Remember me
▼ Content

The 2015 UNFCCC - will it make big changes?


The 2015 UNFCCC - will it make big changes?18-11-2015 23:41
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
This is what GCT believes must be done:

Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future. For as far as oil and gas, we need to transition to clean energy technologies and reduce consumption via some of these sustainable technologies. (*Only 10+ points total needed to stop [but, not to reverse] global warming, to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions):

This is what the entire planet must achieve (only 10+ points total needed):
3 points - most countries in Europe and Asia (and the U.S., Canada & Australia) implement either a Carbon Tax or Carbon Cap and Trade
2 points - wind energy and offshore wind farms - 400+ GW of added (global) capacity
1 - 300+ GW of added (global) capacity of solar and solar thermal - PV and CSP
1 - 15+% of world's electricity production - hydroelectricity (dams, tides, currents and waves) and geothermal (and heat pumps) combined
4 points of green building: through combined heat and power, district heating, Energy Star, Home Energy Management (HEM), renewable energy storage, smart meters, and cool roofs etc... (as much as possible - all new buildings/ retrofit old buildings worldwide [especially 1st world countries] to incorporate at least 1 of these technologies)
2 - clean coal - carbon capture and storage - at least 25% of world's coal plants have CCS or IGCC technologies
2 more points for 300+ GW installed renewable energy storage capacity (global)
1 point - vehicle efficiency + sustainable mass transit - all cars 40+ MPG's/ most (over 50%) of the world's mass transit uses green tech.
1 - most (over 50%) cars are hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric
1 - gasification/ create syngas at a majority (over 50%) of the world's landfills and Power2Gas , anaerobic digestion in the majority of countries
1 point - 200+ GW added capacity of nuclear energy (at least 100+ GW added 3rd and 4th generation nuclear)
1 - biofuel, cellulosic biofuel/ algae - 20%+ of world's total fuel sources for transportation are from biofuel
2 - conservation/ recycling
1 point - conservation efforts in most countries increase 200+%
1 - end all tropical deforestation + reforestation of the size of the Amazon


http://www.greencitytimes.com
https://about.me/gctimes
19-11-2015 02:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
gctimes wrote: (*Only 10+ points total needed to stop [but, not to reverse] global warming, to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions):

What causes Global Warming and why would anyone want to stop it?

I don't understand the point system.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-11-2015 02:47
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
gctimes wrote:
This is what GCT believes must be done:
Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future......




Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ). Lots of column-inches about CCS a few years ago, about how it was going to work. Don't recall reading any success stories.

Another touted notion of a few years ago: cellulosic ethanol. Any success stories?
19-11-2015 13:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
still learning wrote:
Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ).

What is to be done with sequestered CO2?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-11-2015 17:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@still learning - I think most people have given up on the subterranean sequestration concept now that the oil companies are finally admitting to the local earthquake problems associated with fracking.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-11-2015 19:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@still learning - I think most people have given up on the subterranean sequestration concept now that the oil companies are finally admitting to the local earthquake problems associated with fracking.

Nobody has "admitted" to fracking causing earthquakes.

Water withdrawal causes micro-seismic activity undiscernible by humans. Fracking itself doesn't even create seismic activity.

Seismic activity does not equate to an earthquake.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 12:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
still learning wrote:
gctimes wrote:
This is what GCT believes must be done:
Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future......




Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ). Lots of column-inches about CCS a few years ago, about how it was going to work. Don't recall reading any success stories.

Another touted notion of a few years ago: cellulosic ethanol. Any success stories?

This site:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/around-the-world-in-22-carbon-capture-projects

gives plenty of information about ongoing and future CCS projects. They are are mostly in North America, and the CO2 that is captured is typically used to enhance oil extraction. There are a few projects that plan to store CO2 in saline aquifers, but these are few and far between. CCS would have to be scaled up enormously in order to have any significant impact on CO2 emissions, so it is doubtful whether it could play much of a role in limiting climate change from greenhouse warming.

In the UK, at least, CCS is now seen as something of a non-starter, and funding for a pilot scheme at the Drax powerplant has recently been withdrawn. Instead, the govenment now plans to shut down all existing coal-fired powerplants within the next 10 years. They are to be replaced mostly with gas-fired plants which, of course, also emit CO2, though not as much.
20-11-2015 12:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
gctimes wrote:
This is what GCT believes must be done:
Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future......




Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ). Lots of column-inches about CCS a few years ago, about how it was going to work. Don't recall reading any success stories.

Another touted notion of a few years ago: cellulosic ethanol. Any success stories?

This site:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/around-the-world-in-22-carbon-capture-projects

gives plenty of information about ongoing and future CCS projects. They are are mostly in North America, and the CO2 that is captured is typically used to enhance oil extraction. There are a few projects that plan to store CO2 in saline aquifers, but these are few and far between. CCS would have to be scaled up enormously in order to have any significant impact on CO2 emissions, so it is doubtful whether it could play much of a role in limiting climate change from greenhouse warming.

In the UK, at least, CCS is now seen as something of a non-starter, and funding for a pilot scheme at the Drax powerplant has recently been withdrawn. Instead, the govenment now plans to shut down all existing coal-fired powerplants within the next 10 years. They are to be replaced mostly with gas-fired plants which, of course, also emit CO2, though not as much.


What would have been done with sequestered CO2? What is the general plan typically with sequestered CO2.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 12:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
What would have been done with sequestered CO2? What is the general plan typically with sequestered CO2.
.

The general plan is to store it in depleted oil and gas fields, and in saline aquifers. There's more information to be found here:

http://www.ccsassociation.org/faqs/ccs-storage/

At the moment, though, it's not obvious that the widespread use of CCS would be any more economically viable than simply switching to methods of power generation that produce lower CO2 emissions. It's certainly gone out of favour here in the UK now.
20-11-2015 13:18
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 13:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.

In the UK, at least, the storage locations in question are under the North Sea, so any mini-earthquakes that may result aren't likely to be a problem.
20-11-2015 13:30
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 15:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: The general plan is to store it in depleted oil and gas fields, and in saline aquifers.

Interesting. I did not know this.

Of course all this is based on the belief that CO2 is bad and has evil superpowers to destroy the planet. I suppose that if one believes all this then one could be convinced to support the great expense in time and resources to deprive plants around the globe of extra food.


http://www.ccsassociation.org/faqs/ccs-storage/

"After injection, the carbon dioxide moves up through the storage site until it reaches the impermeable layer of rock known to overlay the storage site; this layer is known as the "caprock" or "seal". This mechanism of retention is the same one that has kept oil and natural gas securely under the ground for millions of years; this provides confidence that carbon dioxide, too, can be safely stored."


At least the warmizombies acknowledge that the anti-frackazoids are idiots for claiming that fracking affects the water table.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 15:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.


When do you "predict" we will find out? You have created the classic halting problem. When you are told "The world still hasn't ended like you said" you just respond "The end must be tomorrow."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 15:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.


There have never been earthquakes from fracking.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 17:01
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
Surface Detail wrote:
....
At the moment, though, it's not obvious that the widespread use of CCS would be any more economically viable than simply switching to methods of power generation that produce lower CO2 emissions. It's certainly gone out of favour here in the UK now.


That was my impression.
I brought it up because it was part of the gctimes entry starting off this thread. Thought the gctimes entry seemed dated. On reflection, I think I recall seeing a similar article several years ago on some other website, several years ago when CCS still held promise.
Maybe gctimes cribbed somebody else's old work and didn't update it.
20-11-2015 17:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
still learning wrote:That was my impression.
I brought it up because it was part of the gctimes entry starting off this thread.

Would they be less expensive to operate or would there be added costs in the new processing?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2015 18:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.


They are??? You oughtta watch some more lava flows sometime.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2015 18:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
Surface Detail wrote:
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.

In the UK, at least, the storage locations in question are under the North Sea, so any mini-earthquakes that may result aren't likely to be a problem.


That should produce an interesting reputation of the North Sea, especially if that stuff ever does break through to the water. Another Bermuda Triangle but without the pirates.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2015 19:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.


They are??? You oughtta watch some more lava flows sometime.


Maybe the planet earth is just interconnected with itself?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2015 07:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.


They are??? You oughtta watch some more lava flows sometime.


Maybe the planet earth is just interconnected with itself?


.


Basically. We're all just floating along on our rafts we call tectonic plates. They bump, they grind, but they are each pretty much independent with any other.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2015 16:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:Basically. We're all just floating along on our rafts we call tectonic plates. They bump, they grind, but they are each pretty much independent with any other.

Except when one subducts another then you have dependencies, like two ships colliding.

Hey, my plate just rolled over yours!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2015 19:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Basically. We're all just floating along on our rafts we call tectonic plates. They bump, they grind, but they are each pretty much independent with any other.

Except when one subducts another then you have dependencies, like two ships colliding.

Hey, my plate just rolled over yours!


.

The edges of subducted plates are destroyed.

The only dependency on that is the collision point and form. Both plates are trying to still move in the same direction, even though they are colliding. It's not only like two ships colliding, it's like two ships colliding with both captains crying for flank speed. All it does is deflect things into another nearby ship minding it's own business and with just as arrogant a captain.

There's enough mass in these ships that they stay afloat despite the damage, and they just keep shoving on each other, each trying to go it's own direction.

Another difference is the shipbuilder. We build ships and they are sold for use by arrogant captains, but tectonic plates are different. If for some reason a gap opens in the struggle, more of the 'ship' is built there.

The basic point is that even with all these collisions, every plate still tries to move in the same direction as before. In a lava flow, one chunk of cooled lava on top will do the same until it reaches the edge of the flow. There is slows down and stops, building a ridge (and sometimes a complete tube) of hardened lava. In the Earth, there is no 'edge'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-11-2015 19:48
23-11-2015 15:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
The edges of subducted plates are destroyed.


Into the Night wrote: In the Earth, there is no 'edge'.


That's going to change with the new "climate". Earth is going to have dangerously sharp edges, even some barbs and thorns. It won't be safe at night. We're already beyond the "tipping point." It will be even worse if we don't pass carbon taxes that outlaw "climate change" from "greenhouse effects" from "greenhouse gases."

...and imagine how bad it's going to get when the "thermal forcing" miracles start to occur. The earth's razor-sharp edges will be the least of your worries.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2015 20:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The edges of subducted plates are destroyed.


Into the Night wrote: In the Earth, there is no 'edge'.


That's going to change with the new "climate". Earth is going to have dangerously sharp edges, even some barbs and thorns. It won't be safe at night. We're already beyond the "tipping point." It will be even worse if we don't pass carbon taxes that outlaw "climate change" from "greenhouse effects" from "greenhouse gases."

...and imagine how bad it's going to get when the "thermal forcing" miracles start to occur. The earth's razor-sharp edges will be the least of your worries.


Boy, I'd hate to be in Iceland about now. All that melting ice and those sharp edges exposed...and not even OSHA around to make the place safe.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2015 22:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:Boy, I'd hate to be in Iceland about now. All that melting ice and those sharp edges exposed...and not even OSHA around to make the place safe.


You'd think it would be obvious to everyone that the reason there is a Greenland Ice Sheet and a huge Antarctic ice mass is that...

...wait for it....

* ice accumulates there ! *

Who in his/her right mind would simply believe that all the ice is simply disappearing from those locations?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2015 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Boy, I'd hate to be in Iceland about now. All that melting ice and those sharp edges exposed...and not even OSHA around to make the place safe.


You'd think it would be obvious to everyone that the reason there is a Greenland Ice Sheet and a huge Antarctic ice mass is that...

...wait for it....

* ice accumulates there ! *

Who in his/her right mind would simply believe that all the ice is simply disappearing from those locations?


Someone that doesn't understand just how much energy you need to melt ice, or maybe they failed geography.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2015 23:01
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Not at all. They have this party every year.




Join the debate The 2015 UNFCCC - will it make big changes?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
ARTIFICIAL LEAF - The next big thing in the fight against climate change!1706-09-2018 17:56
Nevada water chief rejects big Vegas pipeline pumping plan1421-08-2018 19:58
Something To Make itn feel Good2226-07-2018 18:15
Big World Cup day today.407-07-2018 22:12
Can we make this lonely shit hole a climate war sand box for newbies?610-06-2018 07:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact