Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Obviously trying to reason logically with you is wasting both our time.

Just ask me your chemistry question already.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Why don’t we try a different angle.

If you had 200 jellybeans to share between 100 people. How many jellybeans should everyone get?

User avatar
Fuifui Bradbrad
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6458
Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
Favourite Player: Denan Kemp
Location: Penrith, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Climate change

Post by Fuifui Bradbrad »

gangrenous wrote:Why don’t we try a different angle.

If you had 200 jellybeans to share between 100 people. How many jellybeans should everyone get?
In today’s world, you give 199 jellybeans to big corporate, and tell the 100 that we’re going through tough times and need to place restrictions on the use of that 1 jellybean
Last edited by Fuifui Bradbrad on December 29, 2019, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

I Iike jellybeans
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Well this analogy is off to a good start

Anyone want to help me out with the answer I’m after?

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

I don't mind the black ones but they're not my favourite
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

The black ones are excellent. You can have my green ones.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 29, 2019, 4:12 pm
Why don’t we try a different angle.

If you had 200 jellybeans to share between 100 people. How many jellybeans should everyone get?
You would have got all the jelly beans Gangers.

All the others once read that scientifically proven Climate change events have happened many times in the history of the Earth. That makes them immediate deniers in 'GangersWorld' and therefore unworthy of receiving any jelly beans.
Even when they point out measures that could/should be taken, the denier label is indelible and cannot be removed. In fact Gangers did not give them a 'social licence' to speak and the impertinence must be punished. Deniers so 'Gangers' labeled can never be trusted because 'Stone Cold' Gangers said so. Elitist, arrogant, wrong thy name is Gangers.

Last night on ABC24 they spoke of a plan to put sulphur into the upper atmosphere to reflect the infrared light and cool the planet. The down side was that the sulphur would undergo a chemical reaction to form sulphuric acid and fall as acid rain. It would also promote destruction of the ozone layer which is not good for all life on Earth. It was promoted as copying the effects of volcanic events which cool the Earth. I am opposed to such meddling. Your view?

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

Green are ok. It's the white ones I'm not that keen on. Taste too sugary.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Edit - Wait, was that the chemistry question?

Let’s go simple first RedRaider:
200 jellybeans. 100 people. How many are you giving each person?

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote:Green are ok. It's the white ones I'm not that keen on. Taste too sugary.
The pascal white ones that are lemonade are good. I’ll take those too.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 29, 2019, 3:44 pm
Obviously trying to reason logically with you is wasting both our time. When your mind is so closed, yes.

Just ask me your chemistry question already.
My question concerned the calculation of CO2 volume from burning fossil fuel. When the carbon molecules of coal are burned I presume the molecules are not 100% consumed in the combustion process. Oxidised carbon molecules attract 2 molecules of oxygen to form CO2. How is calculation varied for the difference between lignite and anthracite? There seems to be a rule of thumb calculation of burning 1 tonne of coal will produce 2.9 tonnes of CO2. Is there a standard used for carbon which remains from the combustion process? How is this measured/calculated?

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 29, 2019, 6:44 pm
Edit - Wait, was that the chemistry question?

Let’s go simple first RedRaider:
200 jellybeans. 100 people. How many are you giving each person?
Does that include the black ones?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Fuifui Bradbrad
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6458
Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
Favourite Player: Denan Kemp
Location: Penrith, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Climate change

Post by Fuifui Bradbrad »

** Self edit ** was a dumb post
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: My question concerned the calculation of CO2 volume from burning fossil fuel. When the carbon molecules of coal are burned I presume the molecules are not 100% consumed in the combustion process. Oxidised carbon molecules attract 2 molecules of oxygen to form CO2. How is calculation varied for the difference between lignite and anthracite? There seems to be a rule of thumb calculation of burning 1 tonne of coal will produce 2.9 tonnes of CO2. Is there a standard used for carbon which remains from the combustion process? How is this measured/calculated?
Sounds like a question better suited to Nickman.

I’d assume it’ll be something like you’ll multiply 1 tonne by the fraction of carbon in the coal, by the conversion efficiency of your burning process and by the ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to C.

So if lignite has the lower carbon content then you’re emitting less CO2 per tonne of coal, but you need to burn more coal to generate the same amount of energy.

But no, not my area of expertise.

P.S. you are using molecule where you generally mean atom

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Now give this a go RedRaider:
200 jellybeans. 100 people. How many are you giving each person?

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 29, 2019, 8:06 pm
Now give this a go RedRaider:
200 jellybeans. 100 people. How many are you giving each person?
Nice try Gangers. Your jelly beans are poisonous. One entity alone is producing 60 poisonous jelly beans for you. More people won't be poisoned if we reduce the number of poison jelly beans being produced overall and particularly by the largest producer of your poison jelly beans.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Can’t even answer a simple question RedRaider?

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Nothing simple about that question Gangers, given what I have learned about your nature over the past couple of months. You have my answer to your
Question. Twist away.

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44777
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

gangrenous wrote:
RedRaider wrote: My question concerned the calculation of CO2 volume from burning fossil fuel. When the carbon molecules of coal are burned I presume the molecules are not 100% consumed in the combustion process. Oxidised carbon molecules attract 2 molecules of oxygen to form CO2. How is calculation varied for the difference between lignite and anthracite? There seems to be a rule of thumb calculation of burning 1 tonne of coal will produce 2.9 tonnes of CO2. Is there a standard used for carbon which remains from the combustion process? How is this measured/calculated?
Sounds like a question better suited to Nickman.

I’d assume it’ll be something like you’ll multiply 1 tonne by the fraction of carbon in the coal, by the conversion efficiency of your burning process and by the ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to C.

So if lignite has the lower carbon content then you’re emitting less CO2 per tonne of coal, but you need to burn more coal to generate the same amount of energy.

But no, not my area of expertise.

P.S. you are using molecule where you generally mean atom
Oh, I’m no chemist, gangy
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

You don’t need to be.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:Nothing simple about that question Gangers, given what I have learned about your nature over the past couple of months. You have my answer to your
Question. Twist away.
It absolutely is simple. There’s no ridicule here. No name calling. You’re just afraid I can highlight the flaw in your logic. You’re always telling me how open minded you are and how you like to question everything. You talk a lot of talk, but you don’t walk any of it.

Can I get a volunteer to seriously answer three questions in place of the ever open minded RedRaider? Starting with how many jellybeans everyone should get.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

So one question has now become three?? Beware of Gangers games. He'll promise you the Gold Mine, but all you'll get is the shaft.

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44777
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Back to the coal question, I would assume burning 1 tonne of coal would produce vastly different quantities of CO2 based on the quality of the coal.

Absolutely nothing else is consistent when it comes to the properties of two coals vs each other, so I’d highly doubt CO2 emissions are either.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44777
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

What is also a factor is that there are various grades of coal related to energy (which comes largely down to age, or “rank”). High rank coal produces more energy compared to lower rank coal, and significantly so.

So you actually need to burn more lower rank coal to produce the same amount of energy as higher rank stuff, which will generate more CO2 as there’s more tonnes burned.

There’s also other parameters such as sulphur which can vary SIGNIFICANTLY between two different coal types. Some coals have high arsenic, some have phosphorus issues, like I said, literally nothing is consistent between two different coal-types except for a few rules of thumb in regards to rank.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

The climate change debate locally always seems to focus on the coal fired power. This is a little misguided as research from The Australia Institute with their National Energy Emissions Audit points the finger at use of diesel being the larger issue. Emissions from electricity has steadily declined from 2011 to 2018 but it says these reductions are eroded with increased use of diesel fuels, particularly in retail sales.

So how does that get fixed?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131369
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

If we had a carbon price, we wouldn’t have to worry. There’d be reasonably clear rules for the market... and the alternatives would emerge according to market forces.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 9:43 am
If we had a carbon price, we wouldn’t have to worry. There’d be reasonably clear rules for the market... and the alternatives would emerge according to market forces.
I'm not overly clear on how a carbon price will reduce retail diesel sales.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Diesel is hydrocarbons. Burning it emits carbon dioxide. If you have a price on carbon then that gets factored into the price of diesel and people buy and use less diesel.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

So increase the price to decrease usage. Historically we haven't seen any decrease in usage to coincide with increased price. How much would you need to increase the retail price of diesel to have any impact on usage?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

All depends what the competition and price is. If it gets to the point where cleaner tech like hydrogen becomes cheaper then you’ll see people switching.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:01 pm
All depends what the competition and price is. If it gets to the point where cleaner tech like hydrogen becomes cheaper then you’ll see people switching.
That's the key. You need viable alternatives.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131369
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:10 pm
gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:01 pm
All depends what the competition and price is. If it gets to the point where cleaner tech like hydrogen becomes cheaper then you’ll see people switching.
That's the key. You need viable alternatives.
That's what a carbon price produces. It encourages the emergence and use of alternative production methods, which involve no carbon pollution, or less. Doesn't mean diesel use is ruled out either.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:50 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:10 pm
gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:01 pm
All depends what the competition and price is. If it gets to the point where cleaner tech like hydrogen becomes cheaper then you’ll see people switching.
That's the key. You need viable alternatives.
That's what a carbon price produces. It encourages the emergence and use of alternative production methods, which involve no carbon pollution, or less. Doesn't mean diesel use is ruled out either.
You're looking to tax consumers now when alternatives are not yet viable or available. That's a flawed ideology.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131369
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:58 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:50 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:10 pm
gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:01 pm
All depends what the competition and price is. If it gets to the point where cleaner tech like hydrogen becomes cheaper then you’ll see people switching.
That's the key. You need viable alternatives.
That's what a carbon price produces. It encourages the emergence and use of alternative production methods, which involve no carbon pollution, or less. Doesn't mean diesel use is ruled out either.
You're looking to tax consumers now when alternatives are not yet viable or available. That's a flawed ideology.
But there are alternatives that exist now, but are often less economically viable than carbon intensive forms of production... because the economic cost of the carbon pollution is not factored into the price of the latter. When the cost of the carbon pollution is factored in through a carbon price, they can substitute for the carbon intensive activities. Not only that... it will encourage investment in new technology... which over time will become substitutes. The adjustment process will obviously take time... but it won't happen without it... or it will cost us a lot more... because taxpayers have to fund the so called "direct action". It is not ideology, it simple economics.
Image

Post Reply