CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low.

Yeah, OK, lots of laughs.

I live in Silicon Valley, one of the sunniest population centers on the planet. Here, with massive government subsidies, a solar installation will NEVER pay for itself. And this not even accounting for the fact that a solar based system requires massive investments in energy storage (not to mention massive losses in energy from the energy storage-release cycle)...

Get back to me in five years when I guarantee we will still be hearing, "Solar will be the cheapest energy source in the world within the next five years."

Running on Empathy wrote:

Man's emission-based CO2 contributions are simply too small to affect total CO2 levels in any significant faction, aka it is well within natural variability.

Wow. Breathtaking ignorance. Ever see the Keeling curve?

Ho Hum wrote:

Oh, you're one of those people. Never mind.

That's right. I'm a realist.

And reality doesn't fit the paradigm of the AGW movement.

Try this for size - break down the ppm argument into it's corresponding and correct mathematical expression aka anthropogenic CO2 as a % of total atmosphere. It's is then and only then that a competent person will admit that 0.003% (smokestack-based CO2 emissions) doesn't amount to diddly.

Actually, there are quite a few studies from the late 1800's that showed higher atmospheric CO2 levels than today, in some cases up to 400ppm so no one with credibility can assert anything close to an anthropogenic trend. The IPPC simply cherry-picked the historic studies that fit their narrative, and tossed the rest. Not to mention most of today's CO2 measurements tend to take place in contemporary CO2 streams aka the "Asian brown cloud" et al. The truth is we don't know what if any trend is actually going on, if indeed there is a long term trend. The world's climate has gradually been warming since the last ice age, and it would stand to reason that levels of atmospheric CO2 would also show a gradual upward trend. To suggest there is an anthropogenic hitch to this trend that affects it one way or the other is not credible. Also, it doesn't explain how atmospheric CO2 managed to climb as high as 5,000 ppm sometime during the ice age.

As for that 2nd part, it is highly suspicious, and I'd like to know your source. For starters, to say the recent "increases" in atmospheric CO2 is entirely due to man would also run afoul of the laws of physics, since the warming trend that is also ostensibly going on would itself cause more natural contributions to atmospheric CO2. Remember, these people asserting this stuff are also the people manipulating data to try and justify their claims. Why was James Hansen "accidently" going back through historic data and attributing September temp records to October? What other reason would he do this but to buttress the warming trend fallacy?

As for this latest attempt by Seth Borenstein to remain relevant, for anyone on either side of the debate to say "coal is being replaced by natural gas" doesn't understand the complexities of coal to gas conversion.

For starters, you have to understand the difference between a typical coal-fired plant and a modern natural gas plant. The CO2 benefits attributed to a natural gas power plant arises from the ability to use natural gas in a combined-cycle power plant, where the 1st stage is a gas combustion turbine and the 2nd stage is a steam turbine that uses the latent heat from the 1st state. A coal fired plant only runs a steam turbine since no one to date has found a way to burn coal in a combustion turbine without damaging the turbine blades via fly ash.

That said, many coal fired plants can use natural gas as a backup thermal source, and I expect that's where the gist of this article is coming from. The thing is, when natural gas is used in a nominal coal fired plant, it's still a single stage steam turbine, not a combined cycle. Thus you get roughly the same amount of CO2 emissions since you have no combustion turbine.

So why is industry touting this? Simple: They are desperately trying to keep the econuts from forcing more regulations on the newer fracking technologies, so they take the narrative in a direction that favors continued fracking - "Fracking for petroleum has resulted in new natural gas discoveries, thus natural gas prices have fallen, thus many power plant operators have (temporarily)switched to natural gas as their primary fuel source, and since natural gas is *cleaner* than coal we are helping to keep polar bears from drowning due to man-made global warming. Thus if we stop fracking, more polar bears will drown."

Thus the energy industry guys have become just as dishonest as the environmental idiots, all over the false narrative of anthropogenic climate change.

Running on Empathy wrote:

Actually, there are quite a few studies from the late 1800's that showed higher atmospheric CO2 levels than today, in some cases up to 400ppm

Pre-industrial CO2 levels of 400 ppm. Okayyy...

I suppose that the only reasonable response is, as someone else already stated, Oh, you're one of those guys. Nice talking with you.

Running on Empathy wrote:

For starters, you have to understand the difference between a typical coal-fired plant and a modern natural gas plant. The CO2 benefits attributed to a natural gas power plant arises from the ability to use natural gas in a combined-cycle power plant, where the 1st stage is a gas combustion turbine and the 2nd stage is a steam turbine that uses the latent heat from the 1st state. A coal fired plant only runs a steam turbine since no one to date has found a way to burn coal in a combustion turbine without damaging the turbine blades via fly ash.

Either your ignorance or your dishonesty is truly staggering. Possibly both.

Fact: Burning coal produces 60% more CO2 per unit of energy released without reference to what type of power plant is used. This is elementary chemistry.

And you are either an ignoramus or a liar. Ah, but I repeat myself

Running on Empathy wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

Oh, you're one of those people. Never mind.

That's right. I'm a realist.

And reality doesn't fit the paradigm of the AGW movement.

Try this for size - break down the ppm argument into it's corresponding and correct mathematical expression aka anthropogenic CO2 as a % of total atmosphere. It's is then and only then that a competent person will admit that 0.003% (smokestack-based CO2 emissions) doesn't amount to diddly.

"The ppm argument"? Gee, and all this time I thought that ppm was a unit of measurement. Apparently it is an argument.

"correct mathematical expression"? So, if you use percentages to express the same thing that is typically expressed in ppm it suddenly becomes correct? Or was it correct all along and you are...saying what, exactly?

"doesn't amount to diddly"? Yes, I see your point. Who could argue with such a precise term? I mean, calculating the actual heat retention due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and the likely resultant climate change certainly cannot stand up to such profoundly insightful declarations as "(not amounting) to diddly".

Well, it's been fun. But please try to raise your game a bit if you would like to be taken seriously by anyone. Or are you just an AGW stooge in drag trying to make the anti-AGW folks look almost unimaginably stupid?

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

Running on Empathy wrote:

Actually, there are quite a few studies from the late 1800's that showed higher atmospheric CO2 levels than today, in some cases up to 400ppm

Pre-industrial CO2 levels of 400 ppm. Okayyy...

I suppose that the only reasonable response is, as someone else already stated, Oh, you're one of those guys. Nice talking with you.

Look it up if you're interested in facts. Or just continue with the typical and predictable insult parade.

Running on Empathy wrote:

That's right. I'm a realist.

And reality doesn't fit the paradigm of the AGW movement.

Try this for size - break down the ppm argument into it's corresponding and correct mathematical expression aka anthropogenic CO2 as a % of total atmosphere. It's is then and only then that a competent person will admit that 0.003% (smokestack-based CO2 emissions) doesn't amount to diddly.

You really know essentially nothing about this subject, and with every post you make it more obvious.

0.000395% is NOT the smokestack emissions of CO2 (and you are off by a factor of 10, but I doubt that worries you much). That is the proportion of the atmosphere, in total, that is CO2. It is precisely because CO2 is such a small fraction of the atmosphere (but so important for the balance of energy in/out) that it CAN be altered by emissions.

Why do you feel so strongly about something that you've never bothered to learn about? Odd.

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

Fact: Burning coal produces 60% more CO2 per unit of energy released without reference to what type of power plant is used. This is elementary chemistry.

And you are either an ignoramus or a liar. Ah, but I repeat myself

Depends on the type of coal and the prepping stages you're talking about. ROM coal will have higher percentages of moisture and ash than prepped coal, which can denegrate it's heating value. Energy density also plays a factor. There's a lot of variance there. There's also an anaerobic component to coal combustion which results in a carbon monoxide stream that can be redirected back to the combustion chamber. But you are right in stating that coal's volatile composition is mostly carbon while natural gas is mostly hydrogen. On a $$/Btu basis coal has generally been the better long term bargain, and if you factor in the price of the unit of energy you're using, the carbon cost factor can become equalized (which of course is the end game of the AGW crowd - carbon credits expressed in dollar amounts.)

You might also be interested in research into synthetic diamond tech that would allow coated turbine blades to withstand the erosion of fly ash, allowing a lower cost method of using ROM coal in a combined-cycle system compared to coal gasification.

The global warming issue is a giant blowhard magnet. It attracts people who think their opinions, or those they agree with, are facts once they are written down.

There is so much speculation on all sides of this issue, with blohards who for some reason can only see the factual gaps in the arguments of those who they disagree with, not their own.

Consider this global warming blowhards, if you actually had more useful facts, perhaps so many blowhards would not have picked your side of your pet issue to attack, or identifed you as a fact lacking blowhard to be argued with.

The only thing I've been able to conclude is that if temperatures go up or down, or stay the same, or climates change in any way, even a popular way, there will be an outcry that it's a huge BFD and really really bad. Even the change of seasons has its own doom screamers and hand wringers, based on if it came too early or too late. Either is, somehow, bad.

The only thing it's too late for is joy over a nice day that's undisturbed from some blowhard making it proof of his cause. Humanity suffers, even on good days, from this arguing and posturing.

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

Yeah, OK, lots of laughs.

I live in Silicon Valley, one of the sunniest population centers on the planet. Here, with massive government subsidies, a solar installation will NEVER pay for itself. And this not even accounting for the fact that a solar based system requires massive investments in energy storage (not to mention massive losses in energy from the energy storage-release cycle)...

Get back to me in five years when I guarantee we will still be hearing, "Solar will be the cheapest energy source in the world within the next five years."

I did not know that living in Silicon Valley made you an expert in the science and economics of solar energy.

TCB wrote:

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

Yeah, OK, lots of laughs.

I live in Silicon Valley, one of the sunniest population centers on the planet. Here, with massive government subsidies, a solar installation will NEVER pay for itself. And this not even accounting for the fact that a solar based system requires massive investments in energy storage (not to mention massive losses in energy from the energy storage-release cycle)...

Get back to me in five years when I guarantee we will still be hearing, "Solar will be the cheapest energy source in the world within the next five years."

I did not know that living in Silicon Valley made you an expert in the science and economics of solar energy.

The fact that I live in Silicon Valley was simply used as a literary device to note that in Silicon Valley, one of the most perfect environments for solar anywhere on earth, solar still remains very, very far away from being competitive.

Sorry about your reading comprehension problems. Must be a bummer.

Fun stuff. My father-in-law is one of the top clean coal engineers in the country and actually holds the patents on a lot of the technology that the power plants are using to reduce CO2 emissions.

not pertinant to this coversation, but just wanted to "hear my own voice".

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

The fact that I live in Silicon Valley was simply used as a literary device to note that in Silicon Valley, one of the most perfect environments for solar anywhere on earth, solar still remains very, very far away from being competitive.

Sorry about your reading comprehension problems. Must be a bummer.

You should learn what a literary device is and how it is different from a logical fallacy, which is what you statement really was. You've presented zero facts, zero sources...you can't even come up with a lame antidote. Your entire argument is "I live in California so I know better than you." There hasn't been much content to anything you've said.

TCB wrote:

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

The fact that I live in Silicon Valley was simply used as a literary device to note that in Silicon Valley, one of the most perfect environments for solar anywhere on earth, solar still remains very, very far away from being competitive.

Sorry about your reading comprehension problems. Must be a bummer.

You should learn what a literary device is and how it is different from a logical fallacy, which is what you statement really was. You've presented zero facts, zero sources...you can't even come up with a lame antidote. Your entire argument is "I live in California so I know better than you." There hasn't been much content to anything you've said.

Make that, Sorry about your general comprehension problems. Truly saddened to hear it.

Still, carry on good chap.

Ok troll.

Post your source then

Running on Empathy wrote:

Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:

Pre-industrial CO2 levels of 400 ppm. Okayyy...

I suppose that the only reasonable response is, as someone else already stated, Oh, you're one of those guys. Nice talking with you.

Look it up if you're interested in facts. Or just continue with the typical and predictable insult parade.