Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 396 62.86%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 165 26.19%
Not sure 37 5.87%
Climate change is a hoax 32 5.08%
Voters: 630. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-05-2024, 06:19 PM   #3261
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod View Post
Just what we need... another nightmare greenhouse gas to worry about.



https://news.mit.edu/2024/atmospheri...oride-sf6-0328



Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is 24,300 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2, and stays in the atmosphere for more than 1000 years.
It's not something to worry about. Yes we should limit these emissions, but in context it's not anywhere near many other GHG and they're much easier to limit than methane or CO2. It's waaaay down the list of things to worry about.

Yearly global CO2 emissions: 37.5 Gigatons
Yearly methane emissions: 0.135 Gigatons
Yearly global SF6 emissions: .000009 Gigatons
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Old 04-05-2024, 06:55 PM   #3262
DownInFlames
Craig McTavish' Merkin
 
DownInFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
It's not something to worry about. Yes we should limit these emissions, but in context it's not anywhere near many other GHG and they're much easier to limit than methane or CO2. It's waaaay down the list of things to worry about.

Yearly global CO2 emissions: 37.5 Gigatons
Yearly methane emissions: 0.135 Gigatons
Yearly global SF6 emissions: .000009 Gigatons
And it makes your voice sound cool.
DownInFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Old 04-05-2024, 07:40 PM   #3263
PaperBagger'14
Franchise Player
 
PaperBagger'14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cowtown
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod View Post
Just what we need... another nightmare greenhouse gas to worry about.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/atmospheri...oride-sf6-0328

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is 24,300 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2, and stays in the atmosphere for more than 1000 years.
What specifically is your fear around SF6? Yes it’s terrible for the environment when released but what part of handling the gas to its use in high voltage applications is concerning to you?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid View Post
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
PaperBagger'14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-05-2024, 08:51 PM   #3264
DoubleK
Franchise Player
 
DoubleK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post
What specifically is your fear around SF6? Yes it’s terrible for the environment when released but what part of handling the gas to its use in high voltage applications is concerning to you?
There are other insulating gases that can be used in place of SF6. Even if it was an issue, there are other options.

It's not near the problem that PCBs were back in the day. This wasn't even on the list of operational concerns at the utility I worked at. Wildfire, Cyber, Rates/affordability. That's the list.
__________________
It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
DoubleK is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
Old 04-06-2024, 10:32 AM   #3265
PaperBagger'14
Franchise Player
 
PaperBagger'14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cowtown
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK View Post
There are other insulating gases that can be used in place of SF6. Even if it was an issue, there are other options.

It's not near the problem that PCBs were back in the day. This wasn't even on the list of operational concerns at the utility I worked at. Wildfire, Cyber, Rates/affordability. That's the list.
Yeah there are other options for sure but like everything they have drawbacks as well, cost, corrosion and toxicity among them.

SF6 is very safe to handle from a health perspective, it’s fairly abundant and has great dielectric properties. It’s also reasonably priced and has a ton of equipment compatible with it. The 2 biggest drawbacks being the environmental impact of a release as well as the production of SO2 during arcing events. SO2 forms as a white powder when exposed to exceptional levels of heat and is highly cancerous, however I have very rarely seen the presence of SO2 in equipment (maybe twice out of thousands of tests).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid View Post
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
PaperBagger'14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-06-2024, 01:52 PM   #3266
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Well that is a relief. The fear-mongering almost had me worried.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2024, 07:00 PM   #3267
Mathgod
Franchise Player
 
Mathgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
It's not something to worry about. Yes we should limit these emissions, but in context it's not anywhere near many other GHG and they're much easier to limit than methane or CO2. It's waaaay down the list of things to worry about.

Yearly global CO2 emissions: 37.5 Gigatons
Yearly methane emissions: 0.135 Gigatons
Yearly global SF6 emissions: .000009 Gigatons
You're missing a lot of context here.

You only need .00004 Gigatons of SF6 to equal 1 gigaton of CO2.

But it's actually a lot worse than that, because CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis or other methods. Methane dissipates on its own after 12 years. SF6 stays in the atmosphere permanently one released, and there's no way to get it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post
What specifically is your fear around SF6? Yes it’s terrible for the environment when released but what part of handling the gas to its use in high voltage applications is concerning to you?
It's not "fear", it's concern due to a real potential danger. SF6 sometimes leaks, and it doesn't take a whole lot of leaks before it starts causing real and very long lasting harm. SF6 emissions may be very low now, but they are sharply increasing. And the real amount of leaks could be higher than what's reported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Well that is a relief. The fear-mongering almost had me worried.
Always resorting to snarky assholish one liners. Well done Azure.
__________________
Mathgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2024, 08:03 PM   #3268
TherapyforGlencross
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

It looks like the rise of SF6 emissions line up directly with the push for electric power grids in China. Are there other insulators or is this the best we have to our technology? Honest question, no idea on this.
TherapyforGlencross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2024, 08:31 PM   #3269
edslunch
Franchise Player
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
It's not something to worry about. Yes we should limit these emissions, but in context it's not anywhere near many other GHG and they're much easier to limit than methane or CO2. It's waaaay down the list of things to worry about.

Yearly global CO2 emissions: 37.5 Gigatons
Yearly methane emissions: 0.135 Gigatons
Yearly global SF6 emissions: .000009 Gigatons
As if a pharmacist would know anything about concentrations!
edslunch is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2024, 07:48 AM   #3270
edslunch
Franchise Player
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default Climate change and human responsibility

Nothing to see here….



Orange is 2022, new line is 2024

Edit: data since 1981

Last edited by edslunch; 04-26-2024 at 08:21 AM.
edslunch is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2024, 07:54 AM   #3271
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Let's get to the beach!
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2024, 08:44 AM   #3272
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Nothing to sea here... It was right there...
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2024, 09:00 AM   #3273
edslunch
Franchise Player
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Nothing to sea here... It was right there...

Swim and a miss
edslunch is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2024, 12:25 AM   #3274
PaperBagger'14
Franchise Player
 
PaperBagger'14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cowtown
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross View Post
It looks like the rise of SF6 emissions line up directly with the push for electric power grids in China. Are there other insulators or is this the best we have to our technology? Honest question, no idea on this.
The most common insulators for the electric grid in circuit breakers in high voltage applications in Calgary are mineral oil and SF6. Currently they are “the best”, however it’s important to note that if we look at the progression of oil filled circuit breakers and their advancements is that there is room to improve on design.

Some of the oldest styles of oil filled circuit were basically tanks filled to the teets with mineral oil. They were called called bulk oil circuit breakers and they looked like this:

Spoiler!


These units lasted years and years but were one bad seal or weld away from making an enormous mess. Over the years they developed high voltage circuit breakers containing vastly smaller quantities of oil, called minimum oil circuit breakers. Take a look at the “newer” models of oil filled circuit breakers:

Spoiler!


There is room to improve the design of SF6 circuit breakers to use less gas while still providing a safe insulating medium. The fretting of the use of SF6 like some users have is fair, as some places in the world won’t care if they piss out an entire bottle of SF6 into the atmosphere. But that isn’t Canada, and you would get into a whole world of trouble for that type of release if you did that here.

You can look to countries with terrible environmental track records who (likely) would abuse the use of SF6, you can wag your finger at them, and then go back about your daily business because they aren’t going to give a damn about your opinion. It’s a great product if used properly, and I’ve worked with it a great deal, but it can be harmful if used incorrectly, like almost everything on this planet.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid View Post
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
PaperBagger'14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-30-2024, 12:08 PM   #3275
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Based on analysis in our most recent U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions report, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 3%, about 134 million metric tons (MMmt), in 2023.

Over 80% of the emissions reductions occurred in the electric power sector, caused largely by decreased coal-fired electricity generation, which was displaced by increased generation from solar and natural gas. Electric power sector emissions decreased to about 1,425 MMmt in 2023, about 7% less than in 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/de...id=FirstUpdate

Wait, wait, wait, I thought we were told switching from coal to natural gas is NOT the solution?
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2024, 12:49 PM   #3276
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/de...id=FirstUpdate

Wait, wait, wait, I thought we were told switching from coal to natural gas is NOT the solution?
We’re also being told that solar isn’t the answer either by certain elected officials.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2024, 01:15 PM   #3277
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Solar really isn't the answer. It is a stop gap solution until we develop an energy source that doesn't require massive resources like solar does.

But for now its a good answer. Just like natural gas.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2024, 01:16 PM   #3278
DoubleK
Franchise Player
 
DoubleK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/de...id=FirstUpdate

Wait, wait, wait, I thought we were told switching from coal to natural gas is NOT the solution?
Switching from coal to natural gas and increasing renewable penetration can't possibly be the solution, especially considering that Alberta hit a record low for emissions intensity THIS WEEK.
__________________
It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
DoubleK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2024, 01:29 PM   #3279
Leondros
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Wait wait wait, lets get off coal, unless its too hard (costly) of course. Who didn't see this coming - citizens value energy costs over the environment every damn time. If Japan and Germany are back tracking, how do we expect India, China, etc. to follow suit?

Fossil fuels are going to be a very large part of energy mix for the rest of our lives.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ys-2024-04-29/

Quote:
Energy ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) major democracies will sign a deal to end the use of coal in power generation between 2030 and 2035, but could offer a leeway to Germany and Japan, two diplomatic sources said on Tuesday.

This caveat would give room to maneuver to Berlin and Tokyo, whose coal-fired plants produce more than one-fourth of their total electricity, sources said.
Leondros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2024, 01:31 PM   #3280
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Getting off coal is easy. We have the technology to do it. Unfortunately the rest of the word doesn't, and it should be our responsibility to help them do it.

Unfortunately our government wants to virtue signal instead.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021