We all share one single, ever mixing atmosphere

[Richard Hull]

Some few countries are willing to spend billions of their treasure to insure carbon neutral approaches to stave of what used to be "global warming" but is now a more mellowed out "climate change". Carbon is taking a more backstage or at least a co-joint roll with sulfur, methane and other "greenhouse gases"

There is no atmospheric protective bubble over those countries spending billions on cleaning up emissions! The "have not" nations and other larger nations want their share of the good and better live styles. If they can get there quickly by burning fossil fuels, so be it! The third world is clawing its way to near equal to standards of living to the first world. China builds and operates ever more coal fired plants for energy. India is another polluter nation.

I liken this to the house in the middle of the block (the United States) spending a fortune to clean up its yard by constant remediation of foul things found on their property, while the neighbors on both sides are constantly throwing all manner of crap in the good neighbors yard, while that good neighbor can only complain and continue to spend money on removing that which is constantly thrown on their property.

Let us spend spend billions to avert climate change as others spend billions on old energy solutions to add to the pollutants in the atmosphere. Sound reasonable to you??

Have we coasted past the tipping point? (if there is such a thing) The now thawing vast Siberian permafrost is a pure methane emitter on a scale never seen in the modern era. Recent massive vulcanism in Iceland and near Indonesia dumps millions of tons of greenhouse gases that can't be stopped or remediated.

When will it be adjudicated as a lost cause? Will it be when national debt and spending on a lost cause ruins the nations economies chasing a well meaning path? We live and we never learn.

We all share the same ever mixing atmosphere.

Richard, (the climate accepter), Hull

[Frank Sanns]

This is one of the reasons I am down on EV cars. People debate if there is or is not a difference in efficiency between the two.

For argument sake, forget about all of the extra infrastructure materials and energy. Forget about price differences. Forget about resale value. Forget about it all.

Go ahead and assume that 100% of all cars in North America and the EU are electric. What is the impact on energy and CO2 worldwide. It is some small fraction of 1%.


There is a huge energy pie chart and all of this is focused on one of the super tiny pieces. It makes no sense to go electric if the goal is to meaningfully reduce CO2 and global warming if that is what you are trying to do.


Why not tackle big industries worldwide. They and their supply and distribution chains are by far the largest users of energy. Maybe all of those big energy consuming businesses should all be shut down. That will help the world wide situation. Why do those huge businesses even exist. Oh wait, we are all the consumers of the goods and services of the big businesses and we are the ones that built them.

No that can't work then because I would have to change my lifestyle and nobody wants to have to do that.

Yes some satire thrown in there to demonstrate that people want to just feel good and feel like they are making a difference. In reality, nearly zero people would give up their daily short term lifestyle for the planet. So for now, they just give big businesses more money so they can feel good about driving an electric vehicle that does essentially nothing for the worldwide energy and CO2 balance.

[Rich Feldman]

Two big slices of global carbon-emission pie are production of steel from ore, and of cement.
Both are fundamental (literally) to modern civilization.
I think it's appropriate that those industries can buy carbon credits from industries more practically greened.

One thing absolutely negligible is the carbon from rocket propulsion. 1 minute's worth of global natural gas "production" is enough for many Space-X Starship launches (at 1000 tons each).

[Dennis P Brown]

Whether one believes this is a massive threat or not is irrelevant to what society will or will not do. Ditto, Nature cares nothing and whether billions die or not isn't something that will trouble the planet.

Whether one thinks we can or can not make a difference one needs to follow elementary level logic in deciding what level of danger this might present. If the risk is small, so should the cost spent to address it. If the risk is huge, cost becomes relevant because failure can have major problems.

This leads to probability vs risk - if climate change could be cataclysmic then even if there is a small chance of it occurring one needs to take it seriously. Otherwise, cost matters and few would support such measures.

That the entire scientific community with only a trivial number disagreeing do consider this a major threat that is happening certainly does mean, whether you follow the science or not, that one should accept the scientific conclusion that it is occurring, is caused by human produced gases, and will radically change the climate for the worse (for humans, for sure. I think ticks will like the change ... )

As for what to do, that is highly political and IMO not something open to discussion in this forum.

[Richard Hull]

I can't see the political part, nor did I mean for this to be political. Politics regards governing a people. If the government takes up the mantle of climate change then that discussion is for another time and place.

We all live in a single atmosphere which no one person or single nation or group of nations or body politic can control. This was the central theme of my post.

Richard Hull

[Dennis P Brown]

The atmosphere is our universal dumping grounds for all our gaseous waste produced by various human activities - natural production had been at typical long-term levels till, as Richard correctly points out, new issues like permafrost thawing is starting (I've overlook that one.)

In any case, human waste gas is impacting the worlds climate and not in a good way for people that are dependent on the previous climate - many billions of people who's way of life will have to change. These facts are science but what to do about it is political. So, since the subject is important it should be discussed.

[Richard Hull]

Who says I have to change? No one tells me I have to change. It's called freedom of choice. Freedom to live as I wish. I will not succumb to or be subjected to climate based naziism forcing a life changing, no freedom of choice on my lifestyle.

But is for the good of the people that we order you to obey. Remember, less is more. Do not enter into bad think or wrong do. Dystopian, Communistic, facistic doctrine is not where I will be led. I will never agree to enter an ever restrive and ever tightening jaw of regulations and restrictions that threaten my freedom to do what I choose so long as I do no immediate harm to anyone else. I allow them this same freedom of choice.

I'm old enough to allow others to make stupid decisions and enjoy watching the outcome, so long as that outcome does not sweep over me in any manner.

Don't tread on me...

Richard Hull

[Dennis P Brown]

The reference to the people that will have to change are the few billion in the third world that grow their own food. They are in for massive changes as temps change, when sources of water disappear or flood where it never did. When the monsoons change (they are) then over a billion dirt poor farmers that depend on that pattern are in trouble if they can't adapt.

I should have added that.

We, of course, need not change at all.

[Frank Sanns]

The planet is very large compared to any one person. Even the entire population of the earth is tiny compared to the Earth and its climate since life was established here.

I am open to the concept of there being a problem but I am not convinced that there is. So the temperature goes up a little over the next hundred years as we run out of fossil fuels. Will it rise 10C or more during that time? Who can predict? The earth has many surprises that we cannot predict. There have been ice ages and sweltering hot millennia.

Somehow it all keeps settling back to into the same range oscillations no matter what changes in solar activity, vulcanism, methane and CO2 emissions. It stays in a range. In large part, we can thank the vast amount of water on the surface for that. We also can thank the adaptation of mostly plant life of the planet.

Peak oil never happened or we would not even be having this conversation. But advances in extraction of fossil fuels from shale and deeper into the crust has staved that off. Still, there are limits that are at least as close as any potential climate calamity.

As Richard has said, we are a drop in the bucket compared to world CO2 production. Whatever will happen will happen even if the US curtails ALL CO2 emission within the next 20 years.

I personally don't care if people want to drive electric vehicles. It is a somewhat free country. Go for it. But forcing a higher priced switch when all else is ignored is not doing for me. Urban sprawl continues and microclimates have major effects on larger and larger areas of the former green spaces. Calcining limestone for cement is a huge liberator of CO2 into the air. Nothing is being addressed in all of these other areas.

Ok, now I will concede what is bugging me about EV beside them being forced upon us. THEY ARE NOT GREEN!!!!! I am not talking about the argument if Lithium, cobalt and such mining is good. Forget all of that. Consider that if conservation and reduction in raw materials is the goal as well as reduction in CO2 emissions then why do we have the current EV out there that are being marketed. It makes no sense whatsoever except as a marketing ploy and a money making scheme for those involved in this scam. I will repeat, scam.

For those that do not know it, I have been involved in the renewable energy and recycling fields since the mid 1980s. I presented a paper at the Society of the Plastics Industry then and was nearly laughed at. In the 40 years since then, only minuscule progress has been made. Most things are still land filled and very few things are really recycled. Some progress has been made in repurposing some items but no so much.

I digress, so why am I so very down on the EV that are out there now. Because they are not made in the spirit of conservation of energy and raw materials. They are marketing hypes. Why do EV have outrageously powerful motors to have zero to 60 mph times in the ultra fast 2 second range? Why are they so heavy? Why is the range so limited? These and many other questions are why I have such an issue. The concept of EV is a good one. The execution is not.

What I would expect in an EV is 400 mile range. I would expect it to weigh no more than 3,400 lbs. I would expect its acceleration to go from zero to 60 mph in 5 or 6 seconds or slower, around as fast as a 20 year old Porsche 911 Carrera. Far less materials would be needed, battery discharge rates could be eased, total materials would be cut in half or more. Motors and systems could be a fraction the weight. Tire wear would be back down and on and on and on.

So if serious about the climate then we need to make reasonable and common sense decisions. Not hype that redistributes wealth and does nothing even noticeable to the environment. Off soap box for the moment.

[Dennis P Brown]

Sorry but you have some misunderstandings on climate issues, Frank. If the world's average temperature increased by just 3 C, then the artic ocean could support croc's (It did in the past with that level of temp increase.) Human caused CO2 generation is most certainly not a drop in the bucket of overall CO2 production for the world - it is a massive excess. The climate in the past was in a general balance (CO2 produced vs. CO2 absorbed) a few thousand years ago (through we did contribute to a small increase) but over the last two hundred years, we have tipped the balance and total CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing significantly above all previous highest points (over the last 800 k years!). See the graph and note that it is still climbing.

Climate models - that is an extremely mature science that can give us great insight to what climate we will see. The Earth system on any local scale is far too complex for short term capture of exact temperatures with high accuracy (i.e. weather). However, the climate models will accurately predict a regions average temperature over a few decades but certainly not its specific weather. Weather patterns are beyond its reach as well. But there is no doubt relative to these models about 1) the earth is warming, overall. 2) this warming will continue and average world temperatures will rise at least to the 2 C level (compared to the arbitrary baseline of 1950) in another ten years (were already at the 1.5 C mark.) There is almost no doubt it is driven solely by Human created CO2. Yes, climate study is a science and there will be issues, error bars - so variations from the models, and some surprises (very unlikely any good ones - see the methane ices). But hoping they are wrong or the Earth has some unknown hidden method/feed-back loop to correct* climate change is wishful thinking and contrary to well understood science.

Current climate change (and CO2 excess) is 99% driven by human activities - not any change in solar, volcano's, sun spots, nor even orbital changes (yet.) Water vapor is the most powerful common 'green house' gas. Yet what is driving current warming tends is the difference the CO2 increase is having. Yes, as CO2 drives up average world temperature, water vapor will increase and makes matters worse but that is certainly not what is driving climate change (and I really, really hope there is a check on the water vapor feedback loop.) As for clouds (some people wishfully think these will help), while they are not driving it, they do impact and increase (slightly) average warming. The sole and major cause is human generated CO2 (yes, methane in perma-frost being released due to a warming world, as Richard pointed out, can become a serious issue, as well. Methane 'ice' in shallow ocean sediments in the continental coasts are a massive reserve of methane and if those ever start being released due to ocean warming, well, we are beyond screwed - those shallow ice deposits are measured in Giga-tons of methane.)

This general warming of the Earth will impact billions of people so that their ability to grow their own food will become difficult (yields will fall) to impossible (a given year failure.) Most of the third world farmers can not fall back on reserves. Also, higher temps (compared to current averages) cause photosynthesis in most plants and especially in most of our food crops to decrease in efficiency - not increase, by the way. This is just one aspect of a 2 C increase - forget a 3 C; that is far worse. As for 10 C, well, not even going to think about that one.

Don't minimize climate change; it is a slow motion disaster that is currently speeding up. We are not talking 100 years (yes, for serious ocean rise takes a number of decades - I find that 'problem', laughably irrelevant, frankly) but summer time peak temperatures will reach intolerable ranges for people in many of the most populous regions of the Earth long before then. Within twenty years areas like India will witness massive crop failures due to high temperatures and intolerable wet bulb temperatures (i.e. day AND night temperatures exceeding human ability to survive w/o AC. Shade and water will not help.)

Currently, even central America is experiencing serious droughts (through minor compared to the future.) Half the Amazon is also in serious drought. Extreme weather - droughts in many areas, greater floods and/or floods at the worse possible times are occurring more often as are 100 year events becoming more often. Average rain fall is increasing for areas that normally see enough rain so this can turn into too much; worse, too much (compared to normal storms) for a few events then high temps and then too little rain creating droughts. Variable weather is a killer for agriculture as we have depended on a stable climate for the last few thousand years. That is why the term "Climate Change" is now in use; the Earth is still, on average, getting warmer.

Am I worried for the US? No, we have plenty of reserves and even bad climate change here would matter little for most of us. As for the equatorial regions of the world? Very serious impacts and this is where 60% of the worlds population lives and the most of the poor (i.e. those least able to handle climate change.)

As for EV's, I too hate them and agree the current ones are worse for the environment (Tesla is, of course, the worst of the worst. Here we can thank the waste of tax breaks and government loans being abused.) They are, however, not being forced on us currently, at all. In the future, it is very likely we will see a great deal of push back and so those current regs for the future are no sure thing. Without better batteries that tech is worthless; next someone will think going to Mars is somehow good...oops, my pet peeve.) Ditto on plastic recycling - a total joke. But metal and paper is a success and very useful.

As for strawman arguments being used like we have had, many thousands to tens of thousands of years ago, such events (true but they took many thousands of years to develop each time so life had a chance to adapt) to glacial periods (orbital effects of the Earth, far too slow to help) to when or if peak oil (By the way, fracking changed that equation) occurred is not relevant at all. These (and others) are not issues to what is happening now. Nor is the issue of the US share - exactly what that has to do with the facts is not relevant to what is occurring and that is also a pointless argument because no serious person proposes it nor will it happen in our lifetimes. Next, the issue that the climate models are too conservative (they are) could be discussed; but the absolute fact is as human produced CO2 increase, so does the the Earth's average temperature - that is an indisputable fact. This will lead to massive disasters for most of human kind. We can choose to ignore it, address some aspects of it, or even prepare for it. What is or is not done is not this rant's ... I mean, my discussion's point.

In time and with effort that saves money (currently it is) and resources (not really now), we are building a beginning of alternate clean energy. We missed the boat on fission (thanks to bad design - I'm not referencing safety at all) but battery production is improving & speeding up, as are wind plants and solar plants and these are cost effective and in some cases, cheaper then even Natural gas based energy. We are fracking at record levels and so increasing oil production and both political parties fully support that. Yes, a very tiny minority oppose fracking and that has turned out to be laughably irrelevant. As for some community's with contaminated wells due to that process. Coal ash waste is also a big problem for some communities and that is generally ignored, too. Well, fuel source development and waste has always come at a cost to some unlucky people.

So, this titled thread is about facts about our shared atmosphere, and the issue of addressing climate change is political - I am not saying anything should be done; only that the results will be very bad in a few decades regardless of what we do. If you are young, well, sorry but the 2 C level is already baked in and so are the consequences. Whether it goes higher still is something that should be discussed on a political level.

*Over a 10,000 year cycle, yes, there are slow natural CO2 reduction processes

[Frank Sanns]

How does the temperature rise fit in on the long term. Yes, the short term graph shows alarm but in the entire history of the Earth not so much. There were prolific and often LARGE plants and animals dominated in higher temps. When there was ice though, things disappeared.

[Dennis P Brown]

Frank, sorry but what does a graph of temperature levels from millions of years ago have anything to do with this topic of OUR shared atmosphere? That is like saying since an asteroid hit the earth 66 million years ago that should be use as a baseline to determine dust in the air for people working in a coal mine. I mean, some animals did live through that event. So miners don't need any safety equipment when in the mines- things like masks, water washing sprays as coal is extracted, and air exchange/venting are not needed.

Now, a graph that covers the time humans have managed to farm (the last 10,000 years or so) is what really matters for our discussion. That is because farming provides the very bases of our entire civilization. Again, I'm not too concerned with planetary temperatures the dinosaurs experienced with their carbon dioxide levels. The issue of growing our food does, however, matter to me and humans as a species. The NASA graph also shows that for 800K years that todays carbon dioxide level is higher and worse, still growing. That tells me that no natural process is driving those rising levels (elementary physics also proves it). Further and very concerning, since our food plants will be badly affected by higher temps (reduced yields from higher temps, and droughts, or floods, as well as forced relocation of said farmers looking for better growing conditions), this issue matters a great deal to our world now.

So I am lost what that graph you posted has to do with a discussion of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and surface temperature for the world we live in now. Could other lifeforms (other then human) exist in this world at higher temps and thieve, sure. Yet billions of humans are likely not to survive such a transition and we are talking about no more than fifty years or less. For people I know and care about and their future that is the question higher CO2 levels create for me. That issue of people we all know and if they will be counted among the casualties for the oncoming disaster is something I think matters to everyone here on the forum.

[Richard Hull]

I've often noted that after a total nuclear exchange, the earth would be a far more human supporting place after a billion or two people go away after a recovery of 100 years or so. We might yet see, for a millisecond or two, a rather instantaneous evaporation of billions.

or...

Instead, if one is to believe the climate chicken littles, we can look forward to an agonizing loss of billions by degrees be they fahrenheit or centigrade. Still, the hope of a tortured century of heat death might bring forth that total exchange as nations to battle for resources.

With zero kids I have no investment in the future. The Hull name as a family line will die with me. I'm fine with that. I know I will not survive until the torpid climate disaster takes the supposed billions or more blessedly the many hundreds of millions. However, I might not survive an evaporation event if the world keeps moving headlong into some conflict playing out now or soon to play out.

We seem to have just enough technology and related instrumentalities to predict a grim slow death or to end it all in a big flash.
It is, and always will, be part of human nature to live in fear of a much needed boogeyman, (sword of Damocles). Seems living at peace with ourselves is just flat-out boring. Our senses are heightened and peaked by cowering in corners. Keeps us sharp like when we lived in caves with a fire worried about "lions and tigers and bears, oh my".

I thought I would put a lighter note on all the graphs, jargon and predictions related to our shared atmosphere.

Richard Hull

[Dennis P Brown]

In respect to the primary topic of a shared atmosphere, a few points are in order. First and foremost, countries have zero responsibility to control any gas/waste product or other related operation that puts various substances into the atmosphere with only two exceptions.

The only two such restrictions that have been done by international treaty are the the control of acid rain (various Nitrous compounds produced by power plants) and ozone protection (by reducing fluorocarbon compounds; i.e. Freon.) Both of these "restrictions" were enacted some time ago and have been extremely successful.

Internally, the US has made huge improvements in air quality via reductions in said nitrous compounds reductions, carbon monoxide elimination, lead removal from gasoline, as well as Hg, sulfur and soot reductions from power plants/trucks. This was done solely to improve our local air quality not to help other countries; interestingly, sulfur removal resulted in creating a money making product that exceeds the cost of extraction.

In sum, no country needs to reduce CO2 or methane or nitrous oxide (the common green house gases humans create) but in the case of the later two, most countries do attempt to restrict the production of these 'green house' gases. This is done not out of any interest in preventing global warming but solely because it is a safety measure for oil wells or simply save's a lot of money.

Despite the myth that green energy will cost more this has not turned out to be true.

Energy produced by solar, and wind has been getting cheaper still and can undersell carbon sources in many market areas (and in some remote regions for very specific purposes.) So, reduction of carbon based fuels is being done not to reduce CO2 emissions (that entire idea is laughable) but solely because it is cheaper or more cost effective. This in no way means anyone will (or even could) replace the vast array of needs for carbon based liquids or gaseous fuels.

These carbon free systems have strongly accelerated the development of new and/or improved batteries for these applications (will see if those really pan out.) That is why Southern California produces all its required day to evening electric power needs via solar. Not because anyone prefers to pay extra to be 'green' but solely because it saves money compared to carbon based sources. This has, strangely, worked out well for power companies reducing the need to make huge capital investments in new power plants.

A good example of going 'green' was the transition from incandescent bulbs to diode lights. This has vastly reduced energy usage but this was not done to be 'green'. Rather, it was done to reduce the need for more power plants and as a side benefit, saves consumers huge amounts of money. The fact that these bulbs also last far longer (so cheaper to own in the long run) and provide more natural light are just bonuses. Another (and overlooked) benefit of solar & wind based energy for the consumer is that this could put pressure on carbon based energy supplies not to raise prices as much or as often.

So, while climate change is a serious issue and likely deadly for many, no one will or frankly, ever will force any nuclear weapon owning country to reduce CO2 - even via treaties (that idea is ludicrous). Current reductions are done solely to save or make money. Any other claim has, so far, been utter nonsense.

[Richard Hull]

Still, and forever, a single, shared, ever mixing atmosphere. Money is a big player in all things human. People come last if money is to be made or saved. If something genuinely makes or saves money and benefits people then that is an ad campaign for the big boys to tout.

Richard Hull

[thecoalman]

Despite the myth that green energy will cost more this has not turned out to be true.

Do you have an example of any product in the history of man that is both cheaper and better than the competition that needs to be mandated?

This in no way means anyone will (or even could) replace the vast array of needs for carbon based liquids or gaseous fuels.

For example solar and wind are reliant on it. Without some extraordinary reduction in the cost of renewable capacity and storage they will continue to be reliant on it. The cost to build and maintain those plants does not go away and the under utilization of that capital investment necessarily drives up the cost of the power they produce up. Ironically it also reduces their efficiency so you are also putting more CO2 into the atmosphere per kWh they produce. This increased cost can and should be attributed to solar and wind.

The example I like to give is that it's late January in the Northeast, 0 degrees out, the sun is near it lowest point for the year, there is no wind, it's cloudy, it will be like that for the next week and record demand for power is peaking around 8AM when the sun is just rising.

How much solar/wind capacity and storage is required to meet this event? Keeping in mind if you go eight days and only have enough for seven you're out of luck

These carbon free systems have strongly accelerated the development of new and/or improved batteries for these applications

The irony here is battery storage is more applicable to conventional power plants. You can run them all as baseload when they are the most efficient and full utilization of the capital investment. You only need a small amount of battery storage. The cost of storage can be offset by not having to build, maintain and run peaking and intermediate plants.

(will see if those really pan out.) That is why Southern California produces all its required day to evening electric power needs via solar. Not because anyone prefers to pay extra to be 'green' but solely because it saves money compared to carbon based sources.

The cost for the power itself on my bill is $0.105 per kWh.

[Dennis P Brown]

Coal man: solar or wind is not being mandated so your creating a non-issue there. Are there reg's on soot, or Hg or S emissions by power plants? Yes but most of those were created many decades ago before solar or wind were ever really used. So certainly they impact coal power plants but that is no fault of solar or wind systems. As for batteries, great advances in lithium has occurred and are used for mass storage in both CA and TX (I, however, despise Li batteries.) As I posted earlier, iron-oxide batteries are in production and appear to have the necessary capabilities to meet needs for these wind/solar sources. That will soon be tested in the real world in very cold climes.

Not sure what PA rates have to do with CA rates but wind rates are some of the lowest anywhere.

Since solar or wind (esp. at night) produce no CO2 when generating energy, there is need to buy fuel, then efficiency relative to battery storage is not critical and that is exactly why this type of power is used with battery systems; more so, why these systems are cost competitive in those regions. As for cold climes, I never said wind or solar is the answer for anyone in particular - just its a fact it is being done and is done because it cost's less to operate and provide competitive or even cheaper rates compared to carbon based fuels. But in both Maine and Minnesota, massive battery storage plants are being built to handle wind energy. So, yes, it can handle that situation for that particular grid for three days (in those locals.) Not in California - there they have a lot of Sun but certainly power plants are needed for the rainy season, for sure.

As I said, liquid fuels and gas are NOT being replaced any time I'm aware, so why are you flagging that quote?

By the way, since I never discussed coal in any thread I better, since I am discussing this overall carbon based fuel topic with the Coalman. Apparently, because of natural gas availability and cost, this is wiping out much of the demand for coal as a fuel source. Market forces are a bear.

Conventual gas plants have essentially no need for battery storage. Gas plants can cycle super rapidly and that, I assume is why battery storage is not used. For coal it certainly could be useful but not aware of any. To make the grid more resilient I'd think battery storage would be logical but haven't really read of that being done in any significant way.

As for a week of clouds or calm winds - well that is why they study areas and build these devices where that is extremely rare to happen. These issues and others are carefully considered for the sites they consider. Also, places like the Northeast coastal regions have huge wind potential as well as a huge and hungry energy market nearby. The Southwest has huge solar potential (but limited market). Even the Midwest near to the Rockies have a lot of wind power available on fairly regular bases but need a better grid to handle that huge amount of cheap energy. These can (and look to be) exploited for cheap energy.

So, exactly what is, in your opinion, the real issue with solar or wind power where it is being used? It works, saves people money and more and more units are being built in appropriate regions because they meet needs at prices that are better than carbon based fuels. As I was very clear in saying - no one is trying to take any one's power plants or oil or natural gas. That is not in the cards.

Hope this helps to address your questions or points relative to my statements. I am more concerned with the overall thread's atmosphere topic than specific details on power supplies/fuel sources directly but I am certainly glad to hear your points of discussion - there both interesting and relevant.

[thecoalman]

Coal man: solar or wind is not being mandated so your creating a non-issue there.

Yes there is, nearly every state has some kind of mandate. If the power distributor does not meet those mandates they will be fined. Here is the mandate in CA. I don't know what state you live in but look it up and you'll find a mandate.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- ... o-standard

Are there reg's on soot, or Hg or S emissions by power plants?

Regulations need to be practical, you can build cars to NASCAR standards reducing fatalities but what is the point if it's not practical and no one can afford the car? Regulations on PM, sulfur etc are addressable. There is no practical way to address CO2 emission other than not burning fossil fuels.

In regards to the mercury regs there is very valid point to be made about what Richard H. is commenting on. I don't remember the exact year but in the very late 90's or early 20o0's the EPA conducted a study on mercury emissions. There was two key points. The first being the majority of these emissions released into the atmosphere here in the US are carried off and deposited elsewhere. The second was the US produced less than 3% of the global pool and US coal plants accounted for about 1%.

Fast forward to 2010's and they implemented new mercury regulations on power plants, this ended up causing a lot of coal plants to be prematurely closed because the expense was too much for the few decades they had left. Clearly reducing mercury emissions is important but whatever gains we made here in the US of reducing the global pool was made up by South Asian expansion of coal in a short time, primarily China and India who are also the primary sources of the global pool.

One last note to add on this, there is unknown amount of mercury put into the environment in third world countries through bootleg gold mining operations. By some estimates it's the largest global source. I guess if you really want to reduce global emissions we need to ban gold.

Not sure what PA rates have to do with CA rates but wind rates are some of the lowest anywhere.

The point is renewables make up very little of production in PA. Like most states that rely on fossil fuels for electric the prices are relatively cheap compared to those with a lot of renewable production. It's the same thing with other countries, Germany with the right weather conditions has a surplus of power but they pay 35+ cents per kWh. Denmark is one of the largest if not the largest manufacturer of wind turbines, they also have the highest percentage of power production from wind, also 35+ cents per kWh.

By the way, since I never discussed coal in any thread I better, since I am discussing this overall carbon based fuel topic with the Coalman. Apparently, because of natural gas availability and cost, this is wiping out much of the demand for coal as a fuel source. Market forces are a bear.

Gas is the primary reason but it's not the only reason. Regulations like the mercury one I mentioned above has had an effect. Increasing costs due to mining regulations is another. Back in the early 2000's there was hundreds of "bootleg" anthracite mining operations here in PA. They were all legal but they were small independent underground mines hence the name. Typically operated by a handful of fourth, filth and sixth generation miners who were usually family members and friends. Outstanding safety records.

MSHA came down hard on them in the early 2000's, requiring them to do lot of things they simply couldn't afford and in some cases were safety hazard. The most humorous one was requiring radio communications equipment. Unlike underground soft coal mining where they can use a continuous miner explosives are required for underground anthracite mining. Right on the box is says do store or use in range of radio equipment.

Those mines and the jobs they provided are all gone and it's not because the demand for their product dropped. It just became too expensive to compete with the larger stripping operations or even larger underground operations. The production from those mines was trivial amount but that is the kinds of things a lot of mines are facing big and small.

Gas plants can cycle super rapidly and that

They have limited lifespan and if they aren't running all the time you are not fully utilizing the capital investment. The less they are utilized necessarily increases the cost of the power they produce. Again, a small amount of battery storage can allow you to run them 24/7/365 with the exception of maintenance. The battery also takes the place of building so many peaking and intermediate plants.

So, exactly what is, in your opinion, the real issue with solar or wind power where it is being used?

My issue is with the mandates and subsidies. It can clearly be better product as far as emissions go, if the claim is it's cheaper then it doesn't need mandates and subsidies. Take off the training wheels.

They distort the market and hinder innovation. There is great quote from Tillerson when he was still CEO of Exxon to stockholders, I'll paraphrase. "We won't be investing R&D into subsidized products because the rug will immediate be pulled out from under us if we do." It may have changed but at the time the world's largest private energy company with it's thousands of chemists, engineers and other scientists is sitting on the sidelines. They can't for example compete against the boondoggle ethanol subsidies and mandates, why bother trying? That's a fact to this day.

[Dennis P Brown]

You are correct that California has renewable regs. Interesting how that State has created a vast solar power supply system that meets its daily needs at a cost as cheap as natural gas plants and has vastly reduced emissions of toxic gases into our shared atmosphere - these are good things most people would agree with. So, State regs do appear to work for that situation (hardly for all places.) Still, in any case you are correct and that is why its good to get feed back.

Some regs have overwhelming good effects like soot, Hg and sulfur reduction - the facts say those are bad for many peoples health. The EPA studies on Hg are well done; and yes, down wind from power plants is a significant factor for people's health and why those regs were tighten.

Mining of coal is dirty, bad for the environment, has cost vast numbers of workers their lives from black lung or accidents or miner death's when owners ignore those very critical safety reg's. I am very glad that industry is in rapid decline. That this decline is mainly caused by cheap natural gas production is a fact. Side issues like regs (better safety in mines, clean up waste sites, covering strip mines, etc) are great things to have, frankly. On whether coal mining should be increasing or decreasing we can disagree.

As for how to cycle a gas plant, neither you nor I are knowledgeable in that field and I trust the companies. That gas power plants have a lifetime cycling is true, just as it is for coal plants, nuclear, and wind so that is really not important. Power companies track daily power usage over years and run plants very efficiently relative to power needed vs power produced. I did think that battery use for some types would be useful. Apparently, their experts consider the use of battery backups as not cost effective. One region of Texas does use a battery system to sell the extra electric power (generated from carbon based fuels) for peak times - very profitable for those companies, by the way. Really not an issue that matters for this thread.

Subsides for oil and natural gas are vastly larger and have been around for many more decades. Net result is their accumulated subsides have dwarfed renewables in all respects. So, do liquid and gas based carbon fuels need subsides because they can't compete and are not cost effective? That this inhibits innovation in energy? Certainly not for the former but I'd agree with you on the later.

Still, subsidies exist for massively profitable products like oil, natural gas, fission power (here I certainly agree that practice has been very counter productive for innovation in the past), corn, and vast numbers of processed food products. That's politics and it has its supporters.

As for subsides hurting innovation the record for renewables and carbon based fuels the facts do not support that claim. Innovation in solar technology has been improving every few years for a few decades and can provide cheaper electricity than natural gas in areas with a lot of sun. Wind works in far more places. Battery tech has sky rocketed and (finally) look to be viable for long term energy storage for the grid. The improvements in wind turbines has been amazing and that is now a significant fraction of US electricity production. Finally, nuclear fission has gotten more research and maybe even a new type of plant will be built.

As for the CEO of Exxon - well, I do believe his self interest trumps his believability on his problems with reg's. Certainly the fact that the US went from importing extra required crude oil in significant amounts in the past to now leading the world in production of gas and oil production makes his concern about reg's IMO complete nonsense. That his company also has received billions in various tax breaks (subsides) further undermines his position.

Since renewables are cost competitive in many markets, have many benefits and are growing in use I still don't see any real issues with that small segment of our energy infrastructure. It provides other benefits like good paying jobs, better environment and reduced dependence on carbon based fuels; which from the record, have many health issues associated with the obtaining, processing and delivery of these types of fuels.

Opinions and facts are what we all have - fact is, renewables have become profitable, are good for our shared atmosphere and reduce the need for carbon based fuels. IMO all good things. Relative to opinions, I feel that we all can be guilty of holding an opinion on a subject and then ignore facts that counter our beliefs.

[Frank Sanns]

Using only modern day data then, look at the situation from the 1970s until now.

Renewables have grown from only around 1% of the total energy production in 1975 to over 10% now. A ten fold increase! Yea! Keep up the good work America and all of the green new deal and jobs!

Look at this pie chart to see the progress.

These are the successes that are touted. Energy costs and progress into renewables.

My original point and continuing point is that it is a waste of time even considering EV and batteries and all else green. I say this not because I do not care but because of the reality of the planet. Without even considering the global impact, just consider the US.

As show in the chart above, renewables are making major inroads no matter the cost. They must be producing less CO2 so all is good?

Well, not so fast. While renewables and all non-fossil fuels account for around 20% of the US energy production now, the US has lost ground in the energy battle.

The graph below shows the other important part of the statistic. The pie became much bigger since 1975. In fact, it became MUCH bigger. The US is actually consuming around 75% more fossil fuels than in 1975. The green battle is not only not making progress, it is loosing ground big time.

For all of the renewables that are prolific around us, there are actually proportionally only half as many as were present in the 1970s relative to the fossil fuel usage and related CO2 emission.

I have said before and I will say again, nothing meaningful is being done to reduce CO2 emissions. It just makes people feel like they are making a difference when in fact, CO2 production continues to grow at a faster and faster rate.

[Dennis P Brown]

Good and informative graphs. Your points certainly hit home and these facts are the cold, hard reality of the situation; as I have oft repeated, fossil fuels are here and are not declining (even coal production in the rest of the world is increasing.) As you clearly show, renewables are not really reducing CO2 nor is any country trying to do that in a serious manner - and really, I don't see how any could. As such, I am puzzled by people who think that increasing renewables we'll be forced to do away with fossil fuels. From your data, that idea is laughable.

Frankly, (uh, no pun intended) I didn't realize the shear scope of the problem and the failure of renewables to make even a minor change in overall CO2 emissions that your data makes abundantly clear. Yes, w/o renewables current CO2 emissions would be even worse but that its growing, and faster, well, more a surprise that shouldn't have been a surprise, I guess.

More to the point, there are not enough locations for renewables high energy density production regions outside of a few lucky locations (not unlike hydro). The bottom line is that the need for liquid fuels is the elephant in the room. Hydrogen, even via renewables, would have extremely difficult problems to overcome and would create huge costs.

While renewables are growing fast (as you point out) and very competitive thanks to advances and innovations, they are not reducing the production of climate changing gases because, as you clearly showed, carbon based fuels are growing faster. Demand by markets determines these factors - not governments, people or even corporations, really.

One thing I will say - renewables are a great thing in any case. Renewables lower costs for energy in the long run; and frankly, liquid oil production is getting more and more costly - fewer good sites, sea sites are in deeper water, or tar sands are needed more and more or new sites have very poor quality oil - net result, oil extraction costs are growing. At some point, we will need renewables if we want to be able to afford energy.

The growth of climate changing gases - mostly CO2, at least for now - and the resulting atmospheric consequences are more obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention. This issue is just a fact that current children and people's grandchildren will have to deal with. Because, as your data clearly shows, we sure aren't going to even slow the growth in CO2 emissions any time soon, much less reduce them. Within about twenty years, the world's population will be in a very bad situation from deadly heat waves, changing weather causing droughts and/or floods, mass famines and likely, vast migrations resulting in creation of fascist governments and their need for wars.

[thecoalman]

You are correct that California has renewable regs. Interesting how that State has created a vast solar power supply system that meets its daily needs at a cost as cheap as natural gas plants

But you still need to make the capital investment into the gas plant and because of the under utilization the cost per kWh necessarily rises.

So, do liquid and gas based carbon fuels need subsides because they can't compete and are not cost effective?

The tax break, subsidies or whatever you want to call them for fossil fuels are for expenses, e.g. for coal the big one is a tax break on pollution controls. For solar and wind the primary tax breaks are on production which is basically a revenue tax break. As far as residential the feds give a 30% tax credit and the states have their own incentives. I can't get a 30% tax credit on installing a coal boiler. Then there is the renewable energy credits....

Relative to production the tax break for fossil fuels are minor. It's fractions of one cent on a gallon of gas or a few cents per MWh. Just for some perspective the tax breaks for the entire oil and gas industry are equal to Exxon's revenue for a few days.

Still, subsidies exist for massively profitable products like oil, natural gas, fission power (here I certainly agree that practice has been very counter productive for innovation in the past), corn, and vast numbers of processed food products. That's politics and it has its supporters.

We've been subsidizing solar/wind to some degree since the Carter administration. At some point in time you need to take the training wheels off.

As for subsides hurting innovation

It's not really the subsidies, it's the mandates. You can't compete against a mandate.

As for the CEO of Exxon - well, ...

You are missing the point, Exxon with it's vast resources for R&D has little to no incentive to invest in alternative fuels.

[Dennis P Brown]

We all have issues with various aspects of various systems we are forced to deal with around us and don't always approve of. None of that changes facts and we tend to hold our opinions relative to these issues. Our recent topics and discussions are getting irrelevant relative to this thread on a Shared Atmosphere. I enjoyed the exchange of information. So, unless you have specific questions I feel we have exhausted the current topics related to these few posts.

[Dennis P Brown]

In continuation of the topic of our shared atmosphere, here is something I didn't know that has been achieved - (from an article in the Washington Post* on lead poisonings of children world-wide):

"In 2002, a U.N.-led campaign helped low- and middle-income countries do the same. This initiative, operating on a modest budget of $6 million, played a crucial role in phasing out leaded gasoline in roughly 50 countries over the next decade. By 2021, every nation on the planet had banned leaded gasoline — a landmark public health victory that continues to save over 1 million lives every year."

An amazing achievement that I was not aware of was being done. Besides lives saved, lead contamination in children has terrible effects on their brain development and severely impacts a child's ability to learn. Again, international efforts related to our shared atmosphere can pay huge dividends. Considering this was (and no longer will) affecting hundreds of millions of children in the world is certainly some fantastic news that major changes even for the world are possible. And yes, this cut's into both companies profits and a tiny bit from people's pockets but no one would argue the cost/benefit is staggeringly on the side of Pb's removal.

* Not linking because it is pay walled and most the article deals with paint and water (drinking) issues not relevant to this thread's topic.

[Dennis P Brown]

Well, the latest series of storms in the South East of the U.S. does bring home the effect of global warming on our shared atmosphere. Between South Carolina's "Once in a hundred years" rain storm a few months back to how the hurricane also created yet another "once in a hundred years" event there yet again. Obviously, not just in parts of SC again but over a far wider region: both NC, and TN all had areas suffer massive rain fall events. Hence, that is the likely reason so many towns were caught off-guard; primarily due to the lack of previous flooding events that never reached those levels in their histories. So building occurred in areas that previously, were deemed safe from flooding.

So setting aside the Cat IV hurricane (those do occur through the intensification rate has appeared to increase) that ravaged the Florida coastal region and inland regions, our shared air is holding more water compared to previous centuries. The issue isn't that "once in a hundred years" rain fall events are occurring far more often, per say, but rather that the term now is more in reference to rain total events in many regions rather than the time separation probability it use to be generally used.

Now, its true no single storm event is totally nor significantly caused by global warming but all events involving rain absolutely are being affected by a warmer planet (and not always for increased rain fall.) Scientist in climate and even meteorology know that it takes massive data (years of collecting and also modeling) to give an accurate account of what degree any given storm is the result of increased water vapor. But average rain fall per event has certainly increased in many parts of the world. And that is the real killer - because that is when a flooding level never before endured occurs in those regions.

While the Gulf of Mexico is at record temperatures, and this is creating stronger or quicker development of storms in that region, it is that all equatorial regions of the oceans are getting warmer compared to past averages (and this effect is extending further North or South of those regions, as well). This is the source of more atmospheric moisture; interestingly, the exact opposite often occurs on land. Here heat waves desiccate the soils (increasing the length and severity of droughts) and leads to lower moisture levels in the atmosphere in those regions. This often will decrease rain fall in those areas, as well (through flooding events here can also get more severe at times.) If oceans didn't massively dominate our world, storms would decrease in rain totals, overall.

As the overall average temperature of the World and especially the oceans continue to rise, greater rain fall events over areas prone to rain will get worse still. So, while ocean water level rise occurs (and is, frankly, so slow and is such a small threat to most regions as to be not a major danger except during hurricanes; this effect will take decades before most cities will be in significant danger) the real and deadly issue for most people in our shared atmosphere is flooding events, and then, heat waves that increase wet bulb temperatures to intolerable levels (again, here the equatorial regions, and a lesser threat, for further north regions.)

We are steadily seeing such changes in our weather (older people are witnessing this change rather clearly.) The vast majority of people will need to better prepare for stronger rain events since as have been posted in this thread, carbon release is steadily increasing. Especially since this increase is unlikely to level off any time soon - even if, with great efforts in building green energy, these alternate energy sources are increased over the next decade.