'BEAST FROM THE EAST': Europe is so cold now that the Arctic appears to be a warm esc

[taxslave]

Global warming is the average temperature of the globe rising.

Climate change is the localized effect of global warming.

For example, global warming is the heating of the planet and one of the consequences is the short term cooling from displaced currents (climate change).

Nice spin on a lie. The sky isn't really dark at night either, it is just an absence of light.
On another bright note your messiah Suzuki got called out and caught in a couple of lies on Australia news.

As I have said. Climate change is irrelevant. Fossil fuels are on their way out regardless.

In about another 100 years. In the meantime we must extract all the revenue we can.

I thought we were told a couple of years ago that snow was a thing from the past in Britain .

Much like the ice free Arctic by 2013.

 

[Blackleaf]

I thought we were told a couple of years ago that snow was a thing from the past in Britain .

We were told that, because of global warming, by 2010 children in Britain will grow up not knowing what snow is.

They were, of course, wrong.

 

[Jinentonix]

As I have said. Climate change is irrelevant. Fossil fuels are on their way out regardless.

Don't kid yourself. Despite all the "renewable" capacity that's claimed the world has, to the nearest whole number it still accounts for 0% of the total.

But it gets even more interesting. If we want to keep pace just with the increasing annual demand for hydro, the world would have to build something like 350,000 2MW turbines every year. That would take up a land area around the size of Great Britain, every year! That doesn't even take into account the replacement of fossil fuel powered generation.

The amount of steel required every year would be staggering and guess what you need to make steel? Coal. And guess what goes in those big turbine nacelles to keep everything lubricated? Around 900L of oil, and it sure ain't vegetable oil. That's around 78 million gallons of oil every year just for new wind turbines.

And then there's the large trucks you'll need to haul the parts around on. Electric powered trucks probably won't be used for the same reason electric locomotives aren't used for hauling long freight trains.

There's no question that the use of fossil fuels could be reduced without causing any real damage to anyone's economy, but they aren't going anywhere for a long time simply because electric power isn't as capable with the heavy lifting as fossil fuels are.
All those super-container ships (and supertankers) aren't going to be converting to wind or solar anytime soon, or at all for that matter.
Construction materials, everyday household goods, the natgas power plants that are required in order for commercial-scale wind or solar projects to even exist. Nah, fossil fuels ain't going anywhere for a long time.

 

[pgs]

Don't kid yourself. Despite all the "renewable" capacity that's claimed the world has, to the nearest whole number it still accounts for 0% of the total.

But it gets even more interesting. If we want to keep pace just with the increasing annual demand for hydro, the world would have to build something like 350,000 2MW turbines every year. That would take up a land area around the size of Great Britain, every year! That doesn't even take into account the replacement of fossil fuel powered generation.

The amount of steel required every year would be staggering and guess what you need to make steel? Coal. And guess what goes in those big turbine nacelles to keep everything lubricated? Around 900L of oil, and it sure ain't vegetable oil. That's around 78 million gallons of oil every year just for new wind turbines.

And then there's the large trucks you'll need to haul the parts around on. Electric powered trucks probably won't be used for the same reason electric locomotives aren't used for hauling long freight trains.

There's no question that the use of fossil fuels could be reduced without causing any real damage to anyone's economy, but they aren't going anywhere for a long time simply because electric power isn't as capable with the heavy lifting as fossil fuels are.
All those super-container ships (and supertankers) aren't going to be converting to wind or solar anytime soon, or at all for that matter.
Construction materials, everyday household goods, the natgas power plants that are required in order for commercial-scale wind or solar projects to even exist. Nah, fossil fuels ain't going anywhere for a long time.

There you go talking sense again ,sheesh don’t you know you can’t bring sense to an emotional argument , some people never learn .

 

[Bar Sinister]

And headed where? Is Canada going to turn its back on $3 trillion worth of oil in the ground?

Doesn't matter. People want cheap clean energy and fossil fuels are being outdone on both fronts. Fifty years from now almost all of that oil will still be there and the demand will be zero.

Don't kid yourself. Despite all the "renewable" capacity that's claimed the world has, to the nearest whole number it still accounts for 0% of the total.

But it gets even more interesting. If we want to keep pace just with the increasing annual demand for hydro, the world would have to build something like 350,000 2MW turbines every year. That would take up a land area around the size of Great Britain, every year! That doesn't even take into account the replacement of fossil fuel powered generation.

The amount of steel required every year would be staggering and guess what you need to make steel? Coal. And guess what goes in those big turbine nacelles to keep everything lubricated? Around 900L of oil, and it sure ain't vegetable oil. That's around 78 million gallons of oil every year just for new wind turbines.

And then there's the large trucks you'll need to haul the parts around on. Electric powered trucks probably won't be used for the same reason electric locomotives aren't used for hauling long freight trains.

There's no question that the use of fossil fuels could be reduced without causing any real damage to anyone's economy, but they aren't going anywhere for a long time simply because electric power isn't as capable with the heavy lifting as fossil fuels are.
All those super-container ships (and supertankers) aren't going to be converting to wind or solar anytime soon, or at all for that matter.
Construction materials, everyday household goods, the natgas power plants that are required in order for commercial-scale wind or solar projects to even exist. Nah, fossil fuels ain't going anywhere for a long time.

I'm not kidding anyone. Wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels and they have several other advantages. One being that they do not require huge electrical grid systems. That makes them perfect for nations that lack infrastructure. They are also pollution free; something that is especially appealing for people tired of breathing polluted air.

Of course certain activities will require fossil fuels such as the examples you have given, but most automobiles will be electric within a very few years. Since automobiles are the biggest current users of fossil fuels expect demand for oil to drop drastically. To make my point more obvious here is a graph of current oil use. Note that lubricants are a tiny fraction of the total. I expect you are right about ships and aircraft, but who knows? A few years ago I would not have believed that electric cars would have any real impact for decades, but clearly the internal combustion engine is on the way out.

Just BTW electric engines are used in freight trains. The diesel engines don't power the train; they power generators that run the train's electric engines.

 

[Jinentonix]

Just BTW electric engines are used in freight trains. The diesel engines don't power the train; they power generators that run the train's electric engines.

I think you know damn well what I meant by electric locomotives. If I had meant diesel-electric, I would have said diesel-electric. When you see a 150-200 car freight train being pulled by a locomotive powered by a catenary, let me know.
And here's why they went with a diesel-electric set-up. Considering that a typical locomotive has four or more axles, a direct-drive diesel locomotive would require an impractical number of gears to keep the engine within its powerband. Coupling the diesel to a generator eliminates this problem.
Although hydraulic transmissions are claimed to be somewhat more efficient than diesel-electrics.

Even massive mining machines like the Liebherr T 282B dump truck or LeTourneau L-2350 wheel loader are diesel-electric. And there's a reason why they aren't simply just electric powered. Because it just doesn't have the heavy lifting capability. And because these vehicles are so big and heavy, they require multiple drive axles/wheels. And once again, without the use of diesel-electrics, mechanical engineers would be staring at a serious gearing issue.

Similarly, wind power is NOT commercially viable in many places without the use of fossil fuels, and surprisingly (for some anyway) more of them than you'd think.

 

[JLM]

I think you know damn well what I meant by electric locomotives. If I had meant diesel-electric, I would have said diesel-electric. When you see a 150-200 car freight train being pulled by a locomotive powered by a catenary, let me know.
And here's why they went with a diesel-electric set-up. Considering that a typical locomotive has four or more axles, a direct-drive diesel locomotive would require an impractical number of gears to keep the engine within its powerband. Coupling the diesel to a generator eliminates this problem.
Although hydraulic transmissions are claimed to be somewhat more efficient than diesel-electrics.

Even massive mining machines like the Liebherr T 282B dump truck or LeTourneau L-2350 wheel loader are diesel-electric. And there's a reason why they aren't simply just electric powered. Because it just doesn't have the heavy lifting capability. And because these vehicles are so big and heavy, they require multiple drive axles/wheels. And once again, without the use of diesel-electrics, mechanical engineers would be staring at a serious gearing issue.

Similarly, wind power is NOT commercially viable in many places without the use of fossil fuels, and surprisingly (for some anyway) more of them than you'd think.

Right on! One of the biggest problems we have these days is people who think there's a simple alternative to petroleum without a f**king clue about they are talking about- you just ain't going to run 300 million vehicles and all the heavy equipment off a few wind turbines and some waves and there's not enough rivers to provide all the hydro electric called for. We should probably be looking into some more nuclear power.

 

[Jinentonix]

Right on! One of the biggest problems we have these days is people who think there's a simple alternative to petroleum without a f**king clue about they are talking about- you just ain't going to run 300 million vehicles and all the heavy equipment off a few wind turbines and some waves and there's not enough rivers to provide all the hydro electric called for. We should probably be looking into some more nuclear power.

We should, but the problem is the nextgen NPPs are prohibitively expensive and not too many govts are willing to take the financial or nuclear plunge right now.
Which is a shame because once the initial capital outlay has been made, MW for MW nuclear power is just about the cheapest reliable power we can produce.

 

[taxslave]

Keep the nukes in foreign countries or better yet get rid of all of them. Coal is safer and far less expensive.

Only if you are uninformed enough enough to believe that global warming means an end to snow.

That was the promise. And the ice free arctic ocean by 2013. So far neither has come to fruitation.
THis is the problem with not following basic scientific principles and using computer models. Garbage in Garbage out.

 

[petros]

When the first electric A380 hits the skies, I'll believe fossil fuels are done for.

Aviation alone uses 575 million liters a day.

Keep the nukes in foreign countries or better yet get rid of all of them. Coal is safer and far less expensive.



That was the promise. And the ice free arctic ocean by 2013. So far neither has come to fruitation.
THis is the problem with not following basic scientific principles and using computer models. Garbage in Garbage out.

Nobody uses the modelling failures as fact any longer.

 

[Curious Cdn]

When the first electric A380 hits the skies, I'll believe fossil fuels are done for.

You could probably make one now if you stored the electrical energy in the form of liquid hydrogen in "thermus bottle" fuel tanks in the aircraft. It would burn like ... blazes.

 

[petros]

Making hydrogen is energy intensive. I suspect NG will be used looooong before hydrogen. The pressure vessels would be the same spec and gas lines are already in place at the majority of airports.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Making hydrogen is energy intensive. I suspect NG will be used looooong before hydrogen. The pressure vessels would be the same spec and gas lines are already in place at the majority of airports.

We probably need a method of concentrating sunlight into producing enough heat evergy that it splits hydrogen and oxygen apart without the intermediate step of generating electricity to do it. That would give us a "portable-fusion-power-to-go" capability.

 

[petros]

In the mean time it'll be CNG. LNG would have issues. CNG doesn't have the same freezing issues as LNG or LPG.

 

[Curious Cdn]

In the mean time it'll be CNG. LNG would have issues. CNG doesn't have the same freezing issues as LNG or LPG.

It won't be JP kerosene for much longer ... maybe for military aircraft. It will remain because of the ease of storing stove oil in adverse conditions and it's relatively lower flammability and explosive danger. I can't imagine why we would tolerate the hazard of hauling around a big cryo tank of liquid gas in a the guts of a destroyer or frigate to power the helicopters and the ship's own turbines.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I think you know damn well what I meant by electric locomotives. If I had meant diesel-electric, I would have said diesel-electric. When you see a 150-200 car freight train being pulled by a locomotive powered by a catenary, let me know.
And here's why they went with a diesel-electric set-up. Considering that a typical locomotive has four or more axles, a direct-drive diesel locomotive would require an impractical number of gears to keep the engine within its powerband. Coupling the diesel to a generator eliminates this problem.
Although hydraulic transmissions are claimed to be somewhat more efficient than diesel-electrics.

Even massive mining machines like the Liebherr T 282B dump truck or LeTourneau L-2350 wheel loader are diesel-electric. And there's a reason why they aren't simply just electric powered. Because it just doesn't have the heavy lifting capability. And because these vehicles are so big and heavy, they require multiple drive axles/wheels. And once again, without the use of diesel-electrics, mechanical engineers would be staring at a serious gearing issue.

Similarly, wind power is NOT commercially viable in many places without the use of fossil fuels, and surprisingly (for some anyway) more of them than you'd think.

How diesel electric engines work is beside the point; that is why I added it as a footnote. I maintain that renewable energy sources will eventually overtake fossil fuels and if current statistics are to be believed I have a lot of support for that argument. World use of renewables doubled between 2008 and 2016. If it continues at that rate and doubles again and then doubles again it won't be long before the use of coal and oil to produce electricity will be a thing of the past.

You did bring up one point I didn't bother to address and that is the amount of resources required to build the number of solar and wind farms that are going to come into existence. I don't really see that as a problem given that the world currently manufactures over 90 million automobiles a year. Compared to that the manufacture of a few thousand wind turbines or solar collectors is negligible. Germany has already shown that is can be done and China, the US, India, and many other nations are following that example.

 

[pgs]

How diesel electric engines work is beside the point; that is why I added it as a footnote. I maintain that renewable energy sources will eventually overtake fossil fuels and if current statistics are to be believed I have a lot of support for that argument. World use of renewables doubled between 2008 and 2016. If it continues at that rate and doubles again and then doubles again it won't be long before the use of coal and oil to produce electricity will be a thing of the past.

You did bring up one point I didn't bother to address and that is the amount of resources required to build the number of solar and wind farms that are going to come into existence. I don't really see that as a problem given that the world currently manufactures over 90 million automobiles a year. Compared to that the manufacture of a few thousand wind turbines or solar collectors is negligible. Germany has already shown that is can be done and China, the US, India, and many other nations are following that example.

You should take a closer look at Germany’s transmission problems , before using them as an example .

 

[petros]

You'd best give an example, Smurfette won't look.

 

[Bar Sinister]

You should take a closer look at Germany’s transmission problems , before using them as an example .

Kindly supply me with that information.