Did you know that the EU has the most advanced legislation on our climate change-stricken planet? What am I asking, of course you did. And did you know Europe was warming, wait for it… wait for it some more… yep, it’s warming at twice the rate of everywhere else. Just like, you know, everywhere else.
Have you seen an article yet about how pets are destroying the planet! I mean, they eat meat and they emit carbon dioxide, and it is very unpleasant to be near them when they emit methane!
I’m sure we could reach our net zero goals much more quickly if we had zero carbon pets - I remember the 1970s and the pet rock fad.
Pet rocks would be the solution for pet emissions!
I used to think that most of California would disappear when the San Andres fault let her rip. I have changed my mind. I now think that all of California will disappear if the bobbleheads in Sacramento are allowed to continue to govern, with no critical thinking skills & absolutely no adult supervision. Irina, with every post you create my new favorite Irina saying. You really did it this time. "I excel at holding a grudge." Keep 'em coming! 🤘😎🤘
I think I understand the California PUC now. You pay a dollar today for electricity but tomorrow you will pay .75 and .25. Your electricity is magically cheaper. I would have thought the lack of mathematical skill engendered by our so called education system would have taken longer to work it's way through to the political class. Apparently not. A=B+C is apparently beyond their intellectual capacity.
“…. Emissions are going down.” Just as they are going up in China. I wonder if that is because much of what was manufactured in Europe is now manufactured in China?
Meanwhile, the British jealous it might lose leading position in the Net Zero idiot parade: “Oil and gas rigs in United Kingdom waters of the North Sea could be forced to convert over to green energy or low-carbon fuels, or either face closure or getting banned from opening new platforms, in an effort to reduce emissions, according to reports.
The Telegraph reported there are currently over 280 oil and gas platforms in UK waters, which produce about 3% of the total CO2 emitted by the country per year.
The same rigs, though, produce nearly half of the UK’s energy.
The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) has regulatory authority over the waters off the UK, and reportedly gave oil producers an ultimatum to either convert platforms to operate on low-carbon fuels or green electricity, or face closure.”
That’s 3% from oil platforms of Britain’s less than 2% annual emissions - sure to stop global warming. China meanwhile which emits 28% of global emissions has increased its emissions by 5.7%.
I would be curious to know how much methane emission potential that hydropower actually has. Somehow I think it it trivial in comparison to already existing natural methane seeps in the ocean.
A recently published paper in "Marine and Petroleum Geology" by Boles, et.al., discusses the effectiveness of methane seep tents set in the sea floor in 1982 over seeps in the Pacific Ocean offshore California. The seeps are believed to be emitting 43,650 metric tons of methane per year. Until recently, when the zealots of California's regulatory apparatnik shut down the production, a significant amount of the seepage was captured and put into commercial natural gas systems for sale. Now, because the operator has been driven into bankruptcy by not being allowed to produce oil and gas (a long story) those seeps have returned to their natural rate before any remediation was applied. To give you a comparison, I looked up the EPA emissions calculator, and found that this amount of methane, from a purely natural source, is equivalent to 137,526,724 gallons of gasoline burned, or 6,722 railcars full of coal burned, or 0.314 coal-fired power plants in one year, or the carbon sequestered in 1,426,954 acres of US forest land in one year. Nothing to sneeze at, but we seem to prefer emitting this methane to producing it and using it. Put another way, this amount of natural methane seepage from just one small area equals 1,222,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
So we have 1.2 million tons/yr of CO2 that we could have remediated and captured, but we are unwilling to let oil and gas production do that for us because we have this irrational fear of "fossil fuels." Instead we get to breath it and wonder why we have increased rates of smog when we have so many shiny new electric vehicles. Meanwhile we are obsessing over dissolved methane from rivers and lakes.
How is methane dissolved in reservoirs and then released when the water goes through a turbine different from methane dissolved in a natural lake and then released when the water goes through some rapids or over a waterfall?
Ah Irina, I marvel that you have the capacity to read about sooooo many insane actions. Don't you get tired after a while just trying to read them all?
But also, it seems to me that Europe will clearly see its emissions decline as the continent continues to deindustrialize. so, no industrial activity means no emissions. Hooray! everybody is happy, right? Except maybe for all those people who lost their livelihoods.
I also find that I see the climate hysterics more as lemmings heading over the cliff, rather than approaching a wall, but either way, the ending will be abrupt
I think what the CPUC is trying to say is - “We screwed up and made the rooftop solar subsidies so high that it is putting the poor people into energy poverty. We need to fix that without pissing off the rich people who get the solar subsidies”. Hmmm…a problem we need to solve without losing our phony jobs.
I know! Let’s make EVERYBODY (even the rooftop solar rich people) pay a fixed charge and make the fixed charge smaller for the poor people so they won’t have to subsidize the rich people quite so much. Oh, and don’t tell the rich people, they are stupid and will never figure it out.
My head was hurting reading the BBC story. So, is the water in the reservoir coming from rainwater? If so, then the rain is washing methane from the atmosphere. Or is the water coming from underground streams - bringing trapped methane to the surface? If the former, we need more reservoirs, but with no way for the water to escape so it becomes a methane sink. In which case we need to build more dams.
By the way, I thought we were tearing down dams to save the salmon!
EU is smart. We will save the Planet! We just need to lower our expectations about life. And.. there's to many of us. It's bad for the Planet!
By the way, I heard some conspiracy theory recently, that green color we want it more on our planet, comes from protein called chlorophyll. These proteins are in the plants. And plants to be able to live and grow, and make the Planet green, need two ingredients: 1. water, 2. CO2. So less CO2 effects in less plants, witch make Planet less green and more grey!
That will be debunked for sure, cause it is impossible, that making Planet grey would be recognized as making it green! Fortunately more law means more law punishes such conspiracy theories.
As a citizen of the Southern Section of the Socialist State of Taxifornia it never ceases to amaze me how our Emperor Pretty Boy Gavin and his woke friends make laws to suck more money out of us mear mortals. My guess is this will continue to drive more and more of us to the likes of Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Florida, Texas and other more attractive states.
"...given the conversations we are having ..." well yes, that's the point really isn't it - talk is cheap, but 'free' alternative energy isn't!
How many words have been generated on this topic over the last four decades? How many feet can Al Gore fit in his mouth?
The geologists explained it decades ago - the sun heats the planet, the seas (2/3 of its surface) evaporate to form clouds, the cloud cover reflects incoming solar radiation and moderates the temperature.
It's a WELL-DESIGNED, SELF-REGULATING FEEDBACK SYSTEM. The only reason to tinker with it is to line the pockets of unscrupulous politicians and grifters.
Consensus science has a well-documented history of being way wrong and abusing those who dared to challenge it & the consensus is wrong about GHE & CAGW.
1. Earth is cooler w the atmos/WV/30% albedo not warmer.
YouTube: Greenhouse Effect Theory Goes Kerbluey
2. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math and badder physics.
YouTube: Atmospheric Heat Balances That Don't
3. Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmos molecules render a BB surface model impossible.
Search: “Bruges group kerbluey”
GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
I must say I appreciate your views. It doesn't take a genius to figure all this out - sitting down with a calculator or excel spreadsheet and you can approximate the answer in little or no time.
1) The solution to carbon dioxide emissions has to count on largely (at least 80%) on dispatchable energy sources. This is an inalterable fact.
2) Energy storage is not going to work - the volume of energy to store, and the storage losses, are way too high. Besides which, you are fighting against the fundamental laws of the universe, wherein energy doesn't want to be stored.
3) Hence, we need clean dispatchable sources that can be built in reasonable time frames at reasonable cost. We are left with nuclear, geothermal, or hydrocarbons with carbon capture. Geothermal might supply 10% with a concerted push. Say 20% wind+ solar+ storage. 10% hydro. That leaves 60 % that has to be either nuclear or hydrocarbons with carbon capture.
Okay, which one do you want to use? You really have just two choices - pick one and get a move on.
Have you seen an article yet about how pets are destroying the planet! I mean, they eat meat and they emit carbon dioxide, and it is very unpleasant to be near them when they emit methane!
I’m sure we could reach our net zero goals much more quickly if we had zero carbon pets - I remember the 1970s and the pet rock fad.
Pet rocks would be the solution for pet emissions!
I used to think that most of California would disappear when the San Andres fault let her rip. I have changed my mind. I now think that all of California will disappear if the bobbleheads in Sacramento are allowed to continue to govern, with no critical thinking skills & absolutely no adult supervision. Irina, with every post you create my new favorite Irina saying. You really did it this time. "I excel at holding a grudge." Keep 'em coming! 🤘😎🤘
Thank you for the good survey of the latest "self-kneecapping" activities. Stranger than fiction, truly.
I think I understand the California PUC now. You pay a dollar today for electricity but tomorrow you will pay .75 and .25. Your electricity is magically cheaper. I would have thought the lack of mathematical skill engendered by our so called education system would have taken longer to work it's way through to the political class. Apparently not. A=B+C is apparently beyond their intellectual capacity.
“…. Emissions are going down.” Just as they are going up in China. I wonder if that is because much of what was manufactured in Europe is now manufactured in China?
Meanwhile, the British jealous it might lose leading position in the Net Zero idiot parade: “Oil and gas rigs in United Kingdom waters of the North Sea could be forced to convert over to green energy or low-carbon fuels, or either face closure or getting banned from opening new platforms, in an effort to reduce emissions, according to reports.
The Telegraph reported there are currently over 280 oil and gas platforms in UK waters, which produce about 3% of the total CO2 emitted by the country per year.
The same rigs, though, produce nearly half of the UK’s energy.
The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) has regulatory authority over the waters off the UK, and reportedly gave oil producers an ultimatum to either convert platforms to operate on low-carbon fuels or green electricity, or face closure.”
That’s 3% from oil platforms of Britain’s less than 2% annual emissions - sure to stop global warming. China meanwhile which emits 28% of global emissions has increased its emissions by 5.7%.
I would be curious to know how much methane emission potential that hydropower actually has. Somehow I think it it trivial in comparison to already existing natural methane seeps in the ocean.
A recently published paper in "Marine and Petroleum Geology" by Boles, et.al., discusses the effectiveness of methane seep tents set in the sea floor in 1982 over seeps in the Pacific Ocean offshore California. The seeps are believed to be emitting 43,650 metric tons of methane per year. Until recently, when the zealots of California's regulatory apparatnik shut down the production, a significant amount of the seepage was captured and put into commercial natural gas systems for sale. Now, because the operator has been driven into bankruptcy by not being allowed to produce oil and gas (a long story) those seeps have returned to their natural rate before any remediation was applied. To give you a comparison, I looked up the EPA emissions calculator, and found that this amount of methane, from a purely natural source, is equivalent to 137,526,724 gallons of gasoline burned, or 6,722 railcars full of coal burned, or 0.314 coal-fired power plants in one year, or the carbon sequestered in 1,426,954 acres of US forest land in one year. Nothing to sneeze at, but we seem to prefer emitting this methane to producing it and using it. Put another way, this amount of natural methane seepage from just one small area equals 1,222,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
So we have 1.2 million tons/yr of CO2 that we could have remediated and captured, but we are unwilling to let oil and gas production do that for us because we have this irrational fear of "fossil fuels." Instead we get to breath it and wonder why we have increased rates of smog when we have so many shiny new electric vehicles. Meanwhile we are obsessing over dissolved methane from rivers and lakes.
How is methane dissolved in reservoirs and then released when the water goes through a turbine different from methane dissolved in a natural lake and then released when the water goes through some rapids or over a waterfall?
Ah Irina, I marvel that you have the capacity to read about sooooo many insane actions. Don't you get tired after a while just trying to read them all?
But also, it seems to me that Europe will clearly see its emissions decline as the continent continues to deindustrialize. so, no industrial activity means no emissions. Hooray! everybody is happy, right? Except maybe for all those people who lost their livelihoods.
I also find that I see the climate hysterics more as lemmings heading over the cliff, rather than approaching a wall, but either way, the ending will be abrupt
I think what the CPUC is trying to say is - “We screwed up and made the rooftop solar subsidies so high that it is putting the poor people into energy poverty. We need to fix that without pissing off the rich people who get the solar subsidies”. Hmmm…a problem we need to solve without losing our phony jobs.
I know! Let’s make EVERYBODY (even the rooftop solar rich people) pay a fixed charge and make the fixed charge smaller for the poor people so they won’t have to subsidize the rich people quite so much. Oh, and don’t tell the rich people, they are stupid and will never figure it out.
My head was hurting reading the BBC story. So, is the water in the reservoir coming from rainwater? If so, then the rain is washing methane from the atmosphere. Or is the water coming from underground streams - bringing trapped methane to the surface? If the former, we need more reservoirs, but with no way for the water to escape so it becomes a methane sink. In which case we need to build more dams.
By the way, I thought we were tearing down dams to save the salmon!
EU is smart. We will save the Planet! We just need to lower our expectations about life. And.. there's to many of us. It's bad for the Planet!
By the way, I heard some conspiracy theory recently, that green color we want it more on our planet, comes from protein called chlorophyll. These proteins are in the plants. And plants to be able to live and grow, and make the Planet green, need two ingredients: 1. water, 2. CO2. So less CO2 effects in less plants, witch make Planet less green and more grey!
That will be debunked for sure, cause it is impossible, that making Planet grey would be recognized as making it green! Fortunately more law means more law punishes such conspiracy theories.
As a citizen of the Southern Section of the Socialist State of Taxifornia it never ceases to amaze me how our Emperor Pretty Boy Gavin and his woke friends make laws to suck more money out of us mear mortals. My guess is this will continue to drive more and more of us to the likes of Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Florida, Texas and other more attractive states.
"...given the conversations we are having ..." well yes, that's the point really isn't it - talk is cheap, but 'free' alternative energy isn't!
How many words have been generated on this topic over the last four decades? How many feet can Al Gore fit in his mouth?
The geologists explained it decades ago - the sun heats the planet, the seas (2/3 of its surface) evaporate to form clouds, the cloud cover reflects incoming solar radiation and moderates the temperature.
It's a WELL-DESIGNED, SELF-REGULATING FEEDBACK SYSTEM. The only reason to tinker with it is to line the pockets of unscrupulous politicians and grifters.
Consensus science has a well-documented history of being way wrong and abusing those who dared to challenge it & the consensus is wrong about GHE & CAGW.
1. Earth is cooler w the atmos/WV/30% albedo not warmer.
YouTube: Greenhouse Effect Theory Goes Kerbluey
2. Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math and badder physics.
YouTube: Atmospheric Heat Balances That Don't
3. Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmos molecules render a BB surface model impossible.
Search: “Bruges group kerbluey”
GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
I must say I appreciate your views. It doesn't take a genius to figure all this out - sitting down with a calculator or excel spreadsheet and you can approximate the answer in little or no time.
1) The solution to carbon dioxide emissions has to count on largely (at least 80%) on dispatchable energy sources. This is an inalterable fact.
2) Energy storage is not going to work - the volume of energy to store, and the storage losses, are way too high. Besides which, you are fighting against the fundamental laws of the universe, wherein energy doesn't want to be stored.
3) Hence, we need clean dispatchable sources that can be built in reasonable time frames at reasonable cost. We are left with nuclear, geothermal, or hydrocarbons with carbon capture. Geothermal might supply 10% with a concerted push. Say 20% wind+ solar+ storage. 10% hydro. That leaves 60 % that has to be either nuclear or hydrocarbons with carbon capture.
Okay, which one do you want to use? You really have just two choices - pick one and get a move on.