Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2



Page 8 of 14<<<678910>>>
17-12-2019 12:24
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Our system was installed in the mid 80's by previous owners
Woah! I had no idea this was such old tech. Just to clarify you don't have "geothermal" energy as in Iceland correct? As in you don't have an extra hot subterranean source?

MarcusR wrote:That is the reason why the drilling holes were 150 meters when they were drilled. Today installations goes down to 180
Why so deep? That seems crazy far to go down. Isn't it sufficient to go down 10 feet? Does it get much hotter that far down? I guess for a cooling system you wouldn't need to go so far.


Correct it is not the kind of geothermal as in Iceland. The ones we got is all about utilising a clever system of heat exchangers and compressor(s). So it does consume elecricity, but is is more efficient than heating the heating system within the house directly.

The depth is all about reaching bedrock where there is a lot of groundwater circulation. The more circulation you have the better it will be, hence the depth.

There are systems where the collector circuit uses a nearby lake or even just being dug down in the ground just at a few meters. None of them are that common though, especially with the never air/air systems But if you have the ability to drill a hole, that system is more efficient than both of them, and for larger houses that will be required. Our house is from 1878 with 650 m2 so we consume somewhere between 45 000 to 50 000 KWh. Without the geothermal that would be signifficantly higher.
17-12-2019 17:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:Our house is from 1878 with 650 m2 ...
Wow! I didn't know houses that large were common in the 1800s, that's 7000 ft2. Not cheap to heat.

What's great about solutions for the home is they exit the political debate to hit the pocketbook of the resident.

The phenomenal arc in efficiency in lighting a home serves as a real inspiration from candles to LEDs.
18-12-2019 02:27
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Our house is from 1878 with 650 m2 ...
Wow! I didn't know houses that large were common in the 1800s, that's 7000 ft2. Not cheap to heat.

What's great about solutions for the home is they exit the political debate to hit the pocketbook of the resident.

The phenomenal arc in efficiency in lighting a home serves as a real inspiration from candles to LEDs.


It might be a typo. Living in Denver isn't that much different than Scandinavia. The altitude is why. If his home is 700 ft^2, then it's about $1000 euros to heat it.
If the numbers he gave are correct, he lives in a building with other people. Think a condo or other type of residence. Still, Americans think differently than other people. Things are different here.
I remember when I visited Yekaterinburg, Russia. The average temperature was about 0 degrees F. I saw only buildings. Even the zoo had no windows.
18-12-2019 02:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Our house is from 1878 with 650 m2 ...
Wow! I didn't know houses that large were common in the 1800s, that's 7000 ft2. Not cheap to heat.

What's great about solutions for the home is they exit the political debate to hit the pocketbook of the resident.

The phenomenal arc in efficiency in lighting a home serves as a real inspiration from candles to LEDs.


It might be a typo. Living in Denver isn't that much different than Scandinavia. The altitude is why. If his home is 700 ft^2, then it's about $1000 euros to heat it.
If the numbers he gave are correct, he lives in a building with other people. Think a condo or other type of residence. Still, Americans think differently than other people. Things are different here.
I remember when I visited Yekaterinburg, Russia. The average temperature was about 0 degrees F. I saw only buildings. Even the zoo had no windows.
Yeah I was like Whaaaa!! Dude must be rich!

But exactly, a climate change denier can whine all day long but you had better whine about having to fork over $1000 to heat you home. It's a good place to make improvements.
18-12-2019 02:43
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Our house is from 1878 with 650 m2 ...
Wow! I didn't know houses that large were common in the 1800s, that's 7000 ft2. Not cheap to heat.

What's great about solutions for the home is they exit the political debate to hit the pocketbook of the resident.

The phenomenal arc in efficiency in lighting a home serves as a real inspiration from candles to LEDs.


It might be a typo. Living in Denver isn't that much different than Scandinavia. The altitude is why. If his home is 700 ft^2, then it's about $1000 euros to heat it.
If the numbers he gave are correct, he lives in a building with other people. Think a condo or other type of residence. Still, Americans think differently than other people. Things are different here.
I remember when I visited Yekaterinburg, Russia. The average temperature was about 0 degrees F. I saw only buildings. Even the zoo had no windows.
Yeah I was like Whaaaa!! Dude must be rich!

But exactly, a climate change denier can whine all day long but you had better whine about having to fork over $1000 to heat you home. It's a good place to make improvements.



In Sweden, the cost of 1 KwH is about 50% more than in the US. You seem to have no understanding about heat and energy costs. Even in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.
18-12-2019 02:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
James___ wrote:in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.
I meant having cheaper ways to warm a home is always a good thing.
18-12-2019 03:40
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.
I meant having cheaper ways to warm a home is always a good thing.



Cheaper doesn't mean sustainable. Americans don't get this. Too many resources comes from other countries. This could be the Golden Age of humanity.
Life is good. But as populations increase and resources decrease, what then ?
That might be when people might start thinking that we're all in this together. Until then, enjoy the party!!
18-12-2019 03:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.
I meant having cheaper ways to warm a home is always a good thing.



Cheaper doesn't mean sustainable. Americans don't get this. Too many resources comes from other countries. This could be the Golden Age of humanity.
Life is good. But as populations increase and resources decrease, what then ?
That might be when people might start thinking that we're all in this together. Until then, enjoy the party!!
Geothermal heating/cooling rocks though right? I mean you can't get more sustainable than a hole in the ground : )
18-12-2019 04:06
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.
I meant having cheaper ways to warm a home is always a good thing.



Cheaper doesn't mean sustainable. Americans don't get this. Too many resources comes from other countries. This could be the Golden Age of humanity.
Life is good. But as populations increase and resources decrease, what then ?
That might be when people might start thinking that we're all in this together. Until then, enjoy the party!!
Geothermal heating/cooling rocks though right? I mean you can't get more sustainable than a hole in the ground : )



It's more than that.
18-12-2019 04:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
James___ wrote:
It's more than that.
Are you saying you don't think geothermal is a good option?
18-12-2019 11:36
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's more than that.
Are you saying you don't think geothermal is a good option?



I'd put 2/3 of my home in the ground. And when it snows in the winter, that would help to insulate what's not in the ground. That would be better.
18-12-2019 13:14
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
[b]
In Sweden, the cost of 1 KwH is about 50% more than in the US. You seem to have no understanding about heat and energy costs. Even in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.


The cost of electricity in Sweden is based on Three parts
1. The cost of the ectricity itself where you can choose any supplier and different price plans.
2. Cost for the grid, which is a local monopoly, although regulated by laws.
3. Electeicity tax And VAT

We pay the following / kWh (SEK / USD = 9,38)
Electricity: 0,39 SEK (0,042 USD)
Electricity tax: 0,347 SEK (0,037 USD)
Grid: 0,26 SEK (0,028 USD)
COO: 0,025 SEK (0,0027 USD)
VAT: 0,25 SEK (0,027 USD

So all in all 1,273 SEK/kWh (0,136 USD/kWh). Where taxes and grid is what cost the Most.
18-12-2019 13:14
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
[b]
In Sweden, the cost of 1 KwH is about 50% more than in the US. You seem to have no understanding about heat and energy costs. Even in Norway they don't lower costs because it's convenient. They plan long term.


The cost of electricity in Sweden is based on Three parts
1. The cost of the ectricity itself where you can choose any supplier and different price plans.
2. Cost for the grid, which is a local monopoly, although regulated by laws.
3. Electeicity tax And VAT

We pay the following / kWh (SEK / USD = 9,38)
Electricity: 0,39 SEK (0,042 USD)
Electricity tax: 0,347 SEK (0,037 USD)
Grid: 0,26 SEK (0,028 USD)
COO: 0,025 SEK (0,0027 USD)
VAT: 0,25 SEK (0,027 USD

So all in all 1,273 SEK/kWh (0,136 USD/kWh). Where taxes and grid is what cost the Most.
18-12-2019 13:25
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Our house is from 1878 with 650 m2 ...
Wow! I didn't know houses that large were common in the 1800s, that's 7000 ft2. Not cheap to heat.

What's great about solutions for the home is they exit the political debate to hit the pocketbook of the resident.

The phenomenal arc in efficiency in lighting a home serves as a real inspiration from candles to LEDs.


It is a quite large house. Many country houses are in general quite large in our area, but this has a history dating back to the era of the Forest industry emerging so the one who built it could afford it.... The reason we bought it was that we wanted to "move home" and after selling our house in Stockholm (our capitol) we could by far afford it. But it takes a few kWh to heat - even though we have geothermal and a lot of insulation on walls and roof.

LED's is all we can bug theese days, so I am not that worried about having a few christmas lights running.
18-12-2019 13:37
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
It might be a typo. Living in Denver isn't that much different than Scandinavia. The altitude is why. If his home is 700 ft^2, then it's about $1000 euros to heat it.
If the numbers he gave are correct, he lives in a building with other people. Think a condo or other type of residence. Still, Americans think differently than other people. Things are different here.
I remember when I visited Yekaterinburg, Russia. The average temperature was about 0 degrees F. I saw only buildings. Even the zoo had no windows.


It actually isn't a typo, but I wish our electricity bills were. We were aware of that though when we bought the house, and our electricity bill is ~5000 EUR/year. The house is located just a few meters above sea level and right in the middle of Sweden- speaking lattitude that is. We are in the same lattitude as Anchorage so winters can be quite cold here, thus the cost of heating. I posted a specifikation or electricity costs where we live, and thankfully we live in än area where the grid doesn't cost that much..
19-12-2019 01:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:
It actually isn't a typo, but I wish our electricity bills were.
Well good for you Marcus! I'm sure it's a cool house.

I think the home heating and cooling bill should be the poster child for advancement and innovation as far as energy efficiency goes. I guess transportation savings a close second depending on where you live.

Do you think energy interests work to frustrate efforts like geothermal home heating?
19-12-2019 04:43
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
It actually isn't a typo, but I wish our electricity bills were.
Well good for you Marcus! I'm sure it's a cool house.

I think the home heating and cooling bill should be the poster child for advancement and innovation as far as energy efficiency goes. I guess transportation savings a close second depending on where you live.

Do you think energy interests work to frustrate efforts like geothermal home heating?



It probably is. With systems like what he has, I wonder if people in smaller homes split the cost and maintenance. With what he pays in heating costs, I have a brother where he and his wife spend over $400 a month to heat a smaller home in the winter.
Just imagine how much that could help northern states.
19-12-2019 04:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
James___ wrote:... I have a brother where he and his wife spend over $400 a month to heat a smaller home in the winter.
Yeah I think taking a 5 to 10 year budget on things like that is realistic. Reduce a heating bill like that just 20% and you're saving $10,000 over 10 years.

What I worry about though is active resistance from the industry that will lose the money.
19-12-2019 07:08
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:... I have a brother where he and his wife spend over $400 a month to heat a smaller home in the winter.
Yeah I think taking a 5 to 10 year budget on things like that is realistic. Reduce a heating bill like that just 20% and you're saving $10,000 over 10 years.

What I worry about though is active resistance from the industry that will lose the money.



It's possible that people owe too much to take on debt for something like that. I think Americans should learn more about economics.
BTW, if the systems are made in the US it would create a lot of NEW jobs. If we import from a country like China then we'd be creating jobs for them.
At the same time it could lower the cost of manufacturing. If health care costs were lowered then it could make American made goods more cost competitive globally. People don't understand that when we pay twice as much or more for health care it makes American made goods more expensive.

https://www.familyhandyman.com/heating-cooling/5-things-to-know-about-a-geothermal-heat-pump/
19-12-2019 10:03
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
[b]
Do you think energy interests work to frustrate efforts like geothermal home heating?


In all comercials our larger energy companies Always gives "Good advice" on the to reduce energy consumtion by insulation, don't leaving lights on, buying A+++ classed appliancies and so on and so forth. Some even sells PV, which absolutely will help. But that pumps, regardless of what type is never mentioned. Hmmm..... Nonetheless, more and more houses as well smaller rental buildings inställa geothermal.

One important aspect of this is that Most houses already has some kind of central heating with a waterbased circulation to radiative in the house. Charging to geothermal is in thoose cases is "only" a matter of drilling and installing the geothermal pump. If jo such system, is in place air/air pumps are a more cost effective solution.
19-12-2019 10:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:...our larger energy companies Always gives "Good advice" ...
I think anytime we talk about saving the consumer a lot of money you have to look at who is getting it now and expect them to fight back.

Like this:
How Utilities Are Fighting Back on Solar Power

Utilities, Big Oil, Coal producers are all very politically connected so I could see them finding ways to frustrate anything that would hurt the bottom line.
19-12-2019 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:...our larger energy companies Always gives "Good advice" ...
I think anytime we talk about saving the consumer a lot of money you have to look at who is getting it now and expect them to fight back.

Like this:
How Utilities Are Fighting Back on Solar Power

Utilities, Big Oil, Coal producers are all very politically connected so I could see them finding ways to frustrate anything that would hurt the bottom line.


An electric utility most often doesn't even generate its own power. That comes from privately own suppliers in many cases. The utility is just a broker.

There is no real competition to the oil companies by solar power. Solar power is simply a hell of a lot more expensive than coal or oil. It is one of the most expensive methods of producing power, watt for watt. You've already been down this road. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 09:54
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)

Solar power is simply a hell of a lot more expensive than coal or oil. It is one of the most expensive methods of producing power, watt for watt. You've already been down this road. RDCF. RQAA.


PPA's for solar have been signed at below 25 USD/MWh for quite some time now. They are even approaching 20 USD/MWh.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/utility-signs-new-low-solar-ppa-in-texas

Wind is not that far behind solar on low LCOE, but right now solar seems to be leading the way.

And prices for any given generation are given for energy, unless you have a specific contracts for i.e FCR where you sign contracts for effect and what kind of FCR you are supplying.
20-12-2019 13:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:
PPA's for solar have been signed at below 25 USD/MWh for quite some time now.




I'm surprised I thought coal was cheaper.
20-12-2019 17:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7617)
tmiddles wrote:I'm surprised I thought coal was cheaper.

It probably is. You provided a graphic that depicts a "levelised" summary ... which means that the numbers have been fudged in some way.

Could you provide the raw data that went into this summary so we can see actual costs are?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
20-12-2019 18:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
MarcusR wrote:

Solar power is simply a hell of a lot more expensive than coal or oil. It is one of the most expensive methods of producing power, watt for watt. You've already been down this road. RDCF. RQAA.


PPA's for solar have been signed at below 25 USD/MWh for quite some time now. They are even approaching 20 USD/MWh.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/utility-signs-new-low-solar-ppa-in-texas

Arguments from randU. You are using numbers made up from marketing folks for 'green' energy.
MarcusR wrote:
Wind is not that far behind solar on low LCOE, but right now solar seems to be leading the way.

Solar is the most expensive right now, almost twice that of wind. Both are a hell of a lot more expensive than coal or oil.
MarcusR wrote:
And prices for any given generation are given for energy, unless you have a specific contracts for i.e FCR where you sign contracts for effect and what kind of FCR you are supplying.

You forget that the government is interested in fudging these numbers as well so as to justify their 'green' energy programs, which provide subsidies to build 'green' energy.

YOU don't get to dictate the energy markets. There is a reason most energy in the United States is based on coal and oil.

ALL of the wind generators in Washington combined, which consumes all that real estate, doesn't equal the amount of power generated by a single reactor at our one and only nuclear plant.

Neither do they generate the power anywhere close to a single coal plant in northern Nevada.

It's piddle power. It's expensive. The energy markets decide. YOU don't.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 20-12-2019 18:47
20-12-2019 18:49
keepit
★★★★☆
(1791)
I've heard that the amount of radioactivity spread by the processing and burning of coal is greater than the radioactivity spread by the use of nuclear power plants. Prof. Wysessions, Great Courses.
20-12-2019 18:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
keepit wrote:
I've heard that the amount of radioactivity spread by the processing and burning of coal is greater than the radioactivity spread by the use of nuclear power plants. Prof. Wysessions, Great Courses.


Bogus. Coal is not radioactive. It is just carbon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 18:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1791)
A certain percentage of carbon is radioactive carbon (carbon 14). That is what Prof. Wysessions is talking about. It is also what they use for carbon dating.
You can check with Wikipedia.
20-12-2019 19:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7617)
keepit wrote: A certain percentage of carbon is radioactive carbon (carbon 14). That is what Prof. Wysessions is talking about. It is also what they use for carbon dating. You can check with Wikipedia.

Carbon-14 is created continuously by cosmic rays from outer space, not by the burning of coal or by the use of a nuclear power plant or by the printing of dollars to pay off debt.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
20-12-2019 20:01
keepit
★★★★☆
(1791)
There is carbon 14 in the coal IBDM. Better to let as much of it as possible stay in the ground.
20-12-2019 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7617)
keepit wrote: There is carbon 14 in the coal IBDM.

... and ... ?

keepit wrote: Better to let as much of it as possible stay in the ground.

Nope. It is definitiely not better to leave it in the ground. You cannot burn it for fuel if you leave it in the ground. Extracting it from the ground is much, much better.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
20-12-2019 20:16
keepit
★★★★☆
(1791)
Where did you go to school IBDM?
20-12-2019 20:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7617)
keepit wrote: Where did you go to school IBDM?

Which one? My nursery school was run by Catholic nuns who pulled my ear if I didn't understand something. Catholic nuns are evil.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
20-12-2019 21:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
keepit wrote:
There is carbon 14 in the coal IBDM. Better to let as much of it as possible stay in the ground.
So it looks like C14 is the stuff they use for radio carbon dating. The more of it there is the younger a dead, formerly living thing is. So Coal is actually depleted of carbon 14.

Many man-made chemicals are derived from fossil fuels (such as petroleum or coal) in which 14C is greatly depleted.

You and I have a super power ITN/IBD can only marvel at keepit. We are here to explore and don't mind being wrong!
20-12-2019 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
keepit wrote:
A certain percentage of carbon is radioactive carbon (carbon 14). That is what Prof. Wysessions is talking about. It is also what they use for carbon dating.
You can check with Wikipedia.


Argument from randU fallacy. You don't know how much C14 is in coal (if any). Strawman fallacy. C14 is no more radioactive than YOU are.

Wikipedia dismissed on site. You cannot use it as a reference. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 20-12-2019 21:47
20-12-2019 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
There is carbon 14 in the coal IBDM. Better to let as much of it as possible stay in the ground.
So it looks like C14 is the stuff they use for radio carbon dating. The more of it there is the younger a dead, formerly living thing is. So Coal is actually depleted of carbon 14.

Many man-made chemicals are derived from fossil fuels (such as petroleum or coal) in which 14C is greatly depleted.

You and I have a super power ITN/IBD can only marvel at keepit. We are here to explore and don't mind being wrong!


No one knows where coal comes from. You are making shit up again. There is no such thing as depleted C14. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 20-12-2019 21:50
20-12-2019 21:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1791)
Wikipedia explains how the C14 got there. No matter how radioactive we are there is not a good reason to add more radioactivity to us.
I knew one of you guys way going to say something like "if a little radioactivity is OK, then more radioactivity is also OK".
20-12-2019 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
keepit wrote:
Wikipedia explains how the C14 got there.

False authority fallacy. Wikipedia dismissed on sight.
keepit wrote:
No matter how radioactive we are there is not a good reason to add more radioactivity to us.
No one is. You have absolutely no clue about radioactivity, do you?
keepit wrote:
I knew one of you guys way going to say something like "if a little radioactivity is OK, then more radioactivity is also OK".

What more radioactivity?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 22:12
keepit
★★★★☆
(1791)
It's just too much work to unravel all your misinterpretations ITN.

Who said anything about depleted C14?
Edited on 20-12-2019 22:13
Page 8 of 14<<<678910>>>





Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Green Hydrogen Survey for scientific research602-12-2020 18:37
the logarithmic effect of CO2615-11-2020 23:54
Can CO2 be temporarily stored if necessary?2016-10-2020 21:12
Why is CO2 the key to our survival?1327-09-2020 17:27
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
Articles
Theory
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact