Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[Atxshoxfan]

Was was just defending the statement of the British dude by explaining why the word "rapid" made his statement true. Shockm seemed take offense to it thinking it meant anyone who was interested in green energy was an idiot, That single word totally changes the Brits statement.

[SubGod22]

I can't recall anyone on here being a climate alarmist or pushing for green energy now.

I know I support the research and development of green energy and the implementation of it when it becomes readily available and doesn't jack up costs.

Who on earth would be against cleaner energy uses if truly available and could compete with costs? I do post a lot of what I find to be interesting developments in green tech that needs to be pursued further. Not all will pan out but they're generally intriguing and you can't move forward without trial and error.

Cleaner air. Cleaner water. Sounds good to me.

[Atxshoxfan]

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF

Top British climate envoy Grant Shapps called the rapid green transition 'idiotic' in a meeting with John Kerry. Finally a leader who tells the truth.

The part that is controversial is the word "rapid". And to that, he is correct. Setting dates for bans of products that use fossil fuels is idiotic. It's just a plot to grab votes from all the climate alarmists and their sheep, as well as suck in some tax payer dollars.

When we have the opportunity to good alternatives of fossil fuels and can rely on those fully, I don't think many would complain. But untill that time setting these mandates to eliminate gas engines, gas appliances and whatnot, is basically a joke.

It's like mandating travel by captain kirks transporter only by the year 2030. Beam me to work Scotty.

[wufan]

Are you calling out posters on Shockernet, idiotic? Because there are some posters on Shockernet, who have pushed “green energy”, harder than others.

I can’t for the life of me think of anyone that is pushing climate change on this forum.

[ShockTalk]

Are you calling out posters on Shockernet, idiotic? Because there are some posters on Shockernet, who have pushed “green energy”, harder than others.

I may be misunderstanding, but "green energy" in the proper form and proper time is something I think most everyone would agree with. The problem is the hard push before it is logical and can be done with little disruption of our normal lives. Green Energy is useless unless the world is totally on board and doing it. Whatever is done in some countries (USA) is futile if China, India, and Indochina area for example, are not doing it with the same speed. While our "graph" of pollution is staying pretty much level or less, those areas' graph lines are going out the roof.

[Shockm]

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF

Top British climate envoy Grant Shapps called the rapid green transition 'idiotic' in a meeting with John Kerry. Finally a leader who tells the truth.

Are you calling out posters on Shockernet, idiotic? Because there are some posters on Shockernet, who have pushed “green energy”, harder than others.

[pinstripers]

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF

Top British climate envoy Grant Shapps called the rapid green transition 'idiotic' in a meeting with John Kerry. Finally a leader who tells the truth.

[Shockm]

Here is a good listen for those of you/us who are climate alarmists, who have high anxiety, and who aren’t to lazy to listen to an expert on climate change. Bjorn Lonberg always is a common sense person in a world of climate alarmists. This interview was done last fall, but I just heard him and his story hasn’t changed much. It might even make climate worriers feel better about the future.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xf7WOy9QvwA

[Shockm]

People mention a some progress in technology for renewables. That's great. Here's the negatives. This is a movement that mainly is cared about, and being brought on by the west (Europe, Canada, and U.S.). Most of the world (South America, Africa, other developing countries) doesn't care and isn't interested in "stressing" their economies to improve their infrastructure (Europe has no oil, and the U.S. isn't allowed to produce it in Alaska or offshore in Texas and California), and the countries who are being depended on to produce "oil" are totalitarian countries (a few examples are Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc.) who are not allies of the west. The U.S. and Canada do some oil producing, but aren't considered as invested as we once were (we now receive a good amount of dirty oil from Venezuela to offset some of our need).

China and India have no oil, and are still building coal plants for energy, and Western Europe is building coal plants, once again because they have been stretched by the Russian War. Not only are China and India not interested in renewable for their people, China has most of the factories that produce renewable products, and a strangle hold on the minerals used to produce these products.

In short, the security of the West, and the World U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. are in danger because of those countries (Russia, China, etc.) who produce and own the "Means of Production" of Oil, renewables, and nuclear bombs are also our enemies (Biden would call them a competitor, but they really are an enemy).

This is something that should be a "Long Term" project, and worked towards, but not an end to our current economy. Think about the positive that could happen if the U.S. could provide some world security and stability by doing more with oil to Europe, etc. while the world still moves toward a renewable world.

[SubGod22]

An interesting way to reduce carbon emissions in construction, for those that are concerned with carbon emissions.

Sweden Is Trying to Build a Whole City Borough Out of Wood to 'Show What is Possible

A Stockholm development company has a dream contract in its hands—the construction of a whole new city borough entirely of lumber that aims to be a sustainable ballast to an unbalanced city.

Spanning 25 blocks, 30 sustainable mass timber buildings will add 7,000 new offices and 2,000 new homes, with construction slated to begin in 2025, and the first buildings to be completed in 2027.

Known as Stockholm Wood City, the borough is not just an exercise in Swedish woodworking or sustainability, it’s a much-needed re-structuring of the urban landscape since most people live south of the historic center, but most offices are north of the historic center.

The development company in charge is called Atrium Ljungberg, and it appreciates the concept of a “15-minute city” where everything is a 15-minute walk from one’s front door.

“We are proud to introduce Stockholm Wood City. This is not only an important step for us as a company, but a historic milestone for Swedish innovation capability,” Annica Ånäs, CEO of Atrium Ljungberg, said in a statement.

“From tenants, there is a strong demand for innovative, sustainable solutions—a demand that we meet with this initiative.”

Timber construction of large buildings came about in the 90s with the invention of cross-laminated timber, known shorthand as “mass timber.” Consisting of multiple boards of lumber fused together using sophisticated machinery, the mass timber could bear much greater loads and forces. Additional applications made this special lumber fire-resistant.

The article states that this company recently built the worlds tallest wooden skyscraper. I Googled it out of curiosity and it's 280 feet tall. Google also states that there was one recently built in Milwaukee that's 284 feet tall.

My first thought was fire hazard, but the article goes on to point out that the process the wood goes through for manufacturing makes it as strong as steel and as fire resistant as concrete.

I'm not a big fan of the feds in general, but here's a bit on the Milwaukee building and how the US Forest Service has embraced the usage of this timber for future construction.

The burn test proved that oversized, yet unprotected, glulam columns do not lose structural integrity since outer layer charring protects internal layers. In fact, the lab’s glulam columns performed so well, they qualified for a three-hour fire resistance rating. Testing like this supports future code changes. The success of FPL’s three-hour burn test has opened the doors to new US mass timber building horizons.

“Who would have imagined…the tallest timber building in the world is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” said Brian Brashaw, who’s leading the Forest Service’s national mass timber market development efforts. “It’s real, it’s catalytic, and future mass timber projects like Ascent will support forest health and low carbon buildings across the country.”

Mass timber is a priority for the Forest Service, which is championing and investing in the United States’ emerging industry. Mass timber uses small and medium-sized trees to create beams, columns and building components. Removal of these trees from over-populated forests supports healthy forest management and reduces wildfire risk. It also creates new markets for wood products and promotes a more sustainable future.

[Atxshoxfan]

They have some pretty good records, most notable is ice core samples. Also things like tree rings can be used as proxies. There is some debate about accuracy, but it definitely shows increases.

That has nothing to do with demonstrating anthropogenic global warming, but if you disagree with the message, you should do so where the activists are incorrect.

I was just curious. I don't believe we only have a few more years because of global warming, but I do question some of the claims.

[wufan]

I wonder how they measured CO2 back in the 1700s and 1800s? I doubt they even heard the term at those times.

They have some pretty good records, most notable is ice core samples. Also things like tree rings can be used as proxies. There is some debate about accuracy, but it definitely shows increases.

That has nothing to do with demonstrating anthropogenic global warming, but if you disagree with the message, you should do so where the activists are incorrect.

[Atxshoxfan]

I guess this is what you would call science, yes?

World Atmospheric CO₂, Its ¹⁴C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Digging into the details of this article is above my feeble mind but here are some of the conclusions:

Abstract: Our results show that the percentage of the total CO₂ due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Selected Conclusions Out of 10 Listed:

6. Claims of the dominance of the anthropogenic component, C_F(t), in the increase of the CO₂ concentration, C(t), first began in 1960 with: “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO₂ from burning fossil fuel” (^{Rubino 2013}). Despite the lack of knowledge of the two components of C(t), these claims have continued in the scientific literature.

9. An article on Glacial-Interglacial Cycles (NOAA) suggests that recent increases in CO₂ and temperatures are due primarily to cyclic changes of solar radiation associated with Earth’s orbit about the sun. The annual change, DC_NF(t), in the non-fossil component has positive increasing values in Table 2 (https://links.lww.com/HP/A210) after 1764. It will eventually become negative in the next glacial period when average temperatures decrease again as they have done over all of the previous glacial-interglacial cycles.

10. The assumption that the increase in CO₂ since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO₂ and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.

I wonder how they measured CO2 back in the 1700s and 1800s? I doubt they even heard the term at those times.

[1972Shocker]

I guess this is what you would call science, yes?

World Atmospheric CO₂, Its ¹⁴C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Digging into the details of this article is above my feeble mind but here are some of the conclusions:

Abstract: Our results show that the percentage of the total CO₂ due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Selected Conclusions Out of 10 Listed:

6. Claims of the dominance of the anthropogenic component, C_F(t), in the increase of the CO₂ concentration, C(t), first began in 1960 with: “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO₂ from burning fossil fuel” (^{Rubino 2013}). Despite the lack of knowledge of the two components of C(t), these claims have continued in the scientific literature.

9. An article on Glacial-Interglacial Cycles (NOAA) suggests that recent increases in CO₂ and temperatures are due primarily to cyclic changes of solar radiation associated with Earth’s orbit about the sun. The annual change, DC_NF(t), in the non-fossil component has positive increasing values in Table 2 (https://links.lww.com/HP/A210) after 1764. It will eventually become negative in the next glacial period when average temperatures decrease again as they have done over all of the previous glacial-interglacial cycles.

10. The assumption that the increase in CO₂ since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO₂ and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.

[Kung Wu]

Won't be long before they require gas meters on our butts and charge us for farting.

I could never afford that.