Remember me
▼ Content

Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources



Page 1 of 212>
Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources26-07-2016 18:38
VictoriaChuEM203
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

I'd love to hear your opinion on the comparison between renewable and non-renewable energy! Please leave a comment or ask a question!

For a more in-depth analysis, please check out this presentation. http://prezi.com/ds07tdjevabx/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share
Edited on 26-07-2016 18:40
26-07-2016 20:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
If you want to have easy cheap electricty that uses no fossil fuel use goethermal from Yellowstone.

Investing a couple of billion will not get the next nuclear power station started but will produce all the power you could ever want out of the biggest volcanoe on the planet.

Edited on 26-07-2016 20:29
29-07-2016 03:33
LindaP
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Businesses are used to generating energy in these ways so it's difficult for them to change their ways.
It might be better for the government to provide a financial incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions instead.
29-07-2016 10:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
LindaP wrote:
Businesses are used to generating energy in these ways so it's difficult for them to change their ways.
It might be better for the government to provide a financial incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions instead.


What, like the incentive that they have to pay for their power? As they already do?
18-09-2016 09:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Dirtier energy is cheaper. Why would they, of their own accord, buy more expensive energy?
11-10-2016 20:15
Solarwind
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Humans have no control over the climate of this Planet. The Sun, Galactic Cosmic Rays and Nature are the major drivers of the Earth's climate.
11-10-2016 20:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Solarwind wrote:Humans have no control over the climate of this Planet. The Sun, Galactic Cosmic Rays and Nature are the major drivers of the Earth's climate.

Something that doesn't exist can't have drivers, much less "major" drivers.


.


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
11-10-2016 21:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere. [quote]
Coal burns pretty damn clean these days. Mining it can be dangerous, but so is any other form of energy (including wind power).
[quote]VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
I'd love to hear your opinion on the comparison between renewable and non-renewable energy! Please leave a comment or ask a question!

For a more in-depth analysis, please check out this presentation. ...deleted link...


I suggest you find out more about the real issues of energy instead of listening to propaganda.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 21:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
Tim the plumber wrote:
If you want to have easy cheap electricty that uses no fossil fuel use goethermal from Yellowstone.

Investing a couple of billion will not get the next nuclear power station started but will produce all the power you could ever want out of the biggest volcanoe on the planet.


A couple of billion will easily build a nuclear power station, except for the corruption and political costs.

Yellowstone Natl park is not the biggest volcano in the world.

Geothermal energy is fine, but you get natural gas from it at yellowstone. It's a sour gas, though, and would need extra processing.

The biggest obstacle to geothermal at yellowstone is political. The place is a national park.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 21:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
LindaP wrote:
Businesses are used to generating energy in these ways so it's difficult for them to change their ways.
It might be better for the government to provide a financial incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions instead.


Why does the government need to do THAT?!?

There is ALREADY an incentive to reduce fuel use! It's called money!


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 21:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Dirtier energy is cheaper. Why would they, of their own accord, buy more expensive energy?


Many already do. Of course, that's because the government is subsidizing it.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.

Coal burns pretty damn clean these days. Mining it can be dangerous, but so is any other form of energy (including wind power).

So as coal ages, it tends to be cleaner? And a few hundred years can make that much of a difference? The more you know...

wait

Burning things produces CO2. There's almost no way around it.

VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.[/quote]
Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
I'd love to hear your opinion on the comparison between renewable and non-renewable energy! Please leave a comment or ask a question!

For a more in-depth analysis, please check out this presentation. ...deleted link...


I suggest you find out more about the real issues of energy instead of listening to propaganda.


Always a good idea.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 12-10-2016 00:06
12-10-2016 00:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
LindaP wrote:
Businesses are used to generating energy in these ways so it's difficult for them to change their ways.
It might be better for the government to provide a financial incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions instead.


What, like the incentive that they have to pay for their power? As they already do?


Reduce emissions. Like installing fume-filters. Costs money, doesn't directly help the company much.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 00:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
LindaP wrote:
Businesses are used to generating energy in these ways so it's difficult for them to change their ways.
It might be better for the government to provide a financial incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions instead.


Why does the government need to do THAT?!?

There is ALREADY an incentive to reduce fuel use! It's called money!


Not fuel use. Emissions. Those can be reduced in other ways, and should. Fume-filters, for one.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 00:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.

Coal burns pretty damn clean these days. Mining it can be dangerous, but so is any other form of energy (including wind power).

So as coal ages, it tends to be cleaner? And a few hundred years can make that much of a difference? The more you know...

What a moron. No, we are burning it better than we used to.
jwoodward48 wrote:
wait

Burning things produces CO2. There's almost no way around it.

So?
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.[/quote]
Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
I'd love to hear your opinion on the comparison between renewable and non-renewable energy! Please leave a comment or ask a question!

For a more in-depth analysis, please check out this presentation. ...deleted link...


I suggest you find out more about the real issues of energy instead of listening to propaganda.


Always a good idea.

Agreeing in words and not actions doesn't mean much.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Is it the recent technology that basically carries out photosynthesis (from a black-box perspective)?
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.

Coal burns pretty damn clean these days. Mining it can be dangerous, but so is any other form of energy (including wind power).

So as coal ages, it tends to be cleaner? And a few hundred years can make that much of a difference? The more you know...

What a moron. No, we are burning it better than we used to.

I was being facetious/sarcastic/ironic/something similar. I know that it doesn't get cleaner as it ages - I was wondering how else you could reduce the CO2 from burning coal. Especially since it's a guaranteed product of the combustion of hydrocarbons.
jwoodward48 wrote:
wait

Burning things produces CO2. There's almost no way around it.

So?

CO2 is a GHG that contributes to AGW. Too many TLA, BTW.
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.[/quote]
No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.[/quote]
The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
I'd love to hear your opinion on the comparison between renewable and non-renewable energy! Please leave a comment or ask a question!

For a more in-depth analysis, please check out this presentation. ...deleted link...


I suggest you find out more about the real issues of energy instead of listening to propaganda.


Always a good idea.

Agreeing in words and not actions doesn't mean much.


That's why I didn't praise you, yep.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 01:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Basically, you take a carbon source (like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and stick it in a pressure cooker with an iron catalyst. The result is light sweet crude.

The same conditions exist naturally under the surface of the Earth.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is it the recent technology that basically carries out photosynthesis (from a black-box perspective)?
No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.

Coal burns pretty damn clean these days. Mining it can be dangerous, but so is any other form of energy (including wind power).

So as coal ages, it tends to be cleaner? And a few hundred years can make that much of a difference? The more you know...

What a moron. No, we are burning it better than we used to.

I was being facetious/sarcastic/ironic/something similar. I know that it doesn't get cleaner as it ages - I was wondering how else you could reduce the CO2 from burning coal. Especially since it's a guaranteed product of the combustion of hydrocarbons.
jwoodward48 wrote:
wait

Burning things produces CO2. There's almost no way around it.

So?

CO2 is a GHG that contributes to AGW. Too many TLA, BTW.

Wrong. Already discussed elsewhere.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.

No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.[/quote]
That is not the purpose of a catalytic converter. In fact, if fumes get into a catalytic converter, it will destroy the converter. That's why there are sensors all over your engine and exhaust system to detect it and prevent it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.

The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)[/quote]
Conspiracy story. Fracking takes place well below the water table. The environmental problems are no different than any other form of oil extraction.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]

No. It only shows you what happens when you are sloppy about burning fuel.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 10:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Basically, you take a carbon source (like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and stick it in a pressure cooker with an iron catalyst. The result is light sweet crude.

The same conditions exist naturally under the surface of the Earth.


Ah, but do you get more energy out than in? Or is it just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is it the recent technology that basically carries out photosynthesis (from a black-box perspective)?
No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Advantages and Disadvantages to different types of non-renewable energy sources:

Coal is reliable and can be be burned to generate energy at any time of the day and during any season. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to generate energy, mining coal is dangerous and emits dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.

Coal burns pretty damn clean these days. Mining it can be dangerous, but so is any other form of energy (including wind power).

So as coal ages, it tends to be cleaner? And a few hundred years can make that much of a difference? The more you know...

What a moron. No, we are burning it better than we used to.

I was being facetious/sarcastic/ironic/something similar. I know that it doesn't get cleaner as it ages - I was wondering how else you could reduce the CO2 from burning coal. Especially since it's a guaranteed product of the combustion of hydrocarbons.
jwoodward48 wrote:
wait

Burning things produces CO2. There's almost no way around it.

So?

CO2 is a GHG that contributes to AGW. Too many TLA, BTW.

Wrong. Already discussed elsewhere.

Second part is true. I've explained how the GHE doesn't violate any laws, you've ignored me and chanted "it violates! it violates!" with your hands over your ears.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.

No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.

That is not the purpose of a catalytic converter. In fact, if fumes get into a catalytic converter, it will destroy the converter. That's why there are sensors all over your engine and exhaust system to detect it and prevent it.[/quote]
Fumes: "gas, smoke, or vapor that smells strongly or is dangerous to inhale." Example: "cloud of exhaust fumes spewed by cars."

"A catalytic converter is an emissions control device that converts toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction (an oxidation and a reduction reaction)."

So, Into, what do you say the purpose of a catalytic converter is?
jwoodward48 wrote:
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.

The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)

Conspiracy story. Fracking takes place well below the water table. The environmental problems are no different than any other form of oil extraction.[/quote]
Haha, hypocrite. Besides, leaks above the water table can and do occur.

As for "no different than any other form of oil extraction," all this shows is that all oil extraction is as bad as fracking. This does not show that fracking is okay.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]

No. It only shows you what happens when you are sloppy about burning fuel.

Smog is a localized problem in many places. Air pollution may be improving, or it may not, but it is still an issue. In the UK, "excess deaths from particle pollution today can be estimated at about 64,000 a year." source. (Keep in mind that the article itself states that air pollution is improving! You can hardly call it biased toward the statement that air pollution is getting worse.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Basically, you take a carbon source (like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and stick it in a pressure cooker with an iron catalyst. The result is light sweet crude.

The same conditions exist naturally under the surface of the Earth.


Ah, but do you get more energy out than in? Or is it just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source?

You put in more energy than you get out by burning the fuel. The rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the process. The conditions exist, however, for the same process to run within the crust of the Earth. This also explains why oil is often found well below any fossil layer and why wells fill up again after they've been pumped dry and capped.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Second part is true. I've explained how the GHE doesn't violate any laws, you've ignored me and chanted "it violates! it violates!" with your hands over your ears.

No, you put out theories and contrivances that violate physics then claim they don't violate physics.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.

No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.

That is not the purpose of a catalytic converter. In fact, if fumes get into a catalytic converter, it will destroy the converter. That's why there are sensors all over your engine and exhaust system to detect it and prevent it.

Fumes: "gas, smoke, or vapor that smells strongly or is dangerous to inhale." Example: "cloud of exhaust fumes spewed by cars."

"A catalytic converter is an emissions control device that converts toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction (an oxidation and a reduction reaction)."

So, Into, what do you say the purpose of a catalytic converter is?[/quote]
It's main purpose is to convert CO into CO2.

NOx is taken care of by the EGR system. The converter will deal with any that get past EGR, so long as it doesn't get too much of it.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.

The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)

Conspiracy story. Fracking takes place well below the water table. The environmental problems are no different than any other form of oil extraction.



Haha, hypocrite. Besides, leaks above the water table can and do occur.

As for "no different than any other form of oil extraction," all this shows is that all oil extraction is as bad as fracking. This does not show that fracking is okay.[/quote]
Oil extraction does occasionally have pollution problems. Most of these aren't permanent issues, even major spills at sea. The environment can absorb it quite well after a few weeks.

As energy sources go, oil isn't all that bad. Wind power, for example, can kill birds and has killed people. It is not a safe source either. The energy source with the best safety record is actually nuclear. Mining the ore and processing it can be dangerous, but you only need a few pounds of fuel to power the plant for quite a long time.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]

No. It only shows you what happens when you are sloppy about burning fuel.

Smog is a localized problem in many places. Air pollution may be improving, or it may not, but it is still an issue. In the UK, "excess deaths from particle pollution today can be estimated at about 64,000 a year." source. (Keep in mind that the article itself states that air pollution is improving! You can hardly call it biased toward the statement that air pollution is getting worse.)


I don't consider the Guardian a legitimate source of environmental science.

Air pollution has improved...quite a lot. Especially in the United States.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Basically, you take a carbon source (like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and stick it in a pressure cooker with an iron catalyst. The result is light sweet crude.

The same conditions exist naturally under the surface of the Earth.


Ah, but do you get more energy out than in? Or is it just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source?

You put in more energy than you get out by burning the fuel. The rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the process. The conditions exist, however, for the same process to run within the crust of the Earth. This also explains why oil is often found well below any fossil layer and why wells fill up again after they've been pumped dry and capped.

Fossil fuels are basically stored solar energy, allowing us to draw upon the power of the ancient Sun instead of the current one. It's an energy source for our purposes.

Making our own oil is not an energy source for our purposes. There's a significant difference. It is useful, because we can turn electricity (ferex) into oil, allowing us to continue using the oil-burning machines, etc.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Second part is true. I've explained how the GHE doesn't violate any laws, you've ignored me and chanted "it violates! it violates!" with your hands over your ears.

No, you put out theories and contrivances that violate physics then claim they don't violate physics.

Either you meant "hypotheses," or you admit that my statements have experimental verification. I'm guessing the former.

They don't. You are misunderstanding the 2nd. I have tried to show you the ridiculous results of applying the Imaginary 2nd, but you haven't listened.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.

No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.

That is not the purpose of a catalytic converter. In fact, if fumes get into a catalytic converter, it will destroy the converter. That's why there are sensors all over your engine and exhaust system to detect it and prevent it.

Fumes: "gas, smoke, or vapor that smells strongly or is dangerous to inhale." Example: "cloud of exhaust fumes spewed by cars."

"A catalytic converter is an emissions control device that converts toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction (an oxidation and a reduction reaction)."

So, Into, what do you say the purpose of a catalytic converter is?

It's main purpose is to convert CO into CO2.

NOx is taken care of by the EGR system. The converter will deal with any that get past EGR, so long as it doesn't get too much of it.[/quote]

I am somewhat confused. I said, "cars have CC fume-filters," you said "that's not what CCs are for," I said "yes it is [definitions]", you said "they're used to reduce the CO emissions," which would be removing CO from the fumes.

I meant filter in the sense of "something that reduces/removes harmful emissions," maybe that's why?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.

The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)

Conspiracy story. Fracking takes place well below the water table. The environmental problems are no different than any other form of oil extraction.



Haha, hypocrite. Besides, leaks above the water table can and do occur.

As for "no different than any other form of oil extraction," all this shows is that all oil extraction is as bad as fracking. This does not show that fracking is okay.

Oil extraction does occasionally have pollution problems. Most of these aren't permanent issues, even major spills at sea. The environment can absorb it quite well after a few weeks.[/quote]
I doubt that. If it gets absorbed into the soil, it'll go to the water table. And major oil spills at sea have been incredibly detrimental to the environment. Deepwater Horizon, etc.

As energy sources go, oil isn't all that bad. Wind power, for example, can kill birds and has killed people. It is not a safe source either. The energy source with the best safety record is actually nuclear. Mining the ore and processing it can be dangerous, but you only need a few pounds of fuel to power the plant for quite a long time.


About those birds. AGW hurts birds. Wind turbines? Not even as bad as housecats. Not even as bad as cell phone towers.

"Has killed people"? Everything's killed people. Will it kill more people than the increased natural disasters from AGW?

Nuclear power isn't EVIL BAD AWFUL, but it does have issues. More than wind, I'd say.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]

No. It only shows you what happens when you are sloppy about burning fuel.

Smog is a localized problem in many places. Air pollution may be improving, or it may not, but it is still an issue. In the UK, "excess deaths from particle pollution today can be estimated at about 64,000 a year." source. (Keep in mind that the article itself states that air pollution is improving! You can hardly call it biased toward the statement that air pollution is getting worse.)


I don't consider the Guardian a legitimate source of environmental science.

Air pollution has improved...quite a lot. Especially in the United States.


I never disputed that. Air pollution is a problem, one that (ignoring CO2 for now) is getting better, but still a problem.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
jwoodward48 wrote:Second part is true. I've explained how the GHE doesn't violate any laws, you've ignored me and chanted "it violates! it violates!" with your hands over your ears.


jwoodward48 step 1: Describe an egregious violation of physics.

jwoodward48 step 2: Conclude with the words "See, there's no violation of physics."

jwoodward48 step 3: Later, claim to have explained how your scenario doesn't violate physics in the manner that it violates physics.

loop back to jwoodward48 step 1.


.


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
12-10-2016 22:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann step 1: Insist that something is so.
13-10-2016 03:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Basically, you take a carbon source (like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and stick it in a pressure cooker with an iron catalyst. The result is light sweet crude.

The same conditions exist naturally under the surface of the Earth.


Ah, but do you get more energy out than in? Or is it just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source?

You put in more energy than you get out by burning the fuel. The rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the process. The conditions exist, however, for the same process to run within the crust of the Earth. This also explains why oil is often found well below any fossil layer and why wells fill up again after they've been pumped dry and capped.

Fossil fuels are basically stored solar energy, allowing us to draw upon the power of the ancient Sun instead of the current one. It's an energy source for our purposes.

Making our own oil is not an energy source for our purposes. There's a significant difference. It is useful, because we can turn electricity (ferex) into oil, allowing us to continue using the oil-burning machines, etc.

Never said it was.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Second part is true. I've explained how the GHE doesn't violate any laws, you've ignored me and chanted "it violates! it violates!" with your hands over your ears.

No, you put out theories and contrivances that violate physics then claim they don't violate physics.

Either you meant "hypotheses," or you admit that my statements have experimental verification. I'm guessing the former.

They don't. You are misunderstanding the 2nd. I have tried to show you the ridiculous results of applying the Imaginary 2nd, but you haven't listened.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.

No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.

That is not the purpose of a catalytic converter. In fact, if fumes get into a catalytic converter, it will destroy the converter. That's why there are sensors all over your engine and exhaust system to detect it and prevent it.

Fumes: "gas, smoke, or vapor that smells strongly or is dangerous to inhale." Example: "cloud of exhaust fumes spewed by cars."

"A catalytic converter is an emissions control device that converts toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction (an oxidation and a reduction reaction)."

So, Into, what do you say the purpose of a catalytic converter is?

It's main purpose is to convert CO into CO2.

NOx is taken care of by the EGR system. The converter will deal with any that get past EGR, so long as it doesn't get too much of it.


I am somewhat confused. I said, "cars have CC fume-filters," you said "that's not what CCs are for," I said "yes it is [definitions]", you said "they're used to reduce the CO emissions," which would be removing CO from the fumes.

I meant filter in the sense of "something that reduces/removes harmful emissions," maybe that's why?
[/quote]
It is not removing CO from the fumes. There are no fumes (at least in a properly running engine). It is not a filter of any kind. It is a converter that favors CO2 over CO. But I forget, you are illiterate of chemistry or automotive engineering.


jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.

The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)

Conspiracy story. Fracking takes place well below the water table. The environmental problems are no different than any other form of oil extraction.



Haha, hypocrite. Besides, leaks above the water table can and do occur.

As for "no different than any other form of oil extraction," all this shows is that all oil extraction is as bad as fracking. This does not show that fracking is okay.

Oil extraction does occasionally have pollution problems. Most of these aren't permanent issues, even major spills at sea. The environment can absorb it quite well after a few weeks.

I doubt that. If it gets absorbed into the soil, it'll go to the water table. And major oil spills at sea have been incredibly detrimental to the environment. Deepwater Horizon, etc.[/quote]
That oil is gone. Do you know how?
jwoodward48 wrote:
As energy sources go, oil isn't all that bad. Wind power, for example, can kill birds and has killed people. It is not a safe source either. The energy source with the best safety record is actually nuclear. Mining the ore and processing it can be dangerous, but you only need a few pounds of fuel to power the plant for quite a long time.


About those birds. AGW hurts birds. Wind turbines? Not even as bad as housecats. Not even as bad as cell phone towers.

Birds NEST on cellphone towers. Quite happily, too.

No bird has been harmed by Global Warming. You are just assuming the circular argument again.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"Has killed people"? Everything's killed people. Will it kill more people than the increased natural disasters from AGW?

Are you still beating your girlfriend?

Try to ask something other than loaded questions, especially questions loaded with circular arguments.

Wind turbines kill people. I have personally seen what happens when one of these suckers throws a blade at speed.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Nuclear power isn't EVIL BAD AWFUL, but it does have issues. More than wind, I'd say.

You are comparing a peanut to an entire grocery store.

ONE nuclear plant puts out ten times the ENTIRE windfarm output in our State alone. This is an unusual ratio. It's much higher in other States.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]

No. It only shows you what happens when you are sloppy about burning fuel.

Smog is a localized problem in many places. Air pollution may be improving, or it may not, but it is still an issue. In the UK, "excess deaths from particle pollution today can be estimated at about 64,000 a year." source. (Keep in mind that the article itself states that air pollution is improving! You can hardly call it biased toward the statement that air pollution is getting worse.)


I don't consider the Guardian a legitimate source of environmental science.

Air pollution has improved...quite a lot. Especially in the United States.


I never disputed that. Air pollution is a problem, one that (ignoring CO2 for now) is getting better, but still a problem.


It always has been, it always will be. At least you finally agree air pollution not being the problem it used to be. That's good, because I personally built a fair amount of the instrumentation that cleaned it up. Other people talk about doing something about air pollution, I DID clean up the air!


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or can't be replenished. In North America, most energy sources come from fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

How do you know coal and oil are not renewable? Oil in particular can be manufactured synthetically. We do so on a factory scale as a matter of routine. The same conditions we use to manufacture oil exist naturally in the Earth.

If you're talking about what I think you are, that's oil from other FFs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, never mind, you'll do that whatever I say.
Yup. You're wrong. No 'fossil' fuel is required to make synthetic oil.

Really? Marvelous. How is it done?

Basically, you take a carbon source (like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and stick it in a pressure cooker with an iron catalyst. The result is light sweet crude.

The same conditions exist naturally under the surface of the Earth.


Ah, but do you get more energy out than in? Or is it just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source?

You put in more energy than you get out by burning the fuel. The rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the process. The conditions exist, however, for the same process to run within the crust of the Earth. This also explains why oil is often found well below any fossil layer and why wells fill up again after they've been pumped dry and capped.

Fossil fuels are basically stored solar energy, allowing us to draw upon the power of the ancient Sun instead of the current one. It's an energy source for our purposes.

Making our own oil is not an energy source for our purposes. There's a significant difference. It is useful, because we can turn electricity (ferex) into oil, allowing us to continue using the oil-burning machines, etc.

Never said it was.

Then coal and oil are not renewable sources of energy, and the essence of his/her statement is correct.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Second part is true. I've explained how the GHE doesn't violate any laws, you've ignored me and chanted "it violates! it violates!" with your hands over your ears.

No, you put out theories and contrivances that violate physics then claim they don't violate physics.

Either you meant "hypotheses," or you admit that my statements have experimental verification. I'm guessing the former.

They don't. You are misunderstanding the 2nd. I have tried to show you the ridiculous results of applying the Imaginary 2nd, but you haven't listened.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Burning petroleum is another dependable yet inexpensive energy source. It releases hazardous gases and fumes into the air that can have negative long term affects on the environment and on human health.

All depends on the burn. We're pretty efficient handling this stuff too.

Efficient, yes, but it costs money to install fume-filters. Only if the government makes them, or makes it cheaper for them to do so, will companies install them at a significant rate.

Not used with oil. No need to. Cars don't have them either. No need.

No... need? CO2. And besides, cars do need them. Catalytic converters.

That is not the purpose of a catalytic converter. In fact, if fumes get into a catalytic converter, it will destroy the converter. That's why there are sensors all over your engine and exhaust system to detect it and prevent it.

Fumes: "gas, smoke, or vapor that smells strongly or is dangerous to inhale." Example: "cloud of exhaust fumes spewed by cars."

"A catalytic converter is an emissions control device that converts toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction (an oxidation and a reduction reaction)."

So, Into, what do you say the purpose of a catalytic converter is?

It's main purpose is to convert CO into CO2.

NOx is taken care of by the EGR system. The converter will deal with any that get past EGR, so long as it doesn't get too much of it.


I am somewhat confused. I said, "cars have CC fume-filters," you said "that's not what CCs are for," I said "yes it is [definitions]", you said "they're used to reduce the CO emissions," which would be removing CO from the fumes.

I meant filter in the sense of "something that reduces/removes harmful emissions," maybe that's why?

It is not removing CO from the fumes. There are no fumes (at least in a properly running engine). It is not a filter of any kind. It is a converter that favors CO2 over CO.[/quote]
It is making it so that the exhaust or fumes do not contain as much CO. It is removing CO from the fumes in the sense that a chemical reaction removes its reagents.
But I forget, you are illiterate of chemistry or automotive engineering.

Chemistry? No. Just because I don't know how a converter works doesn't mean the 40th national place in Chemistry Lab or the flying colours in college Chem are suddenly worthless. But I forget - I don't need to justify calling myself intelligent, especially in response to abuse.

Automotive engineering? That's a new insult. No, I don't know how those infernal combustion engines work.

(yes, that is a reference, and no, I get some of the basics.)

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Natural gas is the best non-renewable source ti use since it only releases carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are the same gases we breathe other. Unfortunately, this can also cause environmental problems and contaminate water sources.

Methane (natural gas) occurs NATURALLY in water sources! It can generate carbon monoxide and NOx, just the same as any other carbon based fuel. Again, it's all about the efficiency of the burn.

1. Fracking.
2. Carbon dioxide.

Non-sequitur.

The environmental problems and water contamination come from fracking. Not a non sequitur. (Also, no dash.)

Conspiracy story. Fracking takes place well below the water table. The environmental problems are no different than any other form of oil extraction.



Haha, hypocrite. Besides, leaks above the water table can and do occur.

As for "no different than any other form of oil extraction," all this shows is that all oil extraction is as bad as fracking. This does not show that fracking is okay.

Oil extraction does occasionally have pollution problems. Most of these aren't permanent issues, even major spills at sea. The environment can absorb it quite well after a few weeks.

I doubt that. If it gets absorbed into the soil, it'll go to the water table. And major oil spills at sea have been incredibly detrimental to the environment. Deepwater Horizon, etc.

That oil is gone. Do you know how?[/quote]
If I detonate a nuclear bomb, the blast will dissipate, so it can't be that bad for the environment, right?

It severely harmed the environment while it lasted. This can have lasting effects.
jwoodward48 wrote:
As energy sources go, oil isn't all that bad. Wind power, for example, can kill birds and has killed people. It is not a safe source either. The energy source with the best safety record is actually nuclear. Mining the ore and processing it can be dangerous, but you only need a few pounds of fuel to power the plant for quite a long time.


About those birds. AGW hurts birds. Wind turbines? Not even as bad as housecats. Not even as bad as cell phone towers.

Birds NEST on cellphone towers. Quite happily, too.

No bird has been harmed by Global Warming. You are just assuming the circular argument again.

Saying that "birds die because global warming" is apparently equivalent to saying that "global warming happens because global warming." Whoa. I have seen the light.[/sarcasm]
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Has killed people"? Everything's killed people. Will it kill more people than the increased natural disasters from AGW?

Are you still beating your girlfriend?

Hehe.
Try to ask something other than loaded questions, especially questions loaded with circular arguments.

You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Wind turbines kill people. I have personally seen what happens when one of these suckers throws a blade at speed.

I can kill myself with a razor. I can accidentally kill myself with a razor, though that is very unlikely. Should we outlaw razors? No. The usefulness and danger of a potential installation should be considered.
jwoodward48 wrote:

Nuclear power isn't EVIL BAD AWFUL, but it does have issues. More than wind, I'd say.

You are comparing a peanut to an entire grocery store.

ONE nuclear plant puts out ten times the ENTIRE windfarm output in our State alone. This is an unusual ratio. It's much higher in other States.

I'm not saying that it's less effective, I'm saying that it has more problems. The biggest is "what do we do with the waste".
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
VictoriaChuEM203 wrote:
Benefits of using renewable sources of energy:

Each year, thousands of people die due to air pollution and smog. This can be reduced by generating renewable energy. Jobs will also be created and energy prices will be cheaper. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading the way in using solar and wind energy.

Air pollution and smog are nowhere near the problems they used to be. You're making stuff up, or quoting someone that is making stuff up.

Ever been to China?
Yes. My statement still stands. China is simply not burning efficiently. They are wasting fuel doing it too.

Your claim is that "smog is not really a problem anymore." I'm giving a single example of a single place where it is. Doesn't that refute everything you said in the last 48 hours?
[/sarcasm/irony/facetiousness/whatever]

No. It only shows you what happens when you are sloppy about burning fuel.

Smog is a localized problem in many places. Air pollution may be improving, or it may not, but it is still an issue. In the UK, "excess deaths from particle pollution today can be estimated at about 64,000 a year." source. (Keep in mind that the article itself states that air pollution is improving! You can hardly call it biased toward the statement that air pollution is getting worse.)


I don't consider the Guardian a legitimate source of environmental science.

Air pollution has improved...quite a lot. Especially in the United States.


I never disputed that. Air pollution is a problem, one that (ignoring CO2 for now) is getting better, but still a problem.


It always has been, it always will be. At least you finally agree air pollution not being the problem it used to be. That's good, because I personally built a fair amount of the instrumentation that cleaned it up. Other people talk about doing something about air pollution, I DID clean up the air!


Good for you. (I'm not being sarcastic here, I really am glad that you did that.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 05:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Then coal and oil are not renewable sources of energy, and the essence of his/her statement is correct.

No. The statement is not correct. Oil is renewable. We know the processes by which is renews. Coal we don't yet really know. Many of the claims of where coal comes from seem to be based on circular arguments still.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Automotive engineering? That's a new insult. No, I don't know how those infernal combustion engines work.

(yes, that is a reference, and no, I get some of the basics.)

I doubt you get even the basics. However, it is something you can learn. There is some fascinating engineering in cars (as well as boats and aircraft).

Even the steam locomotives had some pretty cool pieces of engineering on them.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I doubt that. If it gets absorbed into the soil, it'll go to the water table. And major oil spills at sea have been incredibly detrimental to the environment. Deepwater Horizon, etc.
That oil is gone. Do you know how?

If I detonate a nuclear bomb, the blast will dissipate, so it can't be that bad for the environment, right?

It severely harmed the environment while it lasted. This can have lasting effects.


1) Oil is not a nuclear bomb. Redirection dismissed.
2) Nuclear explosions do not permanently destroy the environment.

You obviously don't know how oil is removed from the environment. The environment itself removes it. Oil is food. Bacteria eat it. These bacteria naturally exist in all ocean water.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Saying that "birds die because global warming" is apparently equivalent to saying that "global warming happens because global warming." Whoa. I have seen the light.[/sarcasm]

Remove the sarcasm, and you have it exactly right.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep making such arguments. That's why I keep using that phrase.
jwoodward48 wrote:

Wind turbines kill people. I have personally seen what happens when one of these suckers throws a blade at speed.

I can kill myself with a razor. I can accidentally kill myself with a razor, though that is very unlikely. Should we outlaw razors? No. The usefulness and danger of a potential installation should be considered.

Okay. Let's talk about the usefulness.

Wind generators consume a LOT of real estate for the power they produce.

They can and have thrown blades at speed, causing destruction of many units at once up to a mile away as well as kill people doing it.

ALL of the wind generators combined make up about one-tenth the power (or less) of a single nuclear power plant, oil fired plant, coal fired plant, or hydro plant in a typical State; yet they consume much more real estate than one traditional power plant.

They are expensive. They can only exist with massive government subsidies.

They are unsightly. No one wants to look at them. A traditional power plant is also unsightly, but it's localized in one facility.

So...why do we have it?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Nuclear power isn't EVIL BAD AWFUL, but it does have issues. More than wind, I'd say.

You are comparing a peanut to an entire grocery store.

ONE nuclear plant puts out ten times the ENTIRE windfarm output in our State alone. This is an unusual ratio. It's much higher in other States.

I'm not saying that it's less effective, I'm saying that it has more problems. The biggest is "what do we do with the waste".

Is it waste?

The reason it is dangerous at all is because it is still putting out energy. If you move it to a plant that harnesses that energy for power, it is fuel. True, it's not as good as the 'good stuff', but it will produce power. Once discharged in such a plant, it can be returned to the environment from whence it came, or sent for reprocessing into new nuclear fuel by extracting out 'the good stuff'. The depleted fuel is safe to return to the environment (although there are better uses for it, such as large passenger jets).

jwoodward48 wrote:

It always has been, it always will be. At least you finally agree air pollution not being the problem it used to be. That's good, because I personally built a fair amount of the instrumentation that cleaned it up. Other people talk about doing something about air pollution, I DID clean up the air!


Good for you. (I'm not being sarcastic here, I really am glad that you did that.)


Thanks. You see, I am an engineer and a scientist. I design and build instrumentation systems for everything from wastewater treatment to space shuttles. My instruments are all over the world and over it (in a couple of cases, even under it!).

You have a computer because of them. You have paper to write on because of them. You have food to eat and a sewer system because of them. You have buildings, highways, and freeways because of them. Your doctor can diagnose you with x-rays, MRI, and CAT scans because of them. You have jet aircraft to fly on because of them. You have gasoline for your car because of them. In one way or another, my instruments are involved in all of these industries.

Just had to toot my own horn there a moment.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 10:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Thanks. You see, I am an engineer and a scientist. I design and build instrumentation systems for everything from wastewater treatment to space shuttles. My instruments are all over the world and over it (in a couple of cases, even under it!).

You have a computer because of them. You have paper to write on because of them. You have food to eat and a sewer system because of them. You have buildings, highways, and freeways because of them. Your doctor can diagnose you with x-rays, MRI, and CAT scans because of them. You have jet aircraft to fly on because of them. You have gasoline for your car because of them. In one way or another, my instruments are involved in all of these industries.

Just had to toot my own horn there a moment.

Ha, ha, what a complete bullshitter you are, ITN. It is totally obvious that you live in a complete fantasy world. You've failed to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of scientific principles. The idea that you might actually be working in a scientific field is just laughable.
13-10-2016 12:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Walter Mitty personified.
13-10-2016 13:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
We have a completely dishonest moron who wants to project:

Surface Detail wrote: Ha, ha, what a complete bullshitter you are, ITN.

Yep, projecting.

Surface Detail wrote: It is totally obvious that you live in a complete fantasy world.

I've never seen him in a death-struggle trying to push a fantasy full of violations of physics. You, on the other hand, can't seem to accept physics.


Surface Detail wrote: You've failed to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of scientific principles.

Let's see what you mean by this. Into the Night doesn't accept "The Science" and you can't pull your head out of your fantasy world long enough to realize that your WACKY religious dogma isn't science.


Surface Detail wrote: The idea that you might actually be working in a scientific field is just laughable.

When you use the word "science" or "scientific" you really mean "pertaining to my WACKY religious dogma."

What's funnier is that jwoodward48 looks to you as an example to emulate.

Too funny.


.


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
13-10-2016 13:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
We have a completely dishonest moron who wants to project:

Surface Detail wrote: Ha, ha, what a complete bullshitter you are, ITN.

Yep, projecting.

Surface Detail wrote: It is totally obvious that you live in a complete fantasy world.

I've never seen him in a death-struggle trying to push a fantasy full of violations of physics. You, on the other hand, can't seem to accept physics.


Surface Detail wrote: You've failed to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of scientific principles.

Let's see what you mean by this. Into the Night doesn't accept "The Science" and you can't pull your head out of your fantasy world long enough to realize that your WACKY religious dogma isn't science.


Surface Detail wrote: The idea that you might actually be working in a scientific field is just laughable.

When you use the word "science" or "scientific" you really mean "pertaining to my WACKY religious dogma."

What's funnier is that jwoodward48 looks to you as an example to emulate.

Too funny.

You've already demonstrated that you have no comprehension of science at all. You've just spent the last couple of months insisting that Planck's Law applies to gases without even knowing what Planck's Law tells us! You're a laughing stock, IBdaMann.
13-10-2016 13:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Surface Detail wrote: You've already demonstrated that you have no comprehension of science at all.

Yes, you are a science illiterate who has no business discussing this topic.

Surface Detail wrote: You've just spent the last couple of months insisting that Planck's Law applies to gases ...

You have no example, yet you recite your religious prayers.

Too funny.

Yes, it sucks to be you. "greenhouse effect" is just a religious fantasy. You've been scammed. I bet it's easy to scam you. Wait, do you own timeshares?


.


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
13-10-2016 14:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You've already demonstrated that you have no comprehension of science at all.

Yes, you are a science illiterate who has no business discussing this topic.

Surface Detail wrote: You've just spent the last couple of months insisting that Planck's Law applies to gases ...

You have no example, yet you recite your religious prayers.

Too funny.

Yes, it sucks to be you. "greenhouse effect" is just a religious fantasy. You've been scammed. I bet it's easy to scam you. Wait, do you own timeshares?

What is funny is the way you refer to everything you don't understand as religion. You must think the world is chock-full of fundamentalists. What a strange, paranoid existence you must lead!
13-10-2016 14:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Surface Detail wrote:What is funny is the way you refer to everything you don't understand as religion.

What is funny is how you fear those who have not memorized the prayers of your religion and who have not adopted your religion's violations of physics.

What a terribly paranoid existence you must lead.

You are a classic case of a scientifically illiterate dupe who got bamboozled by some Marxists into allowing himself to be reamed. Now you stew in envy at those who don't fall for the same scam.

Surface Detail wrote: You must think the world is chock-full of fundamentalists.

That it most certainly is, depending on your definition of "chock-full of."


.


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
13-10-2016 14:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:What is funny is the way you refer to everything you don't understand as religion.

What is funny is how you fear those who have not memorized the prayers of your religion and who have not adopted your religion's violations of physics.

What a terribly paranoid existence you must lead.

You are a classic case of a scientifically illiterate dupe who got bamboozled by some Marxists into allowing himself to be reamed. Now you stew in envy at those who don't fall for the same scam.

Surface Detail wrote: You must think the world is chock-full of fundamentalists.

That it most certainly is, depending on your definition of "chock-full of."

Keep going, this is hilarious. Don't let me have the last word!
13-10-2016 14:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Here, I'll let you have the last word:

Surface Detail wrote: Keep going, this is hilarious. Don't let me have the last word!


.


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
13-10-2016 19:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
We have a completely dishonest moron who wants to project:


Somebody's looked in the mirror recently!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 19:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
We have a completely dishonest moron who wants to project:


Somebody's looked in the mirror recently!

That was moronically cliché.


.


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
13-10-2016 20:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, you're moronically cliche.
13-10-2016 22:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you're moronically cliche.


You gonna be a dead parrot too?

And I had such high hopes for you.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 00:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I was making a joke. Saying that someone is moronically cliche in response to being called moronically cliche is itself moronically cliche. It's meta. That makes it funny. I suppose.
14-10-2016 03:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I was making a joke. Saying that someone is moronically cliche in response to being called moronically cliche is itself moronically cliche. It's meta. That makes it funny. I suppose.


No, it shows you have no argument left and have reverted to nothing more than insults and fallacies instead of argument. My definition of a dead parrot.

Yer not dead yet, yer still on your perch.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
Renewable Energy6302-12-2018 21:57
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 04:19
My list of recommended renewable energy technologies2707-10-2017 00:17
Shale gas alone is not the answer – but neither is renewable energy026-09-2013 06:25
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact