with no basis in scientific fact. If one disagrees provide an argument (evidence) as to why.
like you see in blue my comment started with "In my opinion" so your whole comment does not make any sense. On the other hand the evidence is everywhere in the rising water and the flooding and the deaths every year from even worst heat waves. For me the destruction I see now is more than I wish to see. It is that simple.
As has previously been shown, the preindustrial CO2 level was dangerously low; thus, there is an argument to be made for our being in the midst of a CO2 drought. The enhanced level of CO2 is re-greening the planet and helping in reducing world poverty and hunger.
lol
There is simply no evidence to suggest that anthropogenic activity can cause a dangerous level of CO2, as in the case of the deaths resulting from the limnic eruption at Lake Nyos. That would require a well of concentrated CO2, as per the storage part of CCS – or is one claiming this to be one of my "garbage" links?
let's see if I understand you correctly. We can create so much artificial CO
2 that it helps the preindustrial age CO
2 drought. A drought that enabled cities like Venice to exist for centuries (well over a millennia) in a few short decades but with unche cked man made CO
2 that is always increasing it can never reach the point where we end up with too much CO
2?
I have, and I do, but I'm also a realist. Galvanising a country to 'litter pick' by reducing CO2 emissions to net-zero is only beneficial if it is cost-effective and has a global effect. The plans being put forward by the CCC are certainly not the former and will do nothing for the latter. Even the ridiculous 2008 Climate Change Act acknowledges that unilateral action would be meaningless. I'm at a loss to understand why you cannot appreciate this simple fact.
I can understand the fact and I agree with you no country, no region (province, state...), no city, no person and even no continent (if we go larger) can do it alone. We must all work together.
One person running with a bucket from the well to the burning building won't put out the fire, but making two chains passing the bucket from person to person from the well to the fire and back just might.
CCS is predicated on the belief that the present level of atmospheric CO2 is dangerous - it isn't. One is also wholly oblivious of the sheer scale of the necessary operation.
see you are contradicting yourself again.
If the roof is good then it does not need fixing
If there is a bit of damage (let's say replace one tile) then the fix is small
If the whole roof is finished then the whole roof needs replacing and you need a big fix.
the scale of the fix is directly in relation with the scale of the problem.
CO2 captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form so "went awry" sounds a bit odd if it is saved that way.
Citation required.
let's start with the basics
have you ever seen a tree? plants? they take in CO
2 keep the C to build their structure and release O
2 through a process called photosynthesis.
have you ever heard of coal or petroleum. those are natural biproducts of captured CO
2if you want more techno stuff there are others but
vhttps://
[Link: carboncure.com] The difference is due to the environmental levies being applied to bills to cover the cost of the subsidies being paid to renewables operators.
If that is true then can you tell me the exact value of the levie per kwh?
the same way I can tell you that for every litre of gas here
1) there is Federal excise tax: 10 cents
2) Provincial fuel tax: 19.2 cents
3) Public transportation tax: 3 cents
and then added at the pump to the price (if the price is 1.25 per litre it includes the top 3 but not the next two that are federal and provincial sales tax)
4) GST: 5%
5) PST: 9.975%
Singularly the most stupid comment one has yet made. Please provide evidence of free wind and solar.
have you been outside on a sunny day? how much did you have to pay the sun to be there? have you been outside on a windy day? how much did you have to pay the wind to blow?
I can't understand how something so basic is so hard to grasp.
Both; which one would have appreciated had one the wit to follow the links I provided.
so then it is simple build more capacity.
Good Lord! Pray tell how many wind turbines will need to be installed to provide sufficient output if there is no wind blowing?
obviously none can help with that. But
1) that is why any sane grid will have different sources
for example here some is wind, some is hydro, some is biomass some is diesel....
2) if we are talking a small area (like a home) your might have a point. But the UK (even if it is smaller than Quebec) is a large country and wind farms tend to be built in windy areas. what is the likely hood that there is no wind on the whole of Great Britain for any measurable length of time?
Note: I've also covered the converse issue of overproduction and constraint payments – that is payments to wind farm operators to turn their machines off.
yes you have and I agree with you it is stupid on many levels but you are missing the point
1) is it the winds fault that it is blowing at night (I am guessing)and too much electricity can be produced in Scotland but no one was smart enough to build lines that can distribute it to the rest of GB and so those wind farms are paid for nothing while expensive none green electricity needs to be produced in the rest of the UK.
2) is it the winds fault that the contract was negotiated in such a way, plus I hope the people that drew up that contract had enough sense to reduce maintenance from it
3) Like I said, it is sad but look at the numbers study the numbers, understand the numbers. these look big but when you compare it to how much electricity is really used these are rounding errors that would not have any real impact on price.
(i.e. if it is 0.179991 or 0.18 who cares both will round to the same price.
Your arrogance and ignorance are astounding. What on earth do installation engineers have to do with the practicalities and economics of wind and solar? Even a cursory investigation (which I've done) highlights their complete impracticality, but dismissing the likes of Michael Kelly as a bozo is simply contemptible.
wouldn't a better question be what does an unemployed semiconductor engineer know of the practicalities and economics of wind and solar as well as meteorology?
"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms," Buffett said. "That’s the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." Warren Buffett
I am not sure of your point.
What on earth are you babbling on about? How many times do I have to you explain to you that the cost consumers pay covers the costs and profits of the supplying companies plus the government levies being applied to cover the cost of the subsidies paid to renewables suppliers? Again, why this simple fact is beyond your understanding defeats me.
simple math but that is way beyond your understanding.
