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

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 01:38:12 -0400, 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:
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.

Here in the States, there are wind farms popping up all over. I've seen
them in California, Kansas, Wyoming, South Dakota, Missouri, just for
starters, along with at least a dozen states east of the Mississippi. And
like you, I've seen the giant blades being transported all over the place.
It's no longer unusual to see a caravan of trucks hauling blades down the
highway. Back in the early 00's, a small town north of Kansas City, (Mound
City? Rockport? Not sure...), put up a half dozen wind turbines in a
natural valley where it always seemed to be windy. I hear they did a
15-year bond which is paid off now and electric bills there are less than
25% of what they used to be. One example, possibly not representative, but
still pretty good.

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).

I recently spent some time in San Antonio, Texas, and noticed a few solar
farms scattered around the city. I'll give addresses for three that I can
remember, but I assume there are more.

If you pull up these addresses in Google Maps, Satellite view, you can see
the solar cells. They're mounted on a swivel so that they can follow the
sun throughout the day.

2361 Blue Wing Rd, San Antonio, TX 78214
999 TX-1604 Loop, Universal City, TX 78148 (Look west across the highway)
8203 Binz-Engleman Rd, Converse, TX 78109
XPQJ+4M Adobe Crossing, Texas (big one in west Texas)


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).

I'm hearing reports of some, not most but just a few for now, home builders
starting to add solar to all of the homes that they build. They're trying
to get as close to 'net zero' as practical, so it's not just to heat water,
it's to provide as much of the electrical needs as possible.

In Kansas, if you generate more electrical power than you use, on a moment
to moment basis, (no local battery storage), the excess power goes back
into the grid, spinning your meter backwards. One older lady there that I
know of gets a check every month because her cells generate more than she
uses. In Texas, OTOH, the power company subsidizes the installation of
residential solar cells, and in return for the initial subsidy they get to
take any excess power that's generated. Two different business models, each
with its pros and cons, but both seem to work.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:16:33 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

To reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions it will be necessary to replace
thermal power stations of all kind, whether burning gas. oil or coal.
What is needed is a similarly broadly based technology to replace
them. Of course having two would be nice but we can worry about the
second when we have identified the first.

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

But none of these places have more than a domestic load to be served.
Our civilisation involves loads much more substantial than domestic.
How do you propose that should be carried?

--- snip ---

--


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.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

--


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.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 09:29:12 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"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?!

They use it to pump water also.

--


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.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.

Even fossil fuels are subsidised.

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:

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.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.
Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.

Even fossil fuels are subsidised.


At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense",
except as a market distortion and farm incentive program.
It converts arable land that could be used for food
crops, into a "gas station" that is not needed.

But the refinery situation in North America is such,
that if someone said "Stop!" with the corn ethanol overnight,
there isn't sufficient refinery capacity to make up
the difference.

Take the recent refinery that burned down, that they
do not plan on rebuilding. You can't use that approach
for very long, without causing the price of gasoline to
skyrocket. (When refineries go through their maintenance
cycle, we're already constrained on capacity. The burned
up refinery, just makes that worse.) Yet, it seems it is
easier to close refineries than open new ones. The refinery
back home closed, even though it was a tiny refinery and
probably only enough to fill local gas stations. They used
to fill 5 gallon containers of varsol, out front in the place,
from an overhead distribution rack. And operations like
that, also provided a small supply of asphalt (as the
refinery wasn't as efficient as it could be, and some
asphalt came out the bottom).

I got a tour of the place, as part of my organic chem class
in uni. You don't get to see much, because "much of the plant
is not safe for visitors". What's neat is, you can't
smell any refinery smells at ground level there. You could
probably smoke, without blowing up the place :-) That's
because the stacks cause the effluent to go downstream
in the air. It's the people in the next town who smell
"refinery".

And having tankers of gasoline coming from some
other country, is a non-starter, from a strategic
point of view. You can't be depending for your
gasoline distribution, on some other country.
You could have a stockpile of crude, and not
enough refinery capacity to tap into it.

Yet, you hardly see any politicians raising a finger
or expressing concern. The situation is just left to
fester. And if it ever did "turn into a disaster", you
can't fix the problem quickly either. Capacity is something
you have to plan for.

Paul

On 23/09/2019 02.34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

Not really. They were removed by the previous government, which instead
placed extra taxes on alternative energies. The current government has
removed the penalization, and construction has surged, obviously.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/09/2019 09.49, Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

Â* --- snip ---

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.
Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.
Even fossil fuels are subsidised.

At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense",
except as a market distortion and farm incentive program.
It converts arable land that could be used for food
crops, into a "gas station" that is not needed.


As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects
that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they
would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on
exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-)


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/09/2019 02.32, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:16:33 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

To reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions it will be necessary to replace
thermal power stations of all kind, whether burning gas. oil or coal.
What is needed is a similarly broadly based technology to replace
them. Of course having two would be nice but we can worry about the
second when we have identified the first.

I don't care if they are twenty.
And CO2 neutral technologies are good, too.


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

But none of these places have more than a domestic load to be served.
Our civilisation involves loads much more substantial than domestic.
How do you propose that should be carried?

Give it time. One step at a time.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 23/09/2019 09.49, Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.
Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.
So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.
Even fossil fuels are subsidised.
At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense",
except as a market distortion and farm incentive program.
It converts arable land that could be used for food
crops, into a "gas station" that is not needed.


As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects
that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they
would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on
exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-)

It's not compatible with older engines.

It's been known to affect seals on some engines.
(That's what I was told at the dealership.)

As for the effects, they're just too complicated to comment on.

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/en...s-11-00221.pdf

I was referring to some extent, to an overall system analysis taking
all inputs into account, and the conclusion that ethanol was worse
for the environment as a result. It's not a net positive, and
it's a farm subsidy program.

With three-way catalyst systems and stoichiometric engine operation,
the modern car is already pretty clean. Just CO2 and H20 come out the
tail pipe (once the cat is fully heated up). One of the "ways" on the cat,
takes care of CO, another takes care of NOx. Wikipedia has details.
Ethanol is not needed, to make that happen.

Ethanol would affect the fuel octane rating (knock etc).

Paul

Mayayana wrote:
"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?!

Yes, ridiculous! We've asked that Don Quixote chap to come over from
Spain and make a stop to it!

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

That's how it usually *starts* and for good reasons. In our country
(NL) the current/future projects are no longer subsidized. And tax
benefits are used in business, not just wind and solar power.

N.B. In the kind of funny department: In our country, Shell is just
*starting* to pay tax, because they're no longer allowed to deduct their
foreign losses from their local profits. [1]

[1] No, I don't 'hate' Shell or companies like it, I worked for them.

Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.
Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.

So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.

Even fossil fuels are subsidised.


At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense",
except as a market distortion and farm incentive program.

And drives up food prices. Must rank as one of the worst ideas ever (TM)

On 23/09/2019 16.15, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 23/09/2019 09.49, Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

Â* --- snip ---

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.
Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.
So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be
incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's
profits.
Even fossil fuels are subsidised.
At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense",
except as a market distortion and farm incentive program.
It converts arable land that could be used for food
crops, into a "gas station" that is not needed.


As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects
that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they
would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on
exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-)

It's not compatible with older engines.

It's been known to affect seals on some engines.
(That's what I was told at the dealership.)

True enough. So don't use on those engines.


As for the effects, they're just too complicated to comment on.

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/en...s-11-00221.pdf


I was referring to some extent, to an overall system analysis taking
all inputs into account, and the conclusion that ethanol was worse
for the environment as a result. It's not a net positive, and
it's a farm subsidy program.

With three-way catalyst systems and stoichiometric engine operation,
the modern car is already pretty clean. Just CO2 and H20 come out the
tail pipe (once the cat is fully heated up). One of the "ways" on the cat,
takes care of CO, another takes care of NOx. Wikipedia has details.
Ethanol is not needed, to make that happen.

Ethanol would affect the fuel octane rating (knock etc).

It does. Remove ethanol, you have to add some other chemical.


--
Cheers, Carlos.