

 |
| Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 13/170) |
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 05, 01:57 PM
|
|

That's a great meme, for people who imagine that no one is already testing new kinds of EV batteries that require lesser amounts of cobalt or not any cobalt, or that nothing is going on in the way of improving the cobalt mining industry where it currently exists or developing new mining operations for cobalt in countries with effective safeguards, or that scenes like this have not been commonplace, even to this day, since the oil industry expanded from its origins in the second half of the 19th century:
 Recovering from an oil pipeline that leaked
How many of us are that unrealistic in our thinking?
Two for sure. The forum member who just posted this "Greta" meme (at the end of the previous page), and the other forum member who posted that same meme some weeks or months ago.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-05-2023).]
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 05, 02:27 PM
|
|
|
What the hell are you talking about?
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 05, 02:33 PM
|
|
|
What value do you see in that "Greta" meme that you just posted?
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 05, 02:34 PM
|
|
|
It's a meme. It hints that the "answers" the climate activists are proposing have just as many downsides as the oil industry today.
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 05, 03:50 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini: It's a meme. It hints that the "answers" the climate activists are proposing have just as many downsides as the oil industry today. |
|
From their point of view—and I'm speaking as a climate activist sympathizer, not as a climate activist myself—the reliance on diesel, or bunker oil (for ships), and on gasoline and natural gas for energy has one very distinctive downside that there's just no getting around: carbon dioxide emissions as a byproduct.
I guess it's about how to interpret the "Greta" meme. You're explaining it in a kind of general way, and I am interpreting it in a more literal or exact kind of way.
I don't like this meme because I think it is misleading in the way that I described when I talked about cobalt in batteries and cobalt mining, vs the oil industry.
I think the key words (in the remark from Hudini) are "just as many downsides."
Is it "just as many" downsides? Or (?) is it "different downsides, none of which is as inherently irredeemable, from a climate activist's perspective, as the carbon dioxide emissions from petroleum-derived fuels."[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-05-2023).]
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 05, 04:32 PM
|
|
There are no carbon dioxide emissions from the manufacturer of wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power facilities.
When you can affirm the above statement as being true, maybe a conversation might take place.
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 05, 05:01 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
There are no carbon dioxide emissions from the manufacturer of wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power facilities.
When you can affirm the above statement as being true, maybe a conversation might take place. |
|
It's not a question of carbon dioxide emissions. It's the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
Accurate systems analysis is a "must". To predict the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions before the wind farm or solar farm (etc.) is green-lighted. That has to include the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from every phase of the facility, from its manufacture or construction and installation (including the raw materials), and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions on a per unit of energy production basis, during the projected lifetime of the facility. Even the decommissioning and dismantling of the energy-producing facility needs to be analyzed from a "greenhouse perspective", for an accurate systems analysis.
I'm open to that kind of discussion.
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
JAN 06, 05:38 AM
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 07, 08:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
JAN 07, 11:23 PM
|
|
 [This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 01-07-2023).]
|
|

 |
|