The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > How to Reduce CO2 Emmisions by 43% ?

How to Reduce CO2 Emmisions by 43% ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A while back I asked a similar question but never got a clear answer.
As far as transport fuels are concerned both major parties seem to be
putting their bets on electric cars.
Assuming diesel use will not be restricted by 43% or else the problems
we have at the moment will be child's play compared.
Electric cars will not fall in price as fast as the optimists predict.
That means that the vast majority of present cars will still be on the
the road come 2030 especially if only EVs are on sale.

That gives the government of the day three options to achieve 43%.
1. Deregister cars older than so many years.
2. Introduce petrol rationing by 43% plus the amount diesel generates.
3. The government subsidise EVs by $20,000 approx each.

I just cannot see any government being able to put that over the public.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 29 January 2022 5:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I saw a brand new Tesla down the street from me getting put on a tow truck the other day, so I'm in no hurry to get rid of my old turbo diesel. There are so many possibilities. It would be nice to think of evs with fold out solar arrays for when you are parked, but viable chemical processes may yet be found to utilise cellulose, so I would think some sort of hybrid. The renewable energy lobby is a front for spivs and cons, using climate change hysteria to push their nonsense. The energy that should be developed is nuclear. Unlike renewable energy, it has the potential to replace coal based power. No wonder the renewable crooks are so dismissive of it.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 30 January 2022 6:53:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You will never get a "clear answer", because there isn't one, and the government is obviously "able to put that over the public" with the greatest of ease, the public being either complacent or terminally thick.

The 'public' believes corrupt scientists, carpetbaggers and the media. Intelligent people who read and investigate for themselves laugh at this CO2 emissions tripe, knowing that a rise in CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way around.

Electric cars are toys for rich green activists raking in the dough from the rest of us, while belting out more emissions than we do, including those from the manufacturing of their EVs. Their toys and renewable energy use more power than they produce.

Follow the money. The big beneficiaries of net zero will clearly be the genocidal billionaire Beijing communists and their Western camp followers. The rest of us will be the losers.

The whole climate change by CO2 racket is a repeat of such ignorance as flat Earth, bleeding the sick, leeches in medicine, sun rotating around the Earth, malaria and plagues caused by bad air and, more recently, duodenal ulcers caused by stress.

Human induced global warming is simply not supported by measurable geological evidence. But, our stupid politicians are allowing green activists and scammers to destroy economies based on a 0.8° temperature rise over the last century and a SPECULATED rise of 2° over the next century.

And the dopey public just is not interested.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 30 January 2022 8:09:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the UK in 2008, the idea of putting caps on the amount of 'carbon' (actually carbon dioxide) each person could 'use' (emit) to heat their homes, purchase food, and travel to work. It was rejected.

But, just last year, it was suggested (Erini F. F et al) that this off-the-planet piece of totally lunatic totalitarianism be revisited.

It would probably be impractical, but the suggestion alone highlights the sort of nutbags associated with climate/CO2 hysteria.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 30 January 2022 11:14:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fester,

Yes hybrids are starting to look really viable.

The Mitsubishi Eclipse PHEV has been out for a bit already. The 55KM range of the battery would probably cover trips around town most days and I have been told from an owner it is a big help when towing a caravan, especially on the occasional steep climb.

It recharges from braking and the torque it delivers is apparently impressive.

http://www.drive.com.au/reviews/2022-mitsubishi-eclipse-cross-phev-review/
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 30 January 2022 12:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, I mostly agree with you on the spivs surrounding global warming.
The market for carbon certificates sold by people who have saved a bit
of co2 was early in the piece where all the Russian Oligarchs got
all their money.They took over decrepit Soviet factories that couldn't
survive after the Soviet collapse and scrapped them.
They then claimed from the European CO2 market credits for the co2 saving.
Stand by for a Chinese repeat of that scam.
The best we can do is keep as far away as possible.

However I disagree that electric cars are part of the scam.
The oil companies have reached the point where search and discovery of
new oil fields and the subsequent development has become a marginal
operation to the extent that majors like Shell & BP are publically
notifying that they are getting out of the oil industry.

The last thing the motor manufacturers wanted is to throw $billions
at a total reconstruction of their product but somewhere near 2015
the oil companies must gave given them the drum.
Suddenly they all announced electric car models.
See any dots that need connecting ?
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 30 January 2022 1:24:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as Global Warming is concerned obviously I do not know definitely
that it is true or not.
All I know is that there are a number of scientists who ask how can it
be true when the temperature rises then followed by co2 increase.
Others say that the sensitivity of co2 to temperature has been given
too high an effect and that the rise due to CO2 so far is 0.1 c.
Other questions arise because the current rise in temperature
coincides with the long known cycle of temperature that is around
600 to 1000 years long and the current cycle started up from the
Maunder minimum around 1800 and appears to be peaking around 1990s to
2010.
It appears that the cause of temperature rise is far more complicated
than a simple increase in co2.

The cycle is composed of about six different cycles all mixed together;
1. The sun's radiance level cycle.
2. The sunspot cycle 11 years.
3. The peak in sunspot maximum level cycle.
4. The Milanovitch cycle of the earth orbit around the sun.
5. The rotation of the earth orbit around the sun.
6. The declination of the earth's poles.

All these mixed together generate a variation in the cycle length
somewhere around 600 to 1000 years.
The peak in sunspot activity within these cycles disturbs the earth's
magnetic field and lets in less cosmic rays which cause less cloud
cover on average and so a warmer climate results.

Whew it is complicated isn't it ?
Anyway, that is my bet for the global warming.
It is no wonder the simple co2 theory was accepted.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 30 January 2022 2:09:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Note not all hybrids can be plugged into a charger to recharge the
battery. They can only be charged by the cars engine.
That is why some as in this case, are designated as PHEVs.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 30 January 2022 2:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why so specific with 43% ? Why not 40 or 50%.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 30 January 2022 9:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Think of a number !
If it cannot be reached without chaos early in the attempt a new
number or time will be announced at one of these big annual booze ups.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 31 January 2022 8:17:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yesterday Albo announced Labour's intention to install a gas power
station at Kuri Kuri in the Hunter Valley.
The station he said would run on "Green Hydrogen".
My understanding is this hydrogen is produced by using electricity to
separate hydrogen & oxygen.
Then the hydrogen heats the boiler to produce steam which turns the
turbine to produce electricity.

Errr, there are five energy transitions in this chain.
Electricity to hydrogen to heat to steam to turbine rotation to electricity.

With each transition there is loss.
Would it not be better to use the electricity available at the start
of the process and avoid all the losses in between ?
Is this an example of the Labour Parties ignorance of engineering.
Together with their VFT project they will gain at least a White Elephant Factory.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 1 February 2022 9:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz there is an answer to your question. Have a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSPVBbIztWk&t=188s. Not only will it describe what needs to be done and why it needs to be done but how it can be done - no politics just engineering.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 8 February 2022 12:41:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you actually believe that stuff BAYGON.

God help us.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 8 February 2022 2:39:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Baygon, I was not going to waste 42 minutes watching that video.
I am going to bed instead.
An interesting development today; Google stopped money flowing to
Prof Roberts of the Alabama Universities weather lab because they
published their results on the last period. forgotten how long, that
the temperature only rose 0.03 C.
In effect what they say is that their satellite measurements show that
the troposphere temperature has stopped rising.
That organisation is the only one that measures whole earth temperature.
I detect that there is a change occurring in opinion on this matter.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 9 February 2022 9:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course you will not invest 40 minutes to be informed especially after Hasbeen has yet again flouted his ignorance in rejecting the ida of transition engineering. Take comfort in those who reassure you that all is well - as they say ignorance is bliss.
Posted by BAYGON, Thursday, 10 February 2022 7:25:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Baygon, understand your position.
No worries, but please explain why does temperature rise then followed
by a co2 rise ?
So many predictions have failed, why ?
Why is the long established 600/1000 year cycle ignored ?
Kaupenin & others believe the cycle is near/at peak now.
Another 100 years and it will be certain.

Still makes for interesting discussion.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 10 February 2022 8:47:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for raising this discussion Bazz.

I agree that nuclear is part of the solution to energy- you could probably use renewable energy to run the centrifuges until nuclear becomes self sustaining. Nuclear could be a great battery for solar power- Thorium is probably cleaner- producing more radioactively stable outputs- but Australia also needs Plutonium for defense. Sadly you wouldn't want radioactive power sources in vehicles- you could probably use a short half life isotope (such as Polonium from memory) but-
This means you need an intermediate energy source- options include batteries, hydrogen, ethanol, fuel cells, etc- all have their advantages and disadvantages taking into account- maturity, retrofit-ability, supply-ability.

A solar powered nuclear battery cycle could be-
Solar powered centrifuges create isotopic fuel rods- fuel rods power reactor to create electricity.

It gets us part of the way to a stable energy supply not reliant on hydrocarbons- but transition to electric cars will require a large amount of carbon to retrofit or manufacture the worlds fleet of vehicles.

To me the best outcome is if we could find a way to take the hydrocarbons out of the atmosphere to use in vehicles but the development time frame is unknown.

The auto sector has been struggling for a while- remember the SUV stimulus under Bush- perhaps they are also promoting electric vehicles to stimulate the market.
Posted by Canem Malum, Thursday, 10 February 2022 9:47:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Canem, after the election no matter who wins it will be interesting
to watch the scramble to enforce the 5% a year reduction in co2.
Whatever party is in power will be certain to lose the next following
election in 2025 if they enforce the 5% a year reduction.
I suppose to be realistic, for political survival reasons
that 5% a year will not be enforced. By 2025 it will be 15% !
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 10 February 2022 10:27:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you want to see failed renewable energy you only need look at completed projects and compare them with predicted outcomes. The French announcement to pursue nuclear is telling, especially given the problems it has had with maintenance and build times. The only reason France is considering renewables is because it cannot build nuclear reactors quickly enough. Yet in Australia, the moronic concept of green hydrogen is still considered seriously.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 11 February 2022 1:15:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Baygon, I watched that link and indeed it was a fairy tale.
Jokes aside it naturally built on the original mistake made by many
scientists that has become sculptured into granite.

The mistake is they made a major error when calculating the temperature
sensitivity to atmospheric co2.
I have a link to a paper by Kauppenin & P Malmi.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Kauppenin was a member of the IPCC so he is not an unknown in that field.
The group at Kobe Uni in Japan is also involved.
I will have to find the link again.
Some info here also on the Japanese.
http://tinyurl.com/2tc7kz4h

The crux of the matter is the temperature rise caused by the Sun and
the other cycles is the major cause of the temperature rise and that
caused by coal etc is only a small cause of the rise in temperature.
It is just that the current cycle coincided with the start of the
industrial revolution and so an easy mistake was made.

The current problem is it is "settled science" which if you read
Ian PLimers book Green Murder explains how it has all become
untouchable and indeed a new religion, and so is infallible.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 11 February 2022 3:29:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy