A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 19th 19, 05:30 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.


That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.


Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?


Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...re-facts/20517

49.0 million tonnes of iron ore in concentrate and pellets

crude steel production for 2017 was 13.6 million tonnes

Canada was also a net importer of semi-finished and finished
steel products, with the Canadian steel industry importing
9 million tonnes. [Likely linked to the auto pact]

Electric arc furnaces allow steel to be made from 100% scrap metal
feedstock. This greatly reduces the energy required to make steel,
compared with primary steelmaking from ore.

The increasing shift toward the use of electric arc furnaces
in the manufacture of steel will support the global market
for steel scrap, which is projected to reach 755 million tonnes
by 2024.

The chemical industries, are the usual situation. Lethargy.
Turnover rate.

"The readily available and relatively inexpensive sources of
fossil fuels that the chemical industry has enjoyed for the
last century are in part responsible for the present situation."

The cement plants have people looking at them. That doesn't mean
changes here will happen overnight.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-carbon...on-cement.html

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...irty-industry/

Our rail system here is still diesel/electric (diesel
generation, electric traction drive to wheels). Subways or light
rail are electric (an inconsequential amount). When you're hauling
petroleum across the countryside with freight trains, that
doesn't make a lot of sense. However, it's hard to get
sufficient agreement with certain parties, to build pipelines.

The paper mill could run off electricity. You can't tell
what it runs on from the outside, as much of the plumes
are steam. And the effluent is disgusting ("diluting it"
is silly, and implies the effluent "just... disappears",
which it does not).

Paul
Ads
  #2  
Old September 20th 19, 01:33 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.


That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.


Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?


Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...re-facts/20517

49.0 million tonnes of iron ore in concentrate and pellets

crude steel production for 2017 was 13.6 million tonnes

Canada was also a net importer of semi-finished and finished
steel products, with the Canadian steel industry importing
9 million tonnes. [Likely linked to the auto pact]

Electric arc furnaces allow steel to be made from 100% scrap metal
feedstock. This greatly reduces the energy required to make steel,
compared with primary steelmaking from ore.

The increasing shift toward the use of electric arc furnaces
in the manufacture of steel will support the global market
for steel scrap, which is projected to reach 755 million tonnes
by 2024.


I suspect you have never seen an electric arc furnace operating,
particularly when they first start up with a load of scrap. You should
watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Uxh-xtU-g up to at least the
first two minutes to see why they are the worst possible customer for
an electrical supplier. Talk about ROUGH! Windmills and solar panels
wouldn't have a chance of surviving such an electrical load.

The chemical industries, are the usual situation. Lethargy.
Turnover rate.

"The readily available and relatively inexpensive sources of
fossil fuels that the chemical industry has enjoyed for the
last century are in part responsible for the present situation."


Fossil fuels are not just fuels but chemical raw materials. Our prsent
statndard of technology cannot do without them.

The cement plants have people looking at them. That doesn't mean
changes here will happen overnight.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-carbon...on-cement.html


OK. Separation of the CO2 generated by the production of cement. Then
what?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...irty-industry/


"That means there are two problems to solve: the cement-making
process needs to run on clean energy, and the CO2 that is released
must be captured somehow. A new study led by MIT’s Leah Ellis
outlines an option that could make progress on both."

That states the problem. Now wait for the answers. And wait. And wait.

Our rail system here is still diesel/electric (diesel
generation, electric traction drive to wheels). Subways or light
rail are electric (an inconsequential amount).


The variability of their power draw makes trains almost as bad as arc
furnaces from a supply point of view.

When you're hauling
petroleum across the countryside with freight trains, that
doesn't make a lot of sense. However, it's hard to get
sufficient agreement with certain parties, to build pipelines.


Especially when steel for the pipes becomes so expensive.

The paper mill could run off electricity. You can't tell
what it runs on from the outside, as much of the plumes
are steam. And the effluent is disgusting ("diluting it"
is silly, and implies the effluent "just... disappears",
which it does not).


I've worked for several yars in a paper mill. They are not bad as a
customer but their demand is very substantial all around the clock.


People who advocate wind or solar for the supply of electricity to our
society just don't understand the problems.

Paul


--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #3  
Old September 20th 19, 09:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?


Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(


Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #4  
Old September 21st 19, 03:26 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(


Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.


So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #5  
Old September 21st 19, 11:14 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(


Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.


So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #6  
Old September 21st 19, 01:48 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
| occasional examples.
|
|
| And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
| solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.
|

That's a bit harsh. He intends to help by having
meetings in official offices, primarlily located in the
back areas of diners, at local bars, at donut shop
counters, and in fraternal organizations known as
Rotary Club or VFW. There the experts will discuss
the issue in highly technical language until all participants
are, as the saying goes, "red in the face".

Acting on such a complex issue would
likely be reckless at this point, until we have full reports
from the committees set up at Ed's Bar and Grill and
from the special task force meeting at Masonic
Temples and Knights of Colombus halls across the land.
We need to let the experts do their work.


  #7  
Old September 21st 19, 02:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(


Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.


So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


There is a general answer: reduce CO2 emissions.

There are multiple solutions required, however. Each industry has its own
issues; energy, transport, farming and industry. As Carlos says pick one
and work the problem. Rinse and repeat.

  #8  
Old September 22nd 19, 04:06 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.


So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.


No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #9  
Old September 22nd 19, 04:12 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 13:17:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.


So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


There is a general answer: reduce CO2 emissions.

There are multiple solutions required, however. Each industry has its own
issues; energy, transport, farming and industry. As Carlos says pick one
and work the problem. Rinse and repeat.


We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical
processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the
deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of
power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind
and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #10  
Old September 22nd 19, 06:38 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.
That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?
It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.
Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?
Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(
Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.
So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.

And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.


No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.


This must be why I've seen wind turbine blades being transported
down our highway through town. Someone thinks enough about this
technology, to be installing it now. It's not just something
I've seen in Google, I've seen components being transported on the
road here. And they're huge. Moving just a single blade is a challenge.

And it's price-driven. There are companies in long term supply
contracts, that are behind these installations. And the
prices are better than competing sources. This makes it "up to the
power company", as to what percentage of the basket of energy
sources, should be each type.

I can't find evidence of solar, to nearly the same extent.
There might be a few private installations, using the roof
as a convenient mounting area. But not large "farms". If they're
doing that here, I haven't seen pictures or news stories about it.
But wind stories keep showing up. Some areas on the continent,
have better weather conditions for solar (more cloudless days).

There are some housing developments, with solar water heating,
but that's a different usage of solar (the whole roof on the
sunny side is covered).

Paul
  #11  
Old September 22nd 19, 01:16 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 22/09/2019 07.38, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
Â*I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not
convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or
why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

Â*So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy
sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with
only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.
"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using
renewable
energy."Â* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows
that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At
worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.
That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?
It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live
with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.
Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries
with
solar or wind?
Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510


Â*Â*Â* "By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
Â*Â*Â*Â* technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest
carbon
Â*Â*Â*Â* footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific
example.
:-(
Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.
So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.

And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.


No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.


They are not intended to be and they do not need to be.

With a mix of sources they'll become a solution, as proved in some
islands and other isolated places.



This must be why I've seen wind turbine blades being transported
down our highway through town. Someone thinks enough about this
technology, to be installing it now. It's not just something
I've seen in Google, I've seen components being transported on the
road here. And they're huge. Moving just a single blade is a challenge.


Right. Similarly, I have seen then often while driving, and I see them
installed.


And it's price-driven. There are companies in long term supply
contracts, that are behind these installations. And the
prices are better than competing sources. This makes it "up to the
power company", as to what percentage of the basket of energy
sources, should be each type.

I can't find evidence of solar, to nearly the same extent.
There might be a few private installations, using the roof
as a convenient mounting area. But not large "farms". If they're
doing that here, I haven't seen pictures or news stories about it.
But wind stories keep showing up. Some areas on the continent,
have better weather conditions for solar (more cloudless days).


There are huge solar farms here. One was connected recently:

https://elperiodicodelaenergia.com/espana-posee-la-mayor-planta-fotovoltaica-de-europa-northleaf-conecta-la-mula-de-494-mw-de-potencia-en-murcia/

The energy newspaper

*Spain has the largest photovoltaic plant in Europe: Northleaf connects
494 MW Mula in Murcia*

The largest photovoltaic plant in Europe is already a reality, and it is
Spanish. La Mula is the Murcian municipality that can pull out its chest
and say that it has the largest photovoltaic plant in the Old Continent
and one of the most powerful in the world (it would enter the TOP 20).

The Northleaf fund has already connected the Mula plant of 494 MW of
power, according to this newspaper. The plant, built by ACS Group's
Cobra, was connected last July, and is the main culprit in the recent
record-breaking photovoltaic production in Spain.

This is one of the photovoltaic plants that ACS started up after winning
the contract for 1,550 MW of photovoltaic solar energy at the auction
held in July 2017.

(translated with DeepL)


There are some housing developments, with solar water heating,
but that's a different usage of solar (the whole roof on the
sunny side is covered).


Sanitary hot water can be solar powered since long ago, that's a method
that I often see applied he the structures are easy to see from the
road or streets. Solar electricity is more expensive, so it is slowly
growing.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #12  
Old September 22nd 19, 01:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 22/09/2019 05.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 13:17:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


There is a general answer: reduce CO2 emissions.

There are multiple solutions required, however. Each industry has its own
issues; energy, transport, farming and industry. As Carlos says pick one
and work the problem. Rinse and repeat.


We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical
processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the
deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of
power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind
and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.


False. It is growing hugely here.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #13  
Old September 22nd 19, 01:59 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
| what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
| solar are not.
|

There was a piece at slashdot this week about wind
power plans along the US east coast:

https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/0...rgy-revolution

And it links to an article about a lobbyist-infested
federal gov't trying to hold things up:

https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019...-wind-in-doubt

But the eventual plans are for energy from wind
far in excess of what we've had from nuclear, and
without the time-limited usefulness or grave dangers
of a nuclear power plant.

The point with wind and solar is that the energy is
already there in virtually unlimited quantities. We
just have to get it into our power grid. And nearly
every location on Earth can use one or both methods.
I don't know how you could have a solution of more
"broad applicability".

Maybe 10,000 irritated kangaroos jumping up and down
on pistons? Unfortunately, in the US we don't have
so many kangaroos. But we do have sunlight and wind.
(Though I don't doubt that you have a link proving
kangaroos are a better solution than "hippie power".)

.... And we have waves. I'm surprised there hasn't been more
action toward setting up "tidal turbines".

With all of
those options the power is unlimited. Only maintenance
would be needed. Unfortunately, vested interests like
utility companies and oil companies try as much as they can
to hold things up. One of the tricks in the US is a widespread
effort to ban people from being able to sell power back to
the utility. If you have solar cells on your roof that generate
during the day then you might actually be able to make
money from them. But if you can't sell back the excess then
most of that power
will likely be wasted during the day and you'll still have to
buy from the local power company at night. That kind of
problem has slowed down what you call "applicability" and
made investment more risky.

Though personally I'm not as impressed with solar. It requires
high-tech equipment that will likely be outdated on a regular
basis.


  #14  
Old September 22nd 19, 02:14 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 22/09/2019 05.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 13:17:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.
You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/
LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?

It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Aluminum smelting - happens to be done mostly in the province
with the most hydroelectricity supply.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...um-facts/20510

"By using mostly hydroelectricity and the latest generation of
technologies, Canadian aluminum producers have the lowest carbon
footprint compared with the other large producers."

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.

There is a general answer: reduce CO2 emissions.

There are multiple solutions required, however. Each industry has its own
issues; energy, transport, farming and industry. As Carlos says pick one
and work the problem. Rinse and repeat.


We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical
processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the
deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of
power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind
and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.


False. It is growing hugely here.


And here.

In sunny countries and in windy countries they are definitely part of the
answer. In the UK we are on track to hit 2030 carbon target, we've halved
the carbon intensity of energy production and carbon neutral energy sources
make up almost 50% of our energy production.

Thus, promoting electric vehicles is greener than petrol or diesel cars.

  #15  
Old September 22nd 19, 02:29 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

"Chris" wrote

| and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
| We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.
|
|
| False. It is growing hugely here.
|
| And here.
|

I heard that in the Netherlands they're even using wind
power to grind wheat into flour. What'll they think of next?!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.