Yes, they are nuts. So I'll have some nuts with my beer.

You're right that it’s impossible. They’ll greenwash the stats. Similar to how Canberra has cut to 0%, despite still using the same coal and gas fired power as the rest of the east coast.

Is there a plan for that based on current technology, or is it based on new emerging technologies saving the day? Maybe there isn't even a plan on how to achieve that goal?

Pie in the sky. No plan.

Gurgler? Translation please :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Hokie, if you look at the per capita stats, your graph is almost backwards... that's why the major footprinters ignore the per capita numbers...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

sigh, statistics (again, and the same ones).


but to Greg's point ... politicians will say anything (if they wanted to do something they'd prohibit mining coal in the first place). Sooner or later another politican will propose the opposite.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

SnTman, I took gurgler to be equivalent to toilet or loo, from the noise they make when flushed.

Quote (politicians will say anything)

They're interested in what's good for themselves and their party, not what's best for the country... sad

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (sigh, statistics (again, and the same ones).)

If you have some new ones, I'd be happy to see them... many people get the carbon footprint wrong. It's the per capita that is important. It shows who is responsible and who has to cut back the most.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

btb ... yes, the onomatopoeia works.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

From the Intercept, a newspaper I subscribe to:

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Noo, keep it to links so we don't have to read this brainwashed nonsense.

Btb, rb, yes, makes sense, thx :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

There’s no question Australia’s overheating is more down to its geography and not very much due to its own carbon emissions. (The cartoon is a bit tasteless and repeats the bad argument that contributing relatively little should give them a carbon reduction bye.) It’s a global issue.

Australia’s coal exports however are outsized compared to its population, and a lot of it is feeding the China juggernaut.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Choosing your favorite statistics is endemic. I'll take you as an example, dik. When comparing deaths due to Covid, you choose total deaths to make the US look the worst. When you talk about CO2 emissions, you choose per capita, as you want Australia to look the worst, at least a little bit worse than your own big open country.

It's going to be interesting to see how they play this. They might use per capita, because a growing population then helps. We could import a few million refos and tell them they can't use any power. They could do a New Zealand and exclude their largest CO2 emitting sector. There's some very dodgy accounting when it comes to forestry and land use changes. There may be some more tricks up their sleeves.

@Lionel- there is no plan. In another thread I estimated that if they want to keep the lights on it needs about $30 Billion of capital spending /every/ year if they persist in non-nuclear folly. That's not completely unfeasible at current interest rates, but at some point the pimply youths we are 'saving' will have to pay it back. Which since they are the ones bleating and moaning is fair enough I suppose.

here's where it comes from

• energy (burning fossil fuels to produce electricity) contributed 33.6 per cent of the total emissions
• stationary energy (including manufacturing, mining, residential and commercial fuel use) 20.4 per cent
• transport 17.6 per cent
• agriculture 14.6 per cent
• fugitive emissions 10.0 per cent
• industrial processes 6.2 per cent
• waste 2.7 per cent

Of course if/when the whole thing falls apart then the first major party to refine the target number to whatever has been achieved will be a shoo-in (certainty) at the 2028 elections.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Oh, and why not post the per capita number of coal plants by country dik? Let me know how it turns out.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

One thing that surprised me in the IEA link is how prominent, even dominant, Indonesia is as an exporter of coal to China. But they don’t seem to be getting any grief over it - free pass for developing countries?

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

There is absolutely a free pass for developing countries, which is why China insists it is still a developing country. I think that for many countries that is reasonable, but I think that it gets silly when poster boys like the Maldives moan about climate change while building new concrete runways to allow more oil fueled jumbo jets to bring in first world tourists.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

The only thing ‘developing’ about China is their Belt & Road plan, aka world domination.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Quote (LionelHutz)

Maybe there isn't even a plan on how to achieve that goal?

Of course there isn't. This is climate politics, not a real plan. It's about slogans, it's about targets, it's about showing "commitment". It's how it's been for many decades. Remember in the early 2000s it was 20-20-20? I.e. 20% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020? Everyone's forgotten about that, and now it's 43% (AUS), 51% (USA), 55% (EU) and 68% (UK) by 2030. In 2030 when those numbers fail to materialise it'll be something different again.

Quote (I'll take you as an example, dik. When comparing deaths due to Covid, you choose total deaths to make the US look the worst.)

Hokie, For Covid, it doesn't matter... if you take a look at all the countries with over 100M population you have the following:



I don't have to make them look worse; they do it by themselves. The US population isn't published, so it's not on the list. The US population is about 331 million (give or take a couple). They have roughly 1,056,905 deaths which gives them 3193 deaths per million... Brazil is a close second, but the US is still at the top, which says a lot. I'm not being selective... but to prevent a few deaths in a small country from taking the lead... I've limited it to countries in excess of 100 million, for covid, too.

For carbon footprint, there are a lot of middle eastern countries that have a large per capita, but they have small populations... they are, nonetheless, still part of the problem.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Covid death rates are a very reliable indicator of national leadership quality, by which I mean lack of quality.

Drumpf, Bolsonaro, the Two Borises…

EDIT: Bojo and Vladimir, obviously. The old boozer Yeltsin is long dead.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Be more like China, got it.

Quote (why not post the per capita number of coal plants by country dik)

Greg... it's still pretty ugly. China is at the top, but when you look at the per capita value, they drop a tad:



but on a per capita basis, you have China, Germany, Australia, the US and Japan are pretty close. India is about 1/3.



and if you're looking for per capita production (Australia is not looking so good):

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

As engineers we should all know the importance of units. Who cares what the number of operational plants is? That lacks sufficient context to make judgement. We really need to know the watt-hours of coal fueled energy produced by each country, or even better the mass of coal consumed.

Just another example of using data to evoke emotion instead of convey information.

Sorry tug... that's why I posted the last screen... since you can have big units and not so big ones... If you had have read Greg's question, "why not post the per capita number of coal plants by country dik?". That's the reason I included the last screen.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Coal production in Australia looks excellent, IMHO. But a lot of that coal is metallurgical coal, and the steaming coal is high quality, low sulfur coal. Until other options can replace coal, little (in population, not size) is more than pulling its weight.

For countries with over 100M population, based on their energy production per capita using coal, based on TWh:



China is at the top with 3.218, the US is next at 2.338, Japan is next at 2.180 and India is near the bottom at 0.672. Time permitting I'll see where gasoline sits...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Good point about the quality of the fuel, hokie. That varies widely and low sulfur fuels are very important. That will bias regions that CAN produce them.

We should understand the consequences IF Australia stops exporting coal.

That won't happen any time soon. If Queensland stops exporting coal, gas, and minerals, the state might as well shut its doors. Royalties are propping it up.

CO2 emissions would increase if Australia stops exporting coal. ABC factcheck agreed.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

What is Queensland, a third world resource supplier with no other economy?

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Quote (brimstoner)

What is Queensland, a third world resource supplier with no other economy?

Australia's minerals industry is an important one. It is only natural that Australia supplies the world. The world needs the resources. Australia needs the money from selling them. It is what it is. No pledge to cut 43% is going to change that.

stoner, Yes.

I think I need to correct you Brim. Australia is an "aspirational" world supplier. Australia provides nations with the materials they need to make themselves better.

Quote (Australia provides nations with the materials they need to make themselves better.)

That might be challenged...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Technically a gurgle is just a typical sink drain. Toilets definitely go WHOOSH.

Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Quote (TugboatEng)

I think I need to correct you Brim.

We’ve noticed a definite pattern with that need.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

From Oz...

https://www.ft.com/content/8ec54d76-7bc4-49cd-a21a...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Found the numbers for Natural Gas consumption, but could not find a carbon footprint, but there should be a close correlation between consumption and CO₂ production. Based on consumption per million. Canada, Russia and the US at the top, with China at 8.3% the US value. I need to find the petroleum numbers.:

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

You may understand the meaning of 'carbon footprint', but I don't. That chart, from somewhere and from some date, is about natural gas consumption and number of coal plants. How do you go from natural gas and number of coal generators to this so called 'carbon footprint'?

Coal vs methane.

The theoretical carbon emissions are calculated by the stoichiometry. You then normalize it per energy output.

Coal has additional nasty side effects, both in the getting of it and the burning.

Methane has the problem when released unburned of being a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. That comes from leaks, from extraction and from either end of a cow.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Be careful about trusting the science.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/05/europe/scientis...

LOL

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Such a great prank. Doubly hilarious that people are upset about the “misinformation”

Twitter out twitted.

so, a few things have happened since the 43% legislation started its no doubt long but straightforward path into law- the opposition is reexamining its stance on nuclear power, the PM has stopped mentioning the $275 reduction in power bills (he's got a mandate for that!), and this was published in the Oz

Sustainable path to powering nation is plug-and-play
STEPHEN ANTHONY and ALEX CORAM

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/sustai...
or
https://macroeconomics.com.au/2022/08/04/sustainab...

Given our fellow Australians appear to want to remove carbon dioxide emissions from our national electricity grid, it is strange that there is no rigorous estimate of the economic cost of doing so. Instead we have little more than a policy crayon drawing plan for the path to an emissions-free grid. Truly odd.
...
A rough estimate of the long-run cost to Australia of getting a grid based on solar and wind is that it may be about $700bn.

I'm a bit leery of it, it is promoting a seemingly non existent thermal storage company called Sunlands (15 minutes of googling) as a solution. However $700B is in the ballpark.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Is their plan to sequester carbon in shipping pallets?

We were all taught that gurglers down under rotate opposite to those in the N hemisphere, but I see a lot of similarities between Aussie and Yankee downward spirals.

Can the OP clarify pls?

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

You're referring to the Coriolis effect but that it effects the direction of gurgling has been thoroughly debunked. What else would you like to learn, brim?

Statistically maybe... the irrotational vortex does that by coriolis acceleration... I'm not sure what coriolis effects are on small vortices?

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

There is not enough of a velocity difference across a small vortice to generate force to cause rotation in a specific direction.

I finally found the numbers. These are 2020 values, so relatively recent:



China per capita uses about 40% more coal than the US and less than Australia, and Canada uses less than half the US. Canada uses nearly the same Oil and Gas as the US and China only uses a fraction. India is down near the bottom.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Thanks Tug, that's why I said statistially, maybe... The qualifier at the end of my statement was that I don't know how big a vortex has to be before it is significant. I do understand that because of the length of oil tankers, coriolis may come into play. Was already aware that, as always, size matters.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (TBE)

What else would you like to learn, brim?

Just one thing - when are you going to grow up?

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Speaking with you keeps me young and spry.

Think of it as continuing education.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

You’re welcome.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Quote (Just one thing - when are you going to grow up?)

I told my mom a couple of decades back, when she asked me the same question, that I'll die a child. I still retain my childhood enthusiasm and curiosity. I hope I never lose it.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

careful dik ... at some stage of your life child-like behaviour gets re-labelled as "senile".

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Thanks for the caution...I'm afraid when I lose my curiosity that will be when I get old...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

In the end carbon has zero to do with climate or weather. Planetary alignments ie gravitation, solar energy, winds aloft, and high and low pressure areas that are properly positioned are the cause.
The climate is similar to food plants burning, etc. etc.

enginesrus,

I urge you to publish your independent findings.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Quote:

The cartoon is a bit tasteless and repeats the bad argument that contributing relatively little should give them a carbon reduction bye.

I have to disagree. I thought the cartoon was hilarious. Especially, with the little Greta Thunberg gal saying "how dare they!". That was genuinely good humor.

It also points out the futility of the US and Australia and such trying to get rid of coal when China is ramping up their coal plants faster than we can shut ours down.

I'm 100% for replacing our coal plants with less problematic forms of energy. However, we have to do something about China too. Personally, I think it should be tariffs on any importing of goods created in regions that heavily rely on coal based power.

Quote (It also points out the futility of the US and Australia and such trying to get rid of coal when China is ramping up their coal plants faster than we can shut ours down.)

There's no doubt that China should be cutting back on their fossil fuels... but the US still has nearly twice the CO₂ footprint as China. Little seems to be done to eliminate/reduce this. Just because China is using coal is no reason for the rest of the world to quit CO₂ reduction.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

but the US still has nearly twice the CO2 footprint as China

I don't think that's still true. It used to be true. But, China's economy has skyrocketed in recent years. Largely on the back of manufacturing and coal power.

Quote:

Just because China is using coal is no reason for the rest of the world to quit CO2 reduction.

I totally agree. We have to get our own house in order, right? But, we are making lots of progress. You can argue that it's not enough or not happening fast enough. But, we have seen a dramatic reduction in coal power in the US. A big expansion of clean energy. Even a big move towards greater fuel efficiency in our autos.

However, we have to use "economic" means to encourage those nations that want their good sold in the US market to make similar changes.

Quote (JoshPlumSE)

I have to disagree. I thought the cartoon was hilarious

Then you are easily amused.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Quote (I don't think that's still true. It used to be true.)

Unless you have more recent numbers... from a recent posting (these are 2020.
China's CO₂ from Coal is nearly 2x.):



So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (Even a big move towards greater fuel efficiency in our autos.)

I could tell from the production of SUVs, trucks, Hummers and high proformance vehicles... Just smoke and mirrors by marketting.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

As soon as the gasoline price drops, consumers rush out to buy gas hogs, thinking the price will never go up again. Then they whinge when it does.

Rinse and repeat.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Interesting table dik, which captures the data that governments argue about at climate conferences.

Would be useful to have a final column showing the products of Pop X Per capita CO2.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

Quote (Would be useful to have a final column showing the products of Pop X Per capita CO2.)

??? Do you mean the population x the per capita value... easy to do... multiply column 3 by column 7. I have all the data in CSV form. I typed the above data into a spreadsheet before I had the raw data.

Problem is that China has 4.3 times the population of the US and India has 4.25 times the US population. Their total CO₂ values are used to point the finger at the huge CO₂ footprint they have... not correct based on population. It's also the reason for not doing anything until they reduce their CO₂ footprint.

Everyone has to cut down on their carbon footprint... even now, it may be too late.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Updated... see how the effects are reversed if you consider the population... makes the badguy look like the goodguy!

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Why is it so important to weigh CO2 per capita? Much of China's CO2 gets exported as manufacturer goods. Should it be the supplier or the consumer that gets punished for the CO2?

It's very important... it shows who is really producing the CO₂ and where the cuts have to start. On a person basis, India person produces 1/10 the carbon footprint as American person... guess who has to cut down the most? I'll check into it, but as I understand things, the China footprint includes CO₂ produced to manufacture US items. I don't know who picks up the 'transportation carbon'?

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

That's the wrong approach. We should be looking at the value provided by each CO2. The CO2 emitted by a private jet flying John Kerry to Switzerland for a climate change conference provides little value (negative value really). The CO2 produced mining for uranium ore provides high value.

I disagree that it's the wrong approach... I agree that for the Climate conferences, everything should be done by teleconference and not 'in person'. They have to set the example, and they are not. In addition there are 1000 people attending the site location for a 'working holiday'. This has to stop... Even Greta used a sailboat for her one attendance... Private planes are one of the first things that should be trashed...

https://www.insider.com/taylor-swift-celebrities-r...

...and these are just some of the changes that have to be made. It could get really ugly.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

A boat made primarily of glass reinforced polyester plastic and coated in ablative anti-fouling paint dumping raw sewage into the ocean.

...another big problem, but different. Other than a 'red herring' that has little to do with the discussion.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

how much of US CO2 is for manufacturing goods for export ? By the same token, how much is China's ?

Who should take the "hit" for this CO2 ? the producer or the consumer ?

Who should take the hit for coal exports ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

No idea, but another red herring... I suspect the US imports a lot more from China than China imports from the US. It may mean that locally produced items have a smaller footprint, which is a good thing. Also it means that things have to 'last longer' to reduce the carbon footprint... no more 'disposable' dishwashers...

Quote (Who should take the hit for coal exports ?)

That's easy... the country that mined the coal should be responsible for the carbon footprint caused by the mining and the country that burns it, should be responsible for their use of it.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

the problem with per capita quantities is that you lose track of total quantities. Australia could stop CO2 emissions, and no one (other than the Ozzies) would notice ... it wouldn't resolve the problem. Maybe an x- y- plot with per capita on one axis and total on the other ? Then the 3rd parameter is total_FF_power/total_power. etc ...

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

The countries that are producing the largest per capita CO₂ footprint should address that... and as a result, the total CO₂ footprint is diminished. It doesn't mean that India or China can sit back until the rest of the world catches up.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

So the problem is that China has too many people. This per capital stuff makes no sense.

So what if the coal isn't burned? It doesn't make sense to punish the source.

Greta's publicity stunt involved 4 transatlantic flights to move crew around as needed, from memory. So, um.

Tug's point is quite serious. Who should bear the CO2 'cost' for a manufactured item? Similarly with airlines, should the Maldives be debited for the CO2 from the fuel used to fly tourists in?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (So the problem is that China has too many people. This per capital stuff makes no sense.)

And, India, too? more people, even will small amounts of CO2, the number gets bigger... The individual carbon footprint has to diminish. Why should an American be allowed to produce 7 times the amount of carbon as an Indian (and screw up the earth 7 times as bad)?

Thanks Greg... I was unaware of her publicity crew? Those actions are wrong... but it pales in comparison to the thousands that travelled to 'attend'. None of this should have happened.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

"Even Greta used a sailboat for her one attendance" ... what an elaborate stunt ! why sail on one of the fastest, most expensive racing yachts ? with, like greg says, a professional crew, probably flown in (and back ?) why ? for the media spotlight.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Quote (So what if the coal isn't burned? It doesn't make sense to punish the source.)

The source only claims the energy used to extract it from the mines... the destination claims ownership of the carbon produced when they burn it... unless it off gasses, then they take ownership of that... I would suggest that the destination is responsible for the carbon footprint in transportation. It's pretty simple.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote ("Even Greta used a sailboat for her one attendance" ... what an elaborate stunt ! why sail on one of the fastest, most expensive racing yachts ? with, like greg says, a professional crew, probably flown in (and back ?) why ? for the media spotlight.)

If that's what happened, it's wrong... plain and simple.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

what if they don't burn it ? maybe convert it into diamonds ?? can they claim carbon credits ??

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Less any carbon produced in the conversion... sure, why not

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Yes, India as well. But start with China, as they are otherwise being a nuisance, while India isn’t.

Heh :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand