On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:04:44 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
<hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 2023-03-31, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem there is that it's not economic to have the equipment
>>>>>> required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
>>>>>> when power is available.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
>>>>> source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
>>>>> the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
>>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
>>>>> week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
>>>>> activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
>>>>> the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
>>>>> fossil fuel generation by 2030.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Extinction Rebellion have their way  there will be no oil to
>>>>> lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
>>>>> their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And the GOP'ers just want us to burn it all up.
>>>>
>>>
>>>30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
>>>aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
>>>contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
>>>atmosphere. It's the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
>>>that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.
>>>
>>>Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
>>>burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
>>>still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
>>>the oil companies will still be profitable.
>>>
>>>To be carbon neutral doesn't necessarily mean that the world cannot use
>>>oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
>>>short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
>>>both resources will be exhausted - there's no reason not to start the
>>>process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.
>>>
>>
>> The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
>> terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
>> gas resources.
>>
>> CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
>> kills.
>
>There are crops that do not benefit from increased CO2.
>
>Insect and other pests benefit from warmth.
>
>Try to think about things in a little more complex manner.
>
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

Well, it's far simpler an analysis to just jump to climate remediation
engineering: What exactly would it take to reduce atmospheric CO2
enough to matter? This analysis has the advantage of not requiring
climate models et al - physical chemistry is enough.

The problem is that when one does the computation, one soon gets
immense numbers - the atmosphere is planetary-scale for sure.

And the Oceans contain something like fifty times as much CO2 as the
atmosphere. For all the talk of the atmosphere, it could take a very
long time to deplete the oceanic reservoirs.

Which all leads to a political problem:

The combined population of China, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is
3.1 billion, while the combined population of the US and the EU is
0.84 billion.

The corresponding figures for GDP is $15.4 Trillion for China et al,
and $38.2 Trillion for US+EU.

The per capita income (GDP divided by population) is nine time higher
in the US+EU than in China et al, so for everyone to have the same
per-capita income, China et al must increase their economic activity
level by a factor of nine per capita, with almost four times the
population, for a net factor of 4*9 = 36.

So the West is 1/36 = 2.8% of the World story. This is a round off
error. Nothing the West can do matters one whit.

Other than to develop nuclear energy technology on the scale of
Civilization.

Joe Gwinn

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:36:48 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:04:44 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
><hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2023-03-31, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem there is that it's not economic to have the equipment
>>>>>>> required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
>>>>>>> when power is available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
>>>>>> source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
>>>>>> the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
>>>>>> week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
>>>>>> activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
>>>>>> the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
>>>>>> fossil fuel generation by 2030.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Extinction Rebellion have their way  there will be no oil to
>>>>>> lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
>>>>>> their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And the GOP'ers just want us to burn it all up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
>>>>aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
>>>>contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
>>>>atmosphere. It's the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
>>>>that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>>Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
>>>>burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
>>>>still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
>>>>the oil companies will still be profitable.
>>>>
>>>>To be carbon neutral doesn't necessarily mean that the world cannot use
>>>>oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
>>>>short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
>>>>both resources will be exhausted - there's no reason not to start the
>>>>process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
>>> terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
>>> gas resources.
>>>
>>> CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
>>> kills.
>>
>>There are crops that do not benefit from increased CO2.
>>
>>Insect and other pests benefit from warmth.
>>
>>Try to think about things in a little more complex manner.
>>
>>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
>
>Well, it's far simpler an analysis to just jump to climate remediation
>engineering: What exactly would it take to reduce atmospheric CO2
>enough to matter? This analysis has the advantage of not requiring
>climate models et al - physical chemistry is enough.
>
>The problem is that when one does the computation, one soon gets
>immense numbers - the atmosphere is planetary-scale for sure.
>
>And the Oceans contain something like fifty times as much CO2 as the
>atmosphere. For all the talk of the atmosphere, it could take a very
>long time to deplete the oceanic reservoirs.
>
>Which all leads to a political problem:
>
>The combined population of China, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is
>3.1 billion, while the combined population of the US and the EU is
>0.84 billion.
>
>The corresponding figures for GDP is $15.4 Trillion for China et al,
>and $38.2 Trillion for US+EU.
>
>The per capita income (GDP divided by population) is nine time higher
>in the US+EU than in China et al, so for everyone to have the same
>per-capita income, China et al must increase their economic activity
>level by a factor of nine per capita, with almost four times the
>population, for a net factor of 4*9 = 36.
>
>So the West is 1/36 = 2.8% of the World story. This is a round off
>error. Nothing the West can do matters one whit.

And the behavior of Berkeley matters even less, but doesn't stop them
from doing crazy draconian stuff.