The history of lead in fuel • a Veritasium video

[kgwilson]

You can still farm animals and raise crops on both Wind and solar farms. Studies have shown that grasses still yield 90% of what they would without solar panels. Crops yield a bit less but spacing the panels with a metre gap results in almost no loss after crops of pepper, tomatoes, beans and coriander were grown. There is already a name for it, "Agrivoltaics". Animals benefit from solar panels as they provide shade.

 

https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/emily-folk/how-solar-energy-can-coincide-with-crop-20201119

 

We are a long way from the original topic now.

[facthunter]

You can still use the land for other things with wind and solar. My point was nuclear and fossil fuel add Heat to the system when they operate but solar lands here anyhow.  We are seeing in UKRAINE what risk we have with Nuclear and war.. Nev

[Flying Binghi]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

You have no idea. Coal wastes most of its energy as heat. The average Coal powered electricity generation plant is about 33% efficient. Look it up. Along with Oil & Gas it is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet.

Ummm… I think your fixating on a furphy there.

 

Coals so-called efficiency running power plants is what it is. All I as a power consumer care about is what my electricity bill is - AND, having the power work when I flick the switch.

 

Coal power is cheap and very reliable.

 

As an aside, China is currently building something like 1500 new coal power stations around the world. Smart buggers..😉 

 

 

Interesting look at just what it would take to power the world on fairy farts and pixy dust - i.e., Wind and solar power:

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/04/the-quantity-of-metals-required-to-manufacture-just-one-generation-of-renewable-technology-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels/

Edited September 5, 2022 by Flying Binghi

[Ian]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

You can still use the land for other things with wind and solar. My point was nuclear and fossil fuel add Heat to the system when they operate but solar lands here anyhow.  We are seeing in UKRAINE what risk we have with Nuclear and war.. Nev

I'm not really sure of your point here. Are you saying that burning either Coal or Uranium makes the world hotter as a heat  input.

 

Appreciate the allcaps but nuclear is the safest form of power generation, this includes deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima  . https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2020/03/what-is-the-safest-energy-for-the-future/32904

I agree that what we're seeing in the Ukraine is cause for concern however the deaths are being cause by guns, bombs and bad people. About 14400 people have died so far in the war. None of them from nuclear power. This is a good example of perceived risk vs actual risk. It's a bit like the fear of flying.

53 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said:

Coal power is cheap and very reliable.

If you include greenhouse gas polution, coal is not cheap, none of the CO2 capture processes have come close to removing the carbon from the exhaust and they drive up the cost enormously.  China is going nuclear, solar and wind in a big way. 

 

"Coal's Dead" get over it and move on. It's not smart its dumb.

 

But we have gone a long way from the original topic of lead in fuel. Lead in fuel like coal and all the majority fossil  is a dead technology. Find good alternatives and move on. Don't try to persist the status quo as this just causes more harm.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Ian

[Garfly]

3 hours ago, Flying Binghi said:

Hmmm…

 

Lets hear Trumps views on Russia in his own words whilst he were president. The percentages he refers to are re defence spending:

 

 

 

Sure ...  we're in furious agreement over the facts shown here.

But this clip shows little of "Trumps views on Russia"  (always as incoherent as they are self-serving) and quite a lot about the longstanding US posture on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (as discussed in the articles above).

US sanctions, aimed at de-railing Germany's sweetheart deal with Russia, actually became tougher under Biden than under Trump (until they failed finally and were dropped) but the reasonings of successive administrations were mash-ups of instincts; not wanting to give Russia long term energy leverage over Europe, not wanting to weaken Ukraine by letting existing pipelines get by-passed and, oh yeah ... another little issue (about which Trump would've been lobbied by one Senator Ted Cruz) : 

 

"Why did Cruz take lead in opposing Nord Stream?   ...  Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn, a fellow Republican cosponsor of his sanctions bill, represent Texas, the nation’s largest producer of liquified natural gas. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany and other European states might buy more Texas gas.

“I’m not even sure he really cares about Ukraine,” Daniel Fried, who worked as the State Department coordinator for sanctions policy under President Obama, told the American Prospect in December. “It’s just politics.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/no-ted-cruz-was-not-right-about-russias-ukraine-invasion/

 

Interestingly, this was the reverse of the US energy sector's attitude in Reagan's day.  Back then American companies were heavily invested in Russian pipelines and thus opposed State Department moves to contain Russia's capacity to use oil and gas in geo-politics.

 

Anyway, notwithstanding the tragic impact on millions of lives, it looks like the war could end-up a long-term win for all except Putin's Russia.  It might finish with Volodymyr Zelensky, Greta Thunberg and Ted Cruz (even most Germans) all glad to see the back of Nord Stream 2  - under circumstances nobody saw coming.

 

History has a habit of throwing a spanner into the simple narratives we try to pull from it. 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

NEW coal plants are not cheap. Amortised old ones are but they are not reliable.. Figures for Nuclear and critical coal are readily available.. Nev

[Flying Binghi]

4 hours ago, Ian said:

…..

…..If you include greenhouse gas polution, coal is not cheap, none of the CO2 capture processes have come close to removing the carbon from the exhaust and they drive up the cost enormously.  China is going nuclear, solar and wind in a big way. 

 

"Coal's Dead" get over it and move on. It's not smart its dumb.

 

But we have gone a long way from the original topic of lead in fuel. Lead in fuel like coal and all the majority fossil  is a dead technology. Find good alternatives and move on. Don't try to persist the status quo as this just causes more harm.

 

Why would you want to ‘capture’ CO2 from coal power stations?

 

Extra atmospheric CO2 is greening the deserts. Extra CO2 allows plants to grow with less water. Extra CO2 helps plants produce bigger fruit. Plants all over grow bigger and stronger with extra atmospheric CO2.

 

CO2 is a magic ingredient. Just ask any beer or soda drinker..😉

 

 

Lets look at China again: 

“…The Chinese Communist government enjoys lecturing the rest of the world about climate change and signing high-profile global warming treaties with gullible and opportunistic Western leaders like President Joe Biden, but when the rubber hits the road, China’s steely-eyed rulers will do whatever it takes to keep their factories humming…”

 

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2022/04/21/worlds-worst-polluter-china-increases-coal-production-by-three-hundred-million-tons/

 

 

 

 

 

.

[facthunter]

Breitbart eh!. What a waste of time. Nev

[Flying Binghi]

4 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

Sure ...  we're in furious agreement over the facts shown here.

But this clip shows little of "Trumps views on Russia"  (always as incoherent as they are self-serving) and quite a lot about the longstanding US posture on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (as discussed in the articles above).

US sanctions, aimed at de-railing Germany's sweetheart deal with Russia, actually became tougher under Biden than under Trump (until they failed finally and were dropped) but the reasonings of successive administrations were mash-ups of instincts; not wanting to give Russia long term energy leverage over Europe, not wanting to weaken Ukraine by letting existing pipelines get by-passed and, oh yeah ... another little issue (about which Trump would've been lobbied by one Senator Ted Cruz) : 

 

"Why did Cruz take lead in opposing Nord Stream?   ...  Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn, a fellow Republican cosponsor of his sanctions bill, represent Texas, the nation’s largest producer of liquified natural gas. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany and other European states might buy more Texas gas.

“I’m not even sure he really cares about Ukraine,” Daniel Fried, who worked as the State Department coordinator for sanctions policy under President Obama, told the American Prospect in December. “It’s just politics.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/no-ted-cruz-was-not-right-about-russias-ukraine-invasion/

 

Interestingly, this was the reverse of the US energy sector's attitude in Reagan's day.  Back then American companies were heavily invested in Russian pipelines and thus opposed State Department moves to contain Russia's capacity to use oil and gas in geo-politics.

 

Anyway, notwithstanding the tragic impact on millions of lives, it looks like the war could end-up a long-term win for all except Putin's Russia.  It might finish with Volodymyr Zelensky, Greta Thunberg and Ted Cruz (even most Germans) all glad to see the back of Nord Stream 2  - under circumstances nobody saw coming.

 

History has a habit of throwing a spanner into the simple narratives we try to pull from it. 

 

 

 

Hmmm… I thought yer said Trump were a ‘friend’ of Putins. The video showed the opposite.

 

As to the back ground history yer putting forth, well, Trump were a new arrival to all the politics. He were a business man who became president with out going through the usual political indoctrination. Pipe lines or what-ever were not part of his history - though, biden on the other hand….. 🤨

 

I see just last week Mr Facebook has admitted that the FBI told him in the lead-up the last US presidential election to obstruct the viewing of evidence of criminal activity involving the biden’s. Last week I went from being a doubter of US election fraud to now thinking WTF !!!

 

 

 

 

.

[Flying Binghi]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

NEW coal plants are not cheap. Amortised old ones are but they are not reliable.. Figures for Nuclear and critical coal are readily available.. Nev

Certainly cost more than a can of beer.

 

I see they got the build time of a new coal plant down to under 5 years. Australia could have all the cheap reliable extra power it needs in 5 years..🙂

 

Ultimately though we need to be building nuclear power plants - shoulda first been built back in the 70’s, but for the idiot greens…🤨

 

 

 

 

.

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, Flying Binghi said:

Hmmm… I thought yer said Trump were a ‘friend’ of Putins. The video showed the opposite.

No I didn't and no it doesn't. But never mind. It's complicated.

[facthunter]

It could be they are bonking and they are staff.. Whether the staff are theirs to bonk is an issue. It all depends on what you think you are ENTILED to from your subordinates. Consenting might mean it's good for you that you be good (for) ME..  Nev

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, Flying Binghi said:

... one of the first US politicians to visit Putin were the Democrat Kerry - apparently all concerned about keeping the global warming hysteria going..🤨

Kerry visited Lavrov in Moscow mid-last year.  It was not only Kerry who was concerned. They seemed to agree that it wasn't any kind of religion that was melting the Siberian permafrost, much to the locals' alarm. And both sides were keen to lower the heat, both globally and diplomatically.  So "global warming hysteria" was not the only reason for that visit (facts getting in the way of a good story again) :

 

"Biden has used the non-confrontational issue of battling climate change to smooth over relations with the Kremlin in the past. Putin took great offense when Biden agreed with an interviewer in March that the Russian leader was a "killer."   After Biden called him in April, Putin accepted the olive branch, first attending the White House's virtual climate summit, then agreeing to meet in Geneva. //

 

The Russian president has evolved on climate

 

Putin, who rules a carbon superpower with vast deposits of oil, gas and coal, used to be a climate skeptic

... [but]  Putin has begun to address the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This month, he signed a law requiring Russian businesses to report carbon emissions starting in 2023."

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016526228/the-u-s-climate-envoy-went-to-moscow-and-talked-about-more-than-climate

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Garfly

[Admin]

This thread has required the removal of some posts and it has gone to a point that is just users abusing each other and nothing to do with flying any more...Thread Closed