Instead of destroying A $211 billion industry that touches ALL our lives, why not use wastewater to absorb CO2?

[Mac-7]

We are getting closer all the time. EV and hybrid sales are growing very quickly and taking a larger and larger market share and virtually every new energy facility being put up outside China is renewable. You're just in denial dude.

You are the one in denial

The more EVs you produce the more electricity you need

And that means fossil fuel

 

[Crick]

You are the one in denial

The more EVs you produce the more electricity you need

And that means fossil fuel

No it doesn't. It only means more electricity.

 

[Mac-7]

No it doesn't. It only means more electricity.

And currently you need more fossil fuel to produce that electricity

You czn dream about how it might be in the future but you are far away from that now

 

[Crick]

And currently you need more fossil fuel to produce that electricity

You czn dream about how it might be in the future but you are far away from that now

Your argument is nonsense. We are in a transition. No one is listening to you and yours so the transition will continue. The proportion of our electricity generated without GHG emissions will continue to increase till we are no longer burning ANY petroleum or ANY coal for energy of ANY sort.

 

[Mac-7]

Your argument is nonsense. We are in a transition. No one is listening to you and yours so the transition will continue. The proportion of our electricity generated without GHG emissions will continue to increase till we are no longer burning ANY petroleum or ANY coal for energy of ANY sort.

Do you have a date for when alternative energy will supply all our electricity?

Of course you dont

Libs never do

But greenies are already setting drop dead date for the production snd use of fossil fuel

And if that wrecks the economy too bad

 

[Crick]

Do you have a date for when alternative energy will supply all our electricity?

You KNOW that's a stupid question.

Of course you dont

Libs never do

Do you really think we should? Do you think the fact that I - who have no connection to the work whatsoever - can't give you a date has any bearing on ANYTHING? Don't be an idiot.

But greenies are already setting drop dead date for the production snd (sic) use of fossil fuel

What date would that be? And, by "greenies" do you actually mean anyone with the power to do a damned thing about it?

And if that wrecks the economy too bad

We've undergone enormous increases in solar, wind and hybrid and EV market share. What damage has our economy suffered?

 

[Mac-7]

What date would that be? And, by "greenies" do you actually mean anyone with the power to do a damned thing about it?

For california its 2035

For other wacko blue or green districts maybe longer or maybe less

And they dont seem to care if the electricity is available or not

FAQs: California's EV laws, ban on new ICE cars by 2035

Common questions answered about what the effects will be of California's new law ending new ICE car sales by 2035.

www.autoblog.com

 

[Crick]

For california its 2035

That legislation concerns vehicles, not power.

For other wacko blue or green districts maybe longer or maybe less

And they dont seem to care if the electricity is available or not

That is unfounded speculation on your part. Do you actually believe that our elected representatives would simply cut off power to their voters? Get fucking real.

 

[Mac-7]

That legislation concerns vehicles, not power.

I have already told you that all EVs will need electricity

Which california has no credible plan to supply

You have a deadline for the cars but not the power they need to run them

 

[Crick]

I have already told you that all EVs will need electricity

Which california has no credible plan to supply

You have a deadline for the cars but not the power they need to run them

I don't have diddly shit. I don't work with these people. Do YOU? Do YOU have some details on this stuff? Do you know what Exxon's plans are for the next ten years? How about BP and Shell?

 

[Mac-7]

I don't have diddly shit. I don't work with these people. Do YOU? Do YOU have some details on this stuff? Do you know what Exxon's plans are for the next ten years? How about BP and Shell?

Since you are charging full speed ahead on getting rid of fossil fuels you are the one who needs to answer those questions

 

[Crick]

Since you are charging full speed ahead on getting rid of fossil fuels you are the one who needs to answer those questions

No, I don't. That would be the work of our governments. I think we should stop using fossil fuels as quickly as we can, but by "as quickly as we can" I mean "as quickly as we can without anyone going without power or transportation". As is common when making unfounded ad hominem attacks on your enemies, you'd like to characterize me as an amoral, antisocial fool. A better idea would be to talk about the science and if you find the science is unassailable, accept it.

 

[Mac-7]

No, I don't. That would be the work of our governments. I think we should stop using fossil fuels as quickly as we can, but by "as quickly as we can" I mean "as quickly as we can without anyone going without power or transportation". As is common when making unfounded ad hominem attacks on your enemies, you'd like to characterize me as an amoral, antisocial fool. A better idea would be to talk about the science and if you find the science is unassailable, accept it.

You didnt ask the government that question as you should have but rather challenged ME with that question in order to shut me up

But you are the one who has to answer it not me

 

[ReinyDays]

Maybe this has been covered ... but diatoms have silica-based shells, instead of the more common calcium ... and photosynthesis occurs in both prokaryote and eukaryote organisms ... just that diatoms are sparkily warkily cute, among all the algae ...

Yeah ... the oceans can absorb an enormous amount of carbon ... and keep it in protein form ... what science calls a "negative feedback mechanism" ... the more carbon man-kind belches out, the more plants (and bacteria) will grow ... there will be balance in the atmosphere whether man-kind likes it or not ...

It's a gender-identity FACT that women get the chills before men ... spew that CO2, I dare you ...

 

[Crick]

You didnt ask the government that question as you should have but rather challenged ME with that question in order to shut me up

I didn't ask you anything. You've lost the bubble, dude. You've been demanding I tell you when we will stop using fossil fuels to generate energy.

 

[Mac-7]

I didn't ask you anything. You've lost the bubble, dude. You've been demanding I tell you when we will stop using fossil fuels to generate energy.

From your post #91

Do YOU have some details on this stuff? Do you know what Exxon's plans are for the next ten years? How about BP and Shell?

 

[ReinyDays]

... you'd like to characterize me as an amoral, antisocial fool ...

You do that yourself well enough ...

... A better idea would be to talk about the science and if you find the science is unassailable, accept it.

Stefan-Boltzmann's Law clearly states we have to add enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to make a very small rise in temperature ... you've said that's unassailable ... so why don't you accept it? ...

 

[Crick]

Stefan-Boltzmann's Law clearly states we have to add enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to make a very small rise in temperature ...

Please explain. The SB you've presented here has no term for CO2 in the atmosphere. Did you ever reply concerning your previous post in which you appeared to claim that the Earth cannot warm unless the sun's radiation increases?

you've said that's unassailable ... so why don't you accept it? ...

I have never said any such thing. That would once again make you a LIAR.

A little educational material for you

description

www.geo.utexas.edu

 

[ding]

Please explain. The SB you've presented here has no term for CO2 in the atmosphere. Did you ever reply concerning your previous post in which you appeared to claim that the Earth cannot warm unless the sun's radiation increases?

I have never said any such thing. That would once again make you a LIAR.

A little educational material for you

description

www.geo.utexas.edu

Crossplot CO2 versus temperature post industrial revolution.

 

[ReinyDays]

Please explain. The SB you've presented here has no term for CO2 in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is part of the emissivity of the atmosphere in the greybody form of SB ...

T^4 = S ( 1 - a ) / 4eo ... [where T=temperature, S=solar constant, a= albedo, e = emissivity and o = SB constant]

Emissivity is a dimensionless ratio where 1 = transparent and 0 = opaque ... AGW Theory predicts that increasing GHG decreases the transparency of air, it's emissivity; thus increasing temperature ... high school algebra ...

Right ... this is discontinuous at 0 ... all we can say is that when e approaches zero, temperature approaches infinity ... except it's not a radiator, this surface would retain all the energy it receives ...