View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
|
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change
|
|
395 |
63.00% |
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause
|
|
164 |
26.16% |
Not sure
|
|
37 |
5.90% |
Climate change is a hoax
|
|
31 |
4.94% |
10-19-2022, 08:46 AM
|
#2821
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
While I agree the pace needs to increase, there are lots of things happening that are hard to see. As with lots of tectonic societal changes it can change slowly, them all at once. For example: solar in Alberta. Most people who aren't interested in this stuff I talk to from Alberta tell me there's only a little solar in Alberta. That was true two years ago. Now?
|
I agree solar is booming which is great.
Solar panels are made with oil and gas. How do we reconcile that?
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 08:52 AM
|
#2822
|
Hero
|
I think we can reconcile that as time goes on by:
1) decreasing the amount in which we rely on oil and gas over time in things like manufacturing, heating, etc.
2) increasing the amount in which we rely on renewable and clean energy sources.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 08:56 AM
|
#2823
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego Man
I think we can reconcile that as time goes on by:
1) decreasing the amount in which we rely on oil and gas over time in things like manufacturing, heating, etc.
2) increasing the amount in which we rely on renewable and clean energy sources.
|
Of course, what serious person would ever disagree with this?
Now, the next layer. On what basis, what timeframe, what impacts to people, etc.?
Of course there is huge debate on all of this.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:06 AM
|
#2824
|
First Line Centre
|
Does the human consumption, living large lives and adjusting our lifestyle come into the equation for climate change or is that something that will shake out as a result of the market forces?
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:06 AM
|
#2825
|
Franchise Player
|
The amount of solar installed is also nameplate maximum capacity, which usually lasts for about 4 hours(though only really peaks for an hour or so). To get a more realistic number, multiply nameplate by 18%(to be generous). So to compare how much it generates on average over a year, it's about 182MW. So while it has increased a lot, it only generates ~1.8% of our needs. Much better than nothing, but not nearly the 10% a quick glance at the numbers would have you believe.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:15 AM
|
#2826
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Okay, please let me know on the following (note, this list is not comprehensive):
Solvents
Ink
Upholstery
Tires
Dresses / Clothes
<snip>
heating homes / commercial buildings / anything
drinking cups
pillows
there's more. Far more but this is a good list to start.
|
O&G are miracle materials that have transformed the way we live, no question at all. But burning the stuff and discarding plastic everywhere is seriously degrading the environment so something's got to give. Most of the things on your list are durable goods that require emissions on the front end but then enjoy a long emission-free life. Who needs to ban those? Who is even talking about banning those? You keep talking extremes like we're going to cap every single well on earth.
What we need to do is stop burning the sh** and significantly curtail single use plastics (not a climate issue but another big one). If we do that we will need significantly less O&G but we will still need it and benefit from it.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:23 AM
|
#2827
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BagoPucks
Does the human consumption, living large lives and adjusting our lifestyle come into the equation for climate change or is that something that will shake out as a result of the market forces?
|
It has to. Replacing current energy sources to the same level, let alone growing consumption, just pushes the problem to a different area like scarcity of resources and massive cost. We ought to significantly reduce our consumption of lots of things, which will only happen by making them significantly more expensive.
Unfortunately this is an unacceptable solution for the public unless and until there is some compelling reason such as life, security, shortages, war, etc. The earth turning into a climate-induces hell-hole with massive crop failures, desertification, apocalyptic storms, etc. would probably do it, albeit a little late.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:24 AM
|
#2828
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
I agree solar is booming which is great.
Solar panels are made with oil and gas. How do we reconcile that?
|
The carbon footprint of a solar panel is paid off within a year and a half.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:31 AM
|
#2829
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Okay, please let me know on the following (note, this list is not comprehensive):
Solvents
Ink
Upholstery
Tires
Dresses / Clothes
Diesel fuel
Motor oil
Bearing grease
ballpoint pens
football / soccer cleats
boats
insecticides
floor wax / all wax
Putty
Curtains
vitamin capsules
dashboards
percolators
skis
car bodies
Faucet washers
food preservatives
fertilizers
antihistamines
cortisones
dyes
life jackets
tv cabinets
bags, golf bags, back packs
tool boxes / tool racks
anything plastic
petroleum jelly
antiseptics
sports balls
deodorant
rubbing alcohol
shag rugs
perfumes
shoe polish
transparent tape
clotheslines
soap
shoes
refrigerants
linings
paint
epoxy
car batteries
solar panels / windmills
mops
umbrellas
roofing
speakers
water pipes / piping
antifreeze
heart valves
enamel
candles
lotions
toothbrushes
crayons
pillows
awnings
sun glasses
parachutes
dishes
surf boards
eyeglasses
lipstick
insect repellant
telephones / cellphones
detergents
cameras
paint brushes / brushes
bandages
anesthetics
dentures
cold cream
fan belts
fridges / appliances
movie film
artificial turf
artificial limbs
contact lens
shaving cream
toothpaste
hair curlers
ammonia
methanol
gasoline
heating homes / commercial buildings / anything
drinking cups
pillows
there's more. Far more but this is a good list to start.
|
I'll break the list down to make sense:
Petrochemical materials. We don't burn life jackets, ball point pens, or boats, so I'm not sure what your getting away unless you mean the emissions from petrochemical manufacturing and manufacturing goods. Direct electrification takes care of most, but hydrogen is more efficient for the processes that require a large amount of heat. There's not many companies in the space yet, largely because the space is dominated by O&G companies who produce the petroleum.
Diesel/gasoline: hundreds of companies working on this. Where electrification isn't possible, and substitute energy carriers aren't feasible, biodiesel already exists. I suspect there very few applications where electrification and hydrogen won't work, but there's companies all over the world (even in Alberta!) selling biodiesel
Buildings: This is a big one. Some of the most innovative companies are working on efficiency first. This is where the biggest gains are. Next is heat pumps. In the vast majority of populated areas, great pumps are more economical than NG furnaces. There's cold climate heat pumps that use a newer refrigerant to get much colder (below -30 in some cases) but due to low volumes so far the lack of scale makes them pretty expensive. This is why the government is offering incentives for heat pump installation. If the demand increases enough, the costs can come down. The most difficult part of this sector is you need billions of bespoke solutions. It won't be easy for sure
Ammonia/fertilizer: This one is straightforward but difficult. There are many, many companies working on this. At least hundreds, maybe thousands. Hundreds of billions of not trillions allocated here. Fertilizer is made from ammonia (70% of all ammonia uses), same ammonia is made from hydrogen. At this point, 98% of hydrogen is made from coal or natural gas (other 2% from renewables). The answer is both easy and hard. The easy answer is make all hydrogen from water with renewables using an electrolyzer. There are 2 big issues though. The first is that there's already not enough renewables yet and this adds further need. The second is bigger. Right now we move natural gas or coal to the fertilizer plant where they make the hydrogen and then the ammonia, which then becomes fertilizer. We do this because shipping hydrogen is insanely difficult and expensive and creates a lot of loss of hydrogen in the process. This means fertilizer plants will need to be located where the hydrolysis is going to happen, which in a lot of cases may mean moving facilities.
Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:33 AM
|
#2830
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
The amount of solar installed is also nameplate maximum capacity, which usually lasts for about 4 hours(though only really peaks for an hour or so). To get a more realistic number, multiply nameplate by 18%(to be generous). So to compare how much it generates on average over a year, it's about 182MW. So while it has increased a lot, it only generates ~1.8% of our needs. Much better than nothing, but not nearly the 10% a quick glance at the numbers would have you believe.
|
You're missing the point entirely. Solar was projected to grow at a few percent every year. It grew 6700% in 2 years. The point is that things change suddenly and unexpectedly
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:36 AM
|
#2831
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
O&G are miracle materials that have transformed the way we live, no question at all. But burning the stuff and discarding plastic everywhere is seriously degrading the environment so something's got to give. Most of the things on your list are durable goods that require emissions on the front end but then enjoy a long emission-free life. Who needs to ban those? Who is even talking about banning those? You keep talking extremes like we're going to cap every single well on earth.
What we need to do is stop burning the sh** and significantly curtail single use plastics (not a climate issue but another big one). If we do that we will need significantly less O&G but we will still need it and benefit from it.
|
Okay we agree on your points above but what does "zero fossil fuels" mean to you?
You're saying "zero fossil fuels" means "still make things we need"? My misunderstanding if that's the case because I interpreted zero fossil fuels as zero fossil fuels.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:38 AM
|
#2832
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
I'll break the list down to make sense:
Petrochemical materials. We don't burn life jackets, ball point pens, or boats, so I'm not sure what your getting away unless you mean the emissions from petrochemical manufacturing and manufacturing goods. Direct electrification takes care of most, but hydrogen is more efficient for the processes that require a large amount of heat. There's not many companies in the space yet, largely because the space is dominated by O&G companies who produce the petroleum.
Diesel/gasoline: hundreds of companies working on this. Where electrification isn't possible, and substitute energy carriers aren't feasible, biodiesel already exists. I suspect there very few applications where electrification and hydrogen won't work, but there's companies all over the world (even in Alberta!) selling biodiesel
Buildings: This is a big one. Some of the most innovative companies are working on efficiency first. This is where the biggest gains are. Next is heat pumps. In the vast majority of populated areas, great pumps are more economical than NG furnaces. There's cold climate heat pumps that use a newer refrigerant to get much colder (below -30 in some cases) but due to low volumes so far the lack of scale makes them pretty expensive. This is why the government is offering incentives for heat pump installation. If the demand increases enough, the costs can come down. The most difficult part of this sector is you need billions of bespoke solutions. It won't be easy for sure
Ammonia/fertilizer: This one is straightforward but difficult. There are many, many companies working on this. At least hundreds, maybe thousands. Hundreds of billions of not trillions allocated here. Fertilizer is made from ammonia (70% of all ammonia uses), same ammonia is made from hydrogen. At this point, 98% of hydrogen is made from coal or natural gas (other 2% from renewables). The answer is both easy and hard. The easy answer is make all hydrogen from water with renewables using an electrolyzer. There are 2 big issues though. The first is that there's already not enough renewables yet and this adds further need. The second is bigger. Right now we move natural gas or coal to the fertilizer plant where they make the hydrogen and then the ammonia, which then becomes fertilizer. We do this because shipping hydrogen is insanely difficult and expensive and creates a lot of loss of hydrogen in the process. This means fertilizer plants will need to be located where the hydrolysis is going to happen, which in a lot of cases may mean moving facilities.
Did I miss anything?
|
So still use petrochemical byproducts?
So, still produce and use oil and gas then?
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:39 AM
|
#2833
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
So still use petrochemical byproducts?
So, still produce and use oil and gas then?
|
Yes? Just not burn it.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:48 AM
|
#2834
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
So still use petrochemical byproducts?
So, still produce and use oil and gas then?
|
Has anyone (at least anyone reasonable) suggested otherwise? If someone wanted to phase out wood burning for heat because of the smoke pollution, that doesn't mean they think houses and furniture shouldn't be made of wood any more.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:49 AM
|
#2835
|
damn onions
|
Uh, okay. But that's not "phasing them out entirely" or "zero fossil fuels".
So maybe the issue is on poor communication (not entirely on my part...). You guys are saying phasing out fossil fuels for the strict purpose of burning them which is entirely different than phasing them out altogether. Like, gigantic worlds of difference actually. So the clarity is relevant. Also for 2 days we have had this discussion and this was not clarified?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2022, 09:52 AM
|
#2836
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Has anyone (at least anyone reasonable) suggested otherwise? If someone wanted to phase out wood burning for heat because of the smoke pollution, that doesn't mean they think houses and furniture shouldn't be made of wood any more.
|
What? Yes, that is the entire impetus of "phasing out fossil fuels".
What does phasing something out mean to you? to me it means not use it.
Not, "don't use it but for *exceptions we don't talk about and people are assumed to know this*".
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 10:03 AM
|
#2837
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Uh, okay. But that's not "phasing them out entirely" or "zero fossil fuels".
So maybe the issue is on poor communication (not entirely on my part...). You guys are saying phasing out fossil fuels for the strict purpose of burning them which is entirely different than phasing them out altogether. Like, gigantic worlds of difference actually. So the clarity is relevant. Also for 2 days we have had this discussion and this was not clarified?
|
Phasing out fossil fuels isn't phasing out oil and gas. Fossil fuels are fuels
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 10:07 AM
|
#2838
|
damn onions
|
Oil and gas are fossil fuels. You cannot have oil and gas if you phase out fossil fuels. they are essentially the same thing.
The vast majority of petrochemicals are derived from fossil fuels (oil and gas). So the statement to phase out fossil fuels is akin to saying phase out oil and gas.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 10:20 AM
|
#2839
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
What? Yes, that is the entire impetus of "phasing out fossil fuels".
What does phasing something out mean to you? to me it means not use it.
|
What does "fuel" mean to you? Here's the Wikipedia definition of fossil fuels:
A fossil fuel is a hydrocarbon-containing material formed naturally in the earth's crust from the remains of dead plants and animals that is extracted and burned as a fuel.
People are talking about phasing it out as a fuel source wherever possible. Like, if someone said "we need to phase out biofuels (for whatever reason)", would you take that to mean that we should stop producing and eating corn?
Quote:
Not, "don't use it but for *exceptions we don't talk about and people are assumed to know this*".
|
You realize that the entire issue is carbon emissions and burning oil & gas as fuel, right? Why would you take that to mean that all oil byproducts and petrochemicals need to be phased out? Things that don't generate many emissions (durable goods made from plastic, lubricants, etc.) aren't an issue in terms of carbon emissions. That's why the entire conversation revolves around energy, because that's where oil and gas are used as fuels.
|
|
|
10-19-2022, 10:38 AM
|
#2840
|
damn onions
|
I understand all of that.
Oil and gas are fossil fuels. That's what they are. You can go google the same definitions and questions, what are oil and gas, what are fossil fuels, are oil and gas fossil fuels, etc.
So to make a statement "phase out fossil fuels" means to literally phase out oil and gas. So why would I interpret the phasing out of fossil fuels as the phasing out of oil and gas? Because that is literally what you guys are saying, that is why.
Maybe people should be more clear, or provide the proper clarifications, such as "phase out the burning of fossil fuels".
An example:
"we need to phase out X"
"but if you do that there are disastrous consequences with Y, which is literally made from X"
"no but YOU misunderstood. I said phase out X why would you claim Y would get phased out?"
"because Y is literally X"
"no that's your misinterpretation. We mean phase out X EXCEPT FOR Y. YOUR mistake."
Ahhhh okay. Sounds good.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:53 PM.
|
|