Energy, Security, and Climate » Why Allowing Natural Gas Exports is Probably Good for Climate Change
First one overarching point: The consequences of LNG exports for climate change will almost certainly be small.Pee as solution to global warming? | ScienceBlog.com
The result is that the urine mixed with a small percentage of olive waste water can absorb various grams of CO2 per litre in a stable manner and over more than six months. According to Jiménez Aguilar, “CO2 emissions could be reduced by 1%.”How much electricity do solar and wind make on a global scale? Answer: “Not much” « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
The fluid created can be inserted into domestic and industrial chimneys (reconverted into containers to accumulate the urine-olive waste water mixture) so that the greenhouse gas passes through the liquid, increasing the pressure exerted on the CO2 and thus increasing its absorption capacity.
The answer is that 80% of our electricity comes from the fossil fuels and nuclear that the Greens despise. Hydroelectricity, with all its pluses and minuses, produces a serious 16% of the total. But all the vanity renewables bundled together make about 3.5% of the total.Twitter / mark_lynas: I don't get it. Why would anyone ...
Wind power is a major global industry but it’s only making in the order of 1.4% of total electricity. And solar is so pathetically low that it needs to be bundled with “tidal and wave” power to even rate 0.1% (after rounding up).
For all the fuss and money, if the world’s solar powered units all broke tonight, it would not dent global electricity production a jot.
No one connected to a grid would notice.
I don't get it. Why would anyone take lessons on effective communication from Joe Romm? It's beyond parody.
Posts
2 comments:
Re, "Energy, Security, and Climate » Why Allowing Natural Gas Exports is Probably Good for Climate Change"
I get a sense that leftists are shutting down American industry and also want to make sure the rest of the world has access to our gas and coal so they can grow their economies.
Re: Pee as a Solution
I'm trying to think this thing through. If CO2 comprises 390 ppm or .039% of the atmosphere and mankind's emissions comprise 3% of that amount of total CO2, saving 1% of our emissions with urine seems pretty pointless. If total CO2 in the atmosphere is .039% and our 3% of that is .00117, 1% savings of that is .0000117, when, subtracted from the .039% leaves us with .0389883% or 389.9 ppm. Yeehaw. Even if it worked at full efficiency, why waste the resources, time, and funding on such a do-nothing scheme? Do these people even think any of this crap through?
Post a Comment