Is Carbon Dioxide Just a Normal Part of the Atmosphere?

[Lost4words]

The earth has gone through MANY changes in global warming and cooling throughout its life...

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Why would anyone be against clean energy? By clean energy I mean energy production that does not pollute in the usual sense or add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

First, to understand the following story, what is a gigawatt, or what can you do with one? A gigawatt is a billion watts, and one gigawatt is normally enough to power about 750,000 homes.

Story:

US solar power capacity to expand by record 32 gigawatts in 2023, report says​

By ReutersSeptember 7, 2023

“The U.S. solar industry expects to add a record 32 gigawatts (GW) of production capacity this year, up 53% on new capacity in 2022 and helped by investment incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act ...”

“The report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie estimated total operating solar capacity would grow from 153 GW currently to 375 GW by 2028 …”

Solar power lowers the cost of electricity because there is no fuel cost.


Link
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-solar-power-capacity-expand-by-record-32-gigawatts-2023-report-2023-09-07/

I agree clean energy is the way to go even if it is more expensive, another source of power is geothermal energy, cheaper than solar panels, we have a working fusion core under our feet that will produce energy for billions or years to come. Simply drilling less than 100 feet or so depending of the type of soils is enough to heat a home in the Canadian winter...

Geothermal Heat Pump: How It Works

Learn how a geothermal heat pump system works, how cost-efficient it can be, as well as other advantages.

www.thisoldhouse.com

 

[Tuur]

I agree clean energy is the way to go even if it is more expensive, another source of power is geothermal energy, cheaper than solar panels, we have a working fusion core under our feet that will produce energy for billions or years to come. Simply drilling less than 100 feet or so depending of the type of soils is enough to heat a home in the Canadian winter...

That's not quite the same as geothermal energy.

My information is dated (around 40 years old), but above a certain latitude that I've forgotten, geothermal heat pumps pull out more heat in the winter than they replace in the summer or can be naturally replaced before the next winter. Geothermal heat pumps are a marvelous solution where they can work, as standard heat pumps need resistance heat to make up the shortfall when the ambient air temperature drops below what it can extract heat from and during defrost cycles. Where geothermal heat pumps are common, they're a good solution. Where they aren't, it can be difficult to have them installed and maintained correctly.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

That's not quite the same as geothermal energy.

My information is dated (around 40 years old), but above a certain latitude that I've forgotten, geothermal heat pumps pull out more heat in the winter than they replace in the summer or can be naturally replaced before the next winter. Geothermal heat pumps are a marvelous solution where they can work, as standard heat pumps need resistance heat to make up the shortfall when the ambient air temperature drops below what it can extract heat from and during defrost cycles. Where geothermal heat pumps are common, they're a good solution. Where they aren't, it can be difficult to have them installed and maintained correctly.

this was just an example there is a lot more on the topic;
New Google geothermal electricity project could be a milestone for clean energy

https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-unveils-roadmap-next-generation-geothermal-power

How new tech is making geothermal energy a more versatile power source

Geothermal has moved beyond being confined to areas with volcanic activity.

arstechnica.com

you know the rest, we can make electricity from it no doubt.

Cheers.

 

[expos4ever]

I explained how insignificant the concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere, 300 ppm in 1900 or 420 ppm today is still insignificant. CO2 truly has the lowest GWP of all atmospheric gases in that list search for it yourself and see.

What year did you graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

I humbly suggest it is obviously a wiser course to listen to the experts.

 

[expos4ever]

Why would I believe that you know more than the scientists at MIT, for starters?

Because MIT is a front for the New World Order, don't you know that?

Seriously, for some odd, befuddling reason, many on the right have somehow come to believe that they no more than people who have invested years of serious study, whether it is in the domain of climate science or evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

One of the most seductive, yet clearly invalid, arguments presented by deniers of human-caused climate change is this: they will, rightly, point out that human activity has only produced a very tiny increase in certain gases in the atmosphere. They then appeal to "common sense" and declare that such tiny increases are of no significance.

But, just a little reflection, shows the problem with this line of reasoning. Normal body temperature is 98.6. if my temperature is 100, that is only a tiny increase. But it clearly indicates something is wrong. That is perhaps not the best of analogies. Consider this analogy: think of a balloon that has a tiny hole in it. If you blow air into the balloon at the same rate that air escapes the tiny hole, the balloon will remain stable and not change its volume. However, if you increase the amount of air you blow into the balloon, even by a tiny amount, the amount of airflow in is no longer balanced by the amount of air flow out through the hole. The result is that the balloon will expand and burst.

 

[Tuur]

this was just an example there is a lot more on the topic;
New Google geothermal electricity project could be a milestone for clean energy

https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-unveils-roadmap-next-generation-geothermal-power

How new tech is making geothermal energy a more versatile power source

Geothermal has moved beyond being confined to areas with volcanic activity.

arstechnica.com

you know the rest, we can make electricity from it no doubt.

Cheers.

I happen to be a backer of geothermal energy. Unlike wind and solar, it can have a constant output, But power generation is like real estate: Location, location, location. Like hydroelectric, not every place is conducive to geothermal (or wind for that matter).

I've been told in the past that there are technical issues like pipe corrosion. I know no more about it than that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I happen to be a backer of geothermal energy. Unlike wind and solar, it can have a constant output, But power generation is like real estate: Location, location, location. Like hydroelectric, not every place is conducive to geothermal (or wind for that matter).

I've been told in the past that there are technical issues like pipe corrosion. I know no more about it than that.

Pipe corrosion, pipe leakage, groundwater contamination from leakage of Ethylene Glycol, high initial cost, and the possibility of not balancing heat into the ground with heat out of the ground in a seasonal cycle. Geothermal is great when it works. It doesn't always. Wind is great too, but the conservationists don't like all the dead birds. Hydro is great but conservationists want less dams and not more. Nuclear is fine but we have heard of the Fukishima meltdown and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Solar is great until you get a few cloudy days. Electric cars are great but where exactly does that electricity come from? There are problems with all of these, including using coal and oil.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What year did you graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

I humbly suggest it is obviously a wiser course to listen to the experts.

Institutions like MIT rely on Federal Grants for their research. If they come out with something other
than what the government wants to hear, their grants are pulled. As a result, few in such institutions
will make statements other than follow the government line.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

FYI, if you want to end poverty, make energy cheaper.

Helping poor nations develop using low-cost energy helps poor people better
than forcing new more expensive technologies down their throats.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I happen to be a backer of geothermal energy. Unlike wind and solar, it can have a constant output, But power generation is like real estate: Location, location, location. Like hydroelectric, not every place is conducive to geothermal (or wind for that matter).

I've been told in the past that there are technical issues like pipe corrosion. I know no more about it than that.

there is a lot of new technologies being tested, now they can drill much deeper than before and reach really Hot zoned so today it is not limited to drilling close to volcanoes , I think I provided a link that explains this.

I do believe it is a viable option to produce clean energy in quantity.

also we use much more electricity then before, I heard than in U.K. they had to build a nuclear power plant because of the plasma tv's used so much energy...I do not know if it's true I did not verify the info...

Myself have always tried to use less power and have made a lot of changes...

Do you remember cold fusion from Pons and Fleishman about 20 years or so?

In any case it is not always for the governments to incite industry to pollute less, we as the consumers have a big part to play by stop wasting and living simply and stop buying from the big polluters.

Cheers.

 

[Tuur]

What year did you graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

I humbly suggest it is obviously a wiser course to listen to the experts.

I'm reminded of a story, which may not be true, of an exchange between Carl Sagan and a congressman.

Sagan to congressman: "Do you have a PhD?"

Congressman to Sagan: "No, and if you'd presented this as your dissertation, neither would you."

 

[Tuur]

there is a lot of new technologies being tested, now they can drill much deeper than before and reach really Hot zoned so today it is not limited to drilling close to volcanoes , I think I provided a link that explains this.

I do believe it is a viable option to produce clean energy in quantity.

also we use much more electricity then before, I heard than in U.K. they had to build a nuclear power plant because of the plasma tv's used so much energy...I do not know if it's true I did not verify the info...

Myself have always tried to use less power and have made a lot of changes...

Do you remember cold fusion from Pons and Fleishman about 20 years or so?

In any case it is not always for the governments to incite industry to pollute less, we as the consumers have a big part to play by stop wasting and living simply and stop buying from the big polluters.

Cheers.

This past week did my annual check of our customer's energy use. Basically energy per consumer has been dropping for some time. The only thing I can put my finger on is increased energy efficiency of appliances. Not just lighting - lighting has long been just a fraction of load - but also heating and cooling and other appliances. For agriculture, this includes a shift to low pressure irrigation. This drop in energy use per customer is offset by increase in customers: lower electricity use, but more using electricity.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

This past week did my annual check of our customer's energy use. Basically energy per consumer has been dropping for some time. The only thing I can put my finger on is increased energy efficiency of appliances. Not just lighting - lighting has long been just a fraction of load - but also heating and cooling and other appliances. For agriculture, this includes a shift to low pressure irrigation. This drop in energy use per customer is offset by increase in customers: lower electricity use, but more using electricity.

I agree, in our society, we have quite a lot more electric devices plugged in, I remember when I was a Kid, in normal houses at thet time where I lived there was only one electrical outlet in bedrooms, 2 in the living room, about 2 in the kitchen, the electrical panels were a lot smaller and pulled a lot less power in general, I bough a new home recently, 3 outlets plus 2 phone outlets plus 2 cable outlets in each bedroom 2 electrical in the bathrooms, 5 in my small kitchen (I use only 2) 4 in the living room, plus cable and phone / internet jacks... 6 in the basement etc...

I general our north american houses are full of electric, electronic devices....

Now where I live in Quebec we have quite a lot of electric cars now ( I have a hybrid) they are the big factor in electricity consumption, so much so , our Quebec government need to build more of either wind mills, of dams to produce electricity, they also plan to put a higher rate on the peak hours.....

 

[expos4ever]

I'm reminded of a story, which may not be true, of an exchange between Carl Sagan and a congressman.

Sagan to congressman: "Do you have a PhD?"

Congressman to Sagan: "No, and if you'd presented this as your dissertation, neither would you."

Interesting story, but how is it relevant. Unless I'm missing something in his thread, it appears we have a choice: believe the highly trained experts, or the armchair amateur climatologists.

Not a difficult choice.

 

[expos4ever]

Institutions like MIT rely on Federal Grants for their research. If they come out with something other
than what the government wants to hear, their grants are pulled.

And you know this how?

As a result, few in such institutions
will make statements other than follow the government line.

I can pretty much guarantee you are speculating and have no evidence to support this assertion.

 

[Tuur]

Now where I live in Quebec we have quite a lot of electric cars now ( I have a hybrid) they are the big factor in electricity consumption, so much so , our Quebec government need to build more of either wind mills, of dams to produce electricity, they also plan to put a higher rate on the peak hours....

Not to mention strain on electric infrastructure. It ranges from increasing customer transformer size and conductors going to the residence and increasing conductor size of the power lines to increasing transformer size in substations and adding transmission.

So far we haven't had much EV demand (as evidenced in dropping customer usage). They're not really feasible here due to driving distances and the possibility of loosing power in a natural disaster.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Not to mention strain on electric infrastructure. It ranges from increasing customer transformer size and conductors going to the residence and increasing conductor size of the power lines to increasing transformer size in substations and adding transmission.

So far we haven't had much EV demand (as evidenced in dropping customer usage). They're not really feasible here due to driving distances and the possibility of loosing power in a natural disaster.

same here not really feasible, not enogh recharge station, waiting time too long, not possible for long distances... our gov. said from 2035 no more gas vehicle on sale... Maybe Ill buy a horse, plemty of grass in my backyard and have a trail that starts in front of my house..LOL.

I have learned this winter that when charging an E.V. in winter, it requires more energy than in the summer, also the full charge is much less in KM or miles due to the cold,, yes ill buy a horse... lol

 

[Tuur]

Interesting story, but how is it relevant. Unless I'm missing something in his thread, it appears we have a choice: believe the highly trained experts, or the armchair amateur climatologists.

Not a difficult choice.

Not relevant? Here's another. You'd call Dr. James Hansen an expert, right? In 1988, during an interview with a Washington Post reporter, Hansen looked out the window at the West Side Highway in NYC and said that in 20 or 40 years it would be underwater. We're four years from the forty year mark of his prediction. The West Side Highway is still above water.

Now, you can say that this was an off-the-cuff prediction. Even so, it was easy to fact check this in 1988 by finding the elevation of the West Side Highway, dividing it by predicted sea level rise, and seeing how long it would take until the highway was underwater. Not difficult at all.

Now then: In 1988, would you have been critical of anyone doing the fact checking because Dr. Hansen is an expert? Are you now critical of anyone who points out this prediction by an expert was wrong? Or do we simply admit even experts can be wrong?