Global Warming?

[Rob-D]

Everything ... physical ie space occupied by gas etc,etc, and chemical ie reactivity to other substances etc,etc. It was an all inclusive term back when I studied gas behavior.

Gee, your moniker is mostly gas who would have guessed you were just fishing?

Boy, was I fooled!

 

[SPYDERLK]

I did some research about energy involved.

Found it here: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf

World energy consumption is about 4X10^20 (That is 4 followed by 20 zeroes) Joules.
Hiroshima bomb released 10^14 (1 followed by 14 zeros) Joules.
So world consume 4.000.000 Hiroshima bombs/year. That is about 10800 bombs/day.

The sun is our best source of energy. Clean, cheap, and the world has millions and millions of years of it.

Yes, but according to my calculation only 70,080,000,000,000,000,000,000 W-seconds of energy fall on the earths surface each year. This is barely two hundred times our own quoted energy consumption. I assume this does not include the energy we consume/recycle as food nor that consumed by other life or the percentage reflected or radiated to space . The earth is in big trouble.
larry

 

[mostly_gas]

Gee, your moniker is mostly gas who would have guessed you were just fishing?

Boy, was I fooled!

Yes Rob some of your finest critical thinking, equaled only by you knowledge of science.

 

[bcp]

Past warming figured out:
----------------------------------------------------
BBC Nature - Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth'

Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.
...
By scaling up the digestive wind of cows, they estimate that the population of dinosaurs - as a whole - produced 520 million tonnes of gas annually.

They suggest the gas could have been a key factor in the warm climate 150 million years ago.

 

[EE_Bota]

"How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?
Estimates of the value of U.S. federal subsidies to the domestic oil and gas industry alone (not coal) range from ç™»nly $4 billion a year, to an amazing $41 billion annually. One recent comprehensive study of U.S. energy subsidies (see graph below) identified $72.5 billion in federal subsidies for fossil fuels between 2002-2008, or just over $10 billion annually. For more information on the range of subsidies, see below.

But in the end, it proved to be an uphill battle to get the Super Committee to take a stand on fossil fuel subsidies and perhaps thatç—´ not so surprising, given the influence of fossil fuel industry money on the Super Committee. Eight Super Committee members received over $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 1999: Senators Back us (D-MT), Kyl (R-AZ), Portman (R-OH), and Toomey (R-PA), and Representatives Camp (R-MI), Clyburn (D-SC), Hensarling (R-TX), and Upton (R-MI)."

Sure industry gets 'tax breaks' but why are we giving the API those breaks? Are we getting a deal at the pump?

Rob

Raising taxes won't assure a deal at the pump either, but I'm sure you know that, and would prefer higher prices anyway...so that alternatives look more attractive.

According to this chart, and you can rank the columns, the oil sectors don't look misplaced in the rankings relative to other industry groups. It is only the scale that is huge, not the percents. I know you hate the scale, since you don't like massive use of the product, and if the scale were smaller, it would be less bothersome to you. I get that.

Industry Browser - Yahoo! Finance - Full Industry List


This PDF is from the API, and although they meander a bit, it is still interesting, and gives their perspective about the taxing of the various sectors, compared to non-petroleum based enterprises.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=api%20tax%20breaks&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunsetoilandgaspartners.com%2Fresources%2FIndustry_Overview_Taxes_Benefits.pdf&ei=RaipT5uLGoW29QScyfSbAw&usg=AFQjCNFXbAnQ2d9aO-PmO-ERvQ8JdSrkBg&cad=rja

To me, the taxation looks fairly reasonable but a bit heavy. I know it is from the API, and you may deem that biased out of hand, but confirm the bias, don't merely assume it.

There is more to taxation than "you have money, I've got plans, cough it up." However, depending on the plans, I do prefer the honesty of that approach to the half truths and vilification of businesses I invest in. If the plans are good, I may very well cough up...depending on whether I think my own government is lying to me and ripping me off again.

None of that in this case, they were not serious at all. I know you are Rob, but you have to see..they were not serious at all. Zero real chance, zero real intent..just electioneering only.

 

[Rob-D]

Raising taxes won't assure a deal at the pump either, but I'm sure you know that, and would prefer higher prices anyway...so that alternatives look more attractive.

According to this chart, and you can rank the columns, the oil sectors don't look misplaced in the rankings relative to other industry groups. It is only the scale that is huge, not the percents. I know you hate the scale, since you don't like massive use of the product, and if the scale were smaller, it would be less bothersome to you. I get that.

Industry Browser - Yahoo! Finance - Full Industry List


This PDF is from the API, and although they meander a bit, it is still interesting, and gives their perspective about the taxing of the various sectors, compared to non-petroleum based enterprises.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=api%20tax%20breaks&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunsetoilandgaspartners.com%2Fresources%2FIndustry_Overview_Taxes_Benefits.pdf&ei=RaipT5uLGoW29QScyfSbAw&usg=AFQjCNFXbAnQ2d9aO-PmO-ERvQ8JdSrkBg&cad=rja

To me, the taxation looks fairly reasonable but a bit heavy. I know it is from the API, and you may deem that biased out of hand, but confirm the bias, don't merely assume it.

There is more to taxation than "you have money, I've got plans, cough it up." However, depending on the plans, I do prefer the honesty of that approach to the half truths and vilification of businesses I invest in. If the plans are good, I may very well cough up...depending on whether I think my own government is lying to me and ripping me off again.

None of that in this case, they were not serious at all. I know you are Rob, but you have to see..they were not serious at all. Zero real chance, zero real intent..just electioneering only.

You do make your points EE.

Rob

 

[Rob-D]

Yes Rob some of your finest critical thinking, equaled only by you knowledge of science.

If you had read any of my posts you would have seen that my focus is on addressing world pollution, which, again, is the problem and is affecting our lives and our planet.

Fossil fuel is directly responsible for that pollution. Why debate whether CC is occurring when we can address the true core issue, pollution?

With that said, who wouldn't want to address pollution from oil and coal?

On another note, right now I'm in the middle of a complex microprocessor algorithm (floating point math) in assembly language, maybe you might want to lend a hand with it?

What's my point? Science is a big field, we all have our areas of expertise.


Rob

 

[Rob-D]

If you are willing to do your own work, generating power with NG running a one cylinder generator is the cheapest power you could install at your property. Recovering the heat from the exhaust to heat water and space. However you would have to run the system yourself, and there would be times you are down for maintenance but this is by far the cheapest thing you could do if you are capable operating and maintaining it. As all this natural gas comes online from fracking it will only get cheaper, and it's very clean too.

HS

Do You know why we stopped using tape drives and went to digital technologies in audio and video?

It's for the same reason PV is a better solution than Wind. Mechanical moving parts require maintenance and parts replacement. So when you say "cheapest" how are you arriving at that?

You constantly pay for the gas and you have to maintain the machinery. Why do you think that's better than a PV module with no moving parts that puts out energy whenever the sun shines?

You're advocating old technology as a solution. Are you typing on an old mechanical typewriter here? Why not? You could write a letter and mail it and I could write a return and mail it back. That's what technology affords us.

An electronic device with no moving parts will easily outlast a mechanical one.

Rob

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yes, but according to my calculation only ... Edit:[60x]70,080,000,000,000,000,000,000 W-seconds of energy fall on the earths surface each year. This is barely two hundred times our own quoted energy consumption. I assume this does not include the energy we consume/recycle as food nor that consumed by other life or the percentage reflected or radiated to space . The earth is in big trouble.
larry

Oo-ops missed by a factor of 60 too low. We only use about 1/12,000 the amount of sun energy hitting the earth. Wheww. Had me worried.
larry

 

[SPYDERLK]

Do You know why we stopped using tape drives and went to digital technologies in audio and video?

It's for the same reason PV is a better solution than Wind. Mechanical moving parts require maintenance and parts replacement. So when you say "cheapest" how are you arriving at that?

You constantly pay for the gas and you have to maintain the machinery. Why do you think that's better than a PV module with no moving parts that puts out energy whenever the sun shines?

You're advocating old technology as a solution. Are you typing on an old mechanical typewriter here? Why not? You could write a letter and mail it and I could write a return and mail it back. That's what technology affords us.

An electronic device with no moving parts will easily outlast an unmaintained mechanical one.

Rob

A plain main bearing fed filtered oil will last a significant part of forever.
larry