VincentRJ

I should begin by stating that I am not convinced that reducing CO2 emission will have any net benefit for the environment. CO2 is the 'gas of life' and the increased quantities in the atmosphere, due to human emissions, have helped to green the planet and increase crop production. In general, warmer climates are better than colder climates, for humanity to flourish, provided there is a sufficient supply of water. However, I'm objective enough to appreciate the benefits of electric vehicles, regardless of climate change issues. My understanding is that BEVs are far more efficient devices than ICE vehicles. If all the petrol used in domestic ICE vehicles were used instead to produce electricity from a large generator connected to the grid, the amount of electricity produced would be far greater than that required to fuel the same number of BEVs driving the same number of kilometres. BEVs are also less expensive to service, excluding the rare accidents that damage the batteries. The way forward is to use our energy supplies more efficiently. The following article addresses the efficiency issue, but it also assumes that CO2 emissions are a problem, so maybe the site is not complerely reliable. 😉 https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/ “recent studies that include the complete life cycle of different types of vehicles, as well as their well to wheel data have revealed that even with fossil fuel-based electricity generation and power losses during transmission from electricity generation to filling the battery, electric cars were found to have lower levels of greenhouse gas production … even on the coal rich Australian grid, EVs produce 40 per cent less GHG when compared with equivalent ICE vehicles. In fact, their well to wheel calculations show that to drive 1km in an average petrol vehicle uses 1.36kWh/km while the average figure for electric cars is just 0.28kWh/km – an energy use figure close to five times less than for petrol cars.”

The main disadvantages of the BEVs, for most people, excluding the very wealthy, are the initial high purchasing price, plus the charging difficulties for people who live in apartment buildings in the city. For those who live in individual houses in the suburbs and have garages, and perhaps solar panels on the roof, the main disadvantage is the initial high cost of the EV. But it seems that is about to change. A Chinese company, BYD, has introduced an affordable EV hatchback, named the e2, which will soon be available in Australia for possibly less than A$30,000, which is no more expensive than an equivalent ICE vehicle. The following site provides the details. https://motowheeler.com/au/electric-cars/byd-e2-12920

The following article from 'Time Magazine' addresses very well the point I was trying to get across. https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/ "Modern economies will always be tied to massive material flows, whether those of ammonia-based fertilizers to feed the still-growing global population; plastics, steel, and cement needed for new tools, machines, structures, and infrastructures; or new inputs required to produce solar cells, wind turbines, electric cars, and storage batteries. And until all energies used to extract and process these materials come from renewable conversions, modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on the fossil fuels used in the production of these indispensable materials. " As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I think it's sensible to search for alternative sources of energy because fossil fuels are a necessity for many products that are required for populations to flourish, and eventually the reserves will become depleted if we don't find alternative sources of fuel. In other words, we should save the fossil fuels for the essential products that renewable electricity cannot produce.

"Once again, you've been claiming that China's has an edge in the cost of power because of coal consumption and that's why autos are cheaper to manufacture. Now you're claiming that power costs more in China because of renewables and therefore autos aren't cheaper to manufacture because of that?. Make up your mind." No. I didn't claim that. I claimed: "If you look at the attached graph, you will see that China's increase in fossil fuel use far exceeds the increase in 'so-called' renewable energy." Fossil fuels include oil and natural gas which are actually more efficient at producing electricity than coal. Coal is used for many products other than electrical energy, such as Steel and Cement production, Paper, Aluminium, Chemical and Pharmaceutical products, and plant fertilizers, and so on. "Also, you're confusing capacity with usage. China has built lots of wind power fields but hasn't connected them to the grid. That's what happens in the socialist sector of the Chinese economy." No. It's not me who is confusing capacity with usage, but possibly the articles on the internet. I can only get such information from the internet. I don't rely upon the Masss Media because of their bias is towards alarmism. "Also, you're mistakenly assuming that renewables refers basically to solar and wind. Actually, renewables also includes hydroelectric power. But if you just take the percentage of how much wind and solar contribute to China's economy it was 11.75% in 2021." No. I'm well aware that hydro electric is an important contributor to renewable energy. In fact, in certain areas which have a regular rainfall and a landscape suitable for dam construction, the combination of wind, solar and hydro, could produce all the electricity required. But such electricity cannot produce all the products that modern societies require. Refer attached image of the numerous products that require oil and natural gas; from the following site. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products Made From Oil and Natural Gas Infographic.pdf

"It seems that energy costs in the US for example, where coal makes up a far smaller percentage of power provided, rates *have been mostly less than in China." We should distinguish between 'total power generated' and 'electricity'. The percentage of total energy in the form of electricity tends to be around 20% of total energy. The articles you linked in your post do not suggest that electricity cost in China are higher. Refer attached image of "Household electricity prices worldwide in March 2023, by select country (in U.S. dollars per kilowatt-hour)" The current retail price for household electricity in China, at 8 cents per KWh, is less than half the price of electricity in the USA, at 18 cents per KWh, according to your linked articles. However, household retail price is not the same as industrial retail price. Your linked articles shows the rise in US industrial electricity prices since an extreme low in 1970, before the alarm about Global Warming began. Refer attached graphic images. It seems the industial retail price in the US, as of 2022, is only very marginally more expensive than the domestic price of electricity in China. I couldn't find a reference in your linked articles to the industrial price of electricity in China, so I searched the internet and found the following site. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/price-monitoring-center-ndrc-transaction-price-production-material-electricity "Electricity for Industry: 35 kV & Above: Beijing data was reported at 0.800 RMB/kWh in Aug 2023." 0.800 Chinese Yuan = 0.112 US-Dollar, which is just about 11 US cent. In other words, the current price of electricity for industry in Beijing is higher than it is in the US. That is strange. How can that be? After further research, I came across the following site, showing the current electricity prices, on average, in China in 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1373596/business-electricity-price-china/ "Business electricity prices in China 2019-2023 Published by Statista Research Department, Oct 6, 2023 Electricity prices for businesses amounted to 8.8 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in China in March 2023. Business electricity prices decreased in the country from over 10.4 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in June 2020. Household electricity in China was cheaper, amounting to 7.6 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in March 2023." I also searched for the percentage of electricity in China and the US that is generated from renewables. The results were revealing. "Renewable energy generates about 20% of all U.S. electricity." https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy#:~:text=modernize the grid.-,Renewable Energy in the United States,that percentage continues to grow. However, China's installed non-fossil fuel electricity capacity exceeds 50% of total. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-non-fossil-fuel-electricity-capacity-exceeds-50-total-2023-06-12/ Any higher price of electricity in China, if there really is any, could be attributed to its greater use of renewables to produce electricity. Agreed? ????

I don't dispute that. China is the leader in the production of many products, especially solar panels and now electric cars. As I've mentioned before, they are able to rapidly expand the production of these products because they have the intelligence to refrain from restricting the availability of cheap fossil fuel, and they also employ cheap labour. If you look at the attached graph, you will see that China's increase in fossil fuel use far exceeds the increase in 'so-called' renewable energy. I say 'so-called' because I think there is a distortion in the claimed percentage figures for renewables. For example, when a claim is made that 17% of China's electricity is generated by renewables, I don't believe that the 17% takes into consideration the amount of fossil fuels that were used in the construction and installation of the 'so-called' renewable devices, such as windmills and solar panels. If it takes, say, half the lifetime of the renewable device to produce the equivalent amount of electricity that the fossil fuel, used in it's construction and installation, could have produced from a coal-fired power station or gas generator, then the true percentage of actual renewable energy would be half of 17%, that is, 8.5%. https://www.iea.org/countries/china

Thanks for your response, Placeholder. I do understand, as new technology is introduced into the market, the initial price tends be very high, then gradually falls as production methods improve and expand. The introduction of the digital camera a few decades ago, is a classic example of this process. I hope a similar process occurs with regard to electric cars. That would be fantastic. However, the issue I'm addressing is the necessity for the continued use of fossil fuels in this process. Ask yoursef, why are all products that are imported from China much cheaper than similar products manufactured in Europe and the US. Do you not understand that the major, essential reason, is the availability of cheap energy from the use of fossil fuels in China? As the Chinese economy grows, so does the use of fossil fuels Another major reason is the lower salaries that are paid to the workers in China. This actually reduces the indirect role of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process because the workers, with less money to spend, will buy fewer products that require fossil fuels, so their 'carbon footprint' is lower than the equivalent worker in Western countries. The actual price of everything is both directly and indirectly related to the energy used to produce and market all products. Consider an example of the same product which is sold in different shops at different prices. The cost of producing the product in the factory is the same, and requires the same amount of energy, but the same product sold in a fancy shop at a fancy price, results in more energy being used because the owner and/or the workers in the fancy shop are able to spend more money as a result of higher profits. Here are some relevant quotes regarding China's energy supplies. "China approved more than 50 gigawatts of new coal power in the first half of 2023, research by environment group Greenpeace showed, with the world's top carbon polluter focused on energy security rather than cutting fossil fuel consumption." https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-energy-security-push-drives-up-fossil-fuel-approvals-research-2023-08-03/ "The new analysis shows that China’s CO2 emissions grew 4% in the first quarter of 2023, compared with a year earlier. This means first-quarter emissions were the highest on record, exceeding the previous peak reached in the first three months of 2021." https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/#:~:text=The new analysis shows that,first three months of 2021.

Great news, Placeholder. ???? Now all you need to do is explain why BEVs cost so much more than ICE vehicles. Is it because their construction involves the use of very expensive renewable energy sources and equipment, like battery-operated cranes, earth-movers and trucks, to mine and transport the scarce metals.? ????

I don't think it's true to claim the technology has been ignored. The major problems with hydrogen as a fuel, are safety issues, plus the additional expense of producing hydrogen from renewable energy. From the following site: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236122001867 "80% of the whole hydrogen produced is by 'steam methane reforming' (SMR) at an energy efficiency of 74–85%. However, steam methane reforming and other fossil fuel based technologies are neither green nor sustainable. Hydrogen, could only be counted as a renewable and clean fuel if the required power to produce hydrogen comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar power." This issue of the 'additional expense' applies to most, if not all renewable forms of energy. Can you give any example of a 'renewable energy' device which is not dependent on fossil fuels for its construction? If one always recharges one's BEV from electricity produced by solar panels or windmills, one might feel virtuous because of the delusion that one one is not using fossil fuels. However, all these devices, such as BEVs, windmills and solar farms, require massive amounts of fossil fuels for their initial production. The reason why a BEV is so much more expensive than an equivalent ICE vehicle, is because the BEV requires much more energy for its production, and most of that energy is from fossil fuels used to mine, transport and manufacture the materials used to build the car and its batteries. As a rough estimate, I would suggest that before the buyer of a BEV has even begun to drive the car, he has already used, in terms of the purchase price, the amount of fossil fuel that an equivalent ICE vehicle would use after having been driven more than 100,000 km, including the fossil fuel used during the construction of the ICE vehicle. This is the major problem that technological development has to overcome, in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In other words, it all boils down to 'efficiency'. The more efficiently we use our fossil fuels reserves, the longer they will last.

As I've mentioned, Placeholder, I don't want to get into endless discussions about the claimed harmful and beneficial effects of CO2. Too much of anything can be bad. People have died from drinking too much water, but water is essential for life. Likewise, people can die when CO2 levels are extremely high, but CO2 is essential for life. The real problem is excessive consumption as countries develop economically. About 2/3rds of the population of many developed countries are overweight or obese, due to too much consumption of food, which is just one example. As people become wealthier, they spend more and more on unnecessary items, such as expensive cars to boost their ego, luxury clothes which eventually end up on the scrap heap, unnecessary large and expensive houses, and many other expensive but unnecessary items which all require the use of energy in their production. The drive towards renewables will curtail that over-consumption, as energy prices rise. It will be interesting to see if the majority of the populations in developed countries accept their static or falling living standards in order to fund the change to renewable energy. In Australia, I've never seen petrol prices as high as they currently are. I recently did a comparison between the current cost of my KIA Cerrato ICE vehicle and the equivalent KIA Battery Electric Vehicle. I calculated the initial extra cost of the KIA BEV would never be recouped even if I could recharge the battery with free elecricity from my solar panels. It will probably take a few decades before BEVs become an affordable option for most people. However, I think it makes perfect sense to attempt to develop alternatives to the gasoline car. I'm all in favour of scientific and technological progress. Potentially, a BEV with an affordable, lightweight, safe and durable battery which doesn't rely upon scarce materials, would be a great achievement. It might never happen, but at least we should try.

Wow! I've just discovered this long thread about climate change. It reminds me of an even longer thread about the existence of 'God'. I don't have time to read all the comments, so I hope I'm not repeating issues that have already been addressed. Whilst I'm skeptical about the claimed significance and contribution of human CO2 emissions to the current warming period, I think human activity in general must have some effect on climate. However, quantifying that effect in any precise manner is impossible because of the complexity and chaotic nature of climate. There cannot be any certainty, only degrees of probability based upon computer models which are fed incomplete data. However, there are environmental issues about which we can be fairly certain. We know that CO2 is the 'Gas of Life'. Without it, nothing lives. We know, from satellite images, that the planet, as a whole, has significantly greened during the past 30 years or more, due to the increased levels of CO2. We can measure the significant effects of increased levels of CO2 on plant growth in 'real' greenhouses. Whilst I don't believe that the current emissions of CO2 are a problem for the environment, I do believe that the increase in the use of fossil fuels could present a future problem which could be disastrous for the world economy. Our prosperity and well-being is fundamentally dependent on the regular supply of affordable energy. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. At the current rate of usage, we probably have hundreds of years of reserves, much of which has yet to be discovered, so no need to worry about that. However, why would anyone presume that the current rate of usage would remain constant, as undeveloped countries become more developed, and developed countries raise their 'working class' to the 'middles class', and everyone becomes wealthier, consuming more energy. I did an internet search on the current world consumption of energy, and found the following site. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix The attached image of a graph shows that fossil fuel use has continued to rise significantly since the alarm about CO2 emissions began. As of 2022, the percentage of energy from nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, biofuels, and othe renewables, is less than 20%, but the rise in the use of fossil fuels, since the alarm about CO2 emissions began in the 1980's, has risen far greater than 20%, more like 60%. Since 1950, the graph shows that fossil fuel use has increased by around 600%. Imagine what would happem if there were no scare about the devastating effect of fossil fuel use on the environment. Imagine a future scenario, say in a hundred years time when fossil fuel consumption was 1,000% greater than the current usage, and the Arctic and Antarctic were close to depletion of their oil reserves, and energy prices began rocketing. Wouldn't it be too late to begin research on renewables? The economy would collapse disastrously, far worse than any previous economic collapse. The purpose of the scare about CO2 emissions is to motivate the development of alternative and additional sources of energy, which are hopefully cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear power is an obvious contender, but has the problem of toxic waste and potentially dangerous accidents. Fossil fuels are not only needed for the energy to drive our economy, but also for many essential products that we use every day. Here's a list of 6,000 products from a barrel of oil. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/partial-list-over-6000-products-made-from-one-barrel-oil-steve-pryor If we develop alternative, effecient, and renewable sources of energy, then we will never run out of fossil fuels, which can be used for essential products that can't be produced from renewables. Makes sense?

From my quote from the article, the resolution is up to 50cm, which means any object smaller than 50cm will not be recognised.

Read the full story. "Operated by GISTDA, THEOS-2, will be capable of capturing detailed colour images of Earth with a resolution of up to 50cm. The satellite will transmit data to a ground station, covering about 74,000 square kilometres per day, providing current, but not real time, accurate information for various sectors in Thailand. The data will have significant applications in emergency response, agriculture, water management, disaster management, urban planning and natural resource management."

From the full story: "The house in question actually belongs to a transport tycoon in Udon Thani, but is leased to Surachate for his subordinates."

Why are the comments so negative? At least planting more trees will improve the scenery and the air quality. "The project plans to cultivate more trees on road islands and pavements across 14 districts, covering 34 kilometres."

The full story implies that the Move Foreward Party was responsible for the 'lack of quorum' because they didn't press the button. Here's the quote from the full story. "A check by pressing a button to certify presence at the meeting showed less than half of the 498 performing MPs were present, leading to House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha to adjourning it until next Thursday." "While 150 Move Forward MPs were present, they did not press the button to certify their presence."

The abbot is also significantly overweight, which indicates he eats too much, which is against Buddhist principles. ????

If you check the actual data, instead of news stories written to create alarm, you'll find that the number of deaths, world-wide, from floods, droughts, storms, and temperature extremes, have dropped significantly since the 1920s, and those figures in the attached graph do not take into account the dramatic population increase since the 1920s. "This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population – showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) – we see an even greater decline over the past century." https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#natural-disasters-kill-tens-of-thousands-each-year There are two major issues to consider here. (1) The reporting of an increase in extreme weather events in recent decades is related to an increase in the improvement of recording such events, due to modern technology, when anyone with a cellphone can immediately share news of a storm or flood from halfway around the world. Therefore, an increase in registered disasters does not necessarilly equate to more disasters in reality. (2) The same improvement in technology also reduces the number of deaths from extreme weather events, because of better reporting and predictions of extreme weather events, allowing people to get out of the way before the storm or flood arrives.

If this is true, then man-made global warming must be beneficial. Do you know that, globally, far more people die from cold weather than hot weather? "Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm

The above statement is also a product of the human imagination. All opinions and perceptions, including scientific theories, are products of the human imagination. We tend to use phrases like 'the Laws of Physics', as though these are facts of reality that can never be broken, yet the history of science is rife with laws that have been broken and replaced with new laws that will no doubt be broken, or at least modified, at some point in the future. The issue to contemplate and address is 'what laws, opinions, views, and interpretations actually work, and/or are beneficial to our survival and well-being'? When individuals and/or communities suffer, starve, get killed, and so on, it's usually because of wrong views. Exceptions would be certain natural disasters which are beyond anyone's capability to accurately predict.

In other words, God is a creation of the human imagination. ????

Thailand is a Buddhist country. Buddhist principles are opposed to the consumption of alcohol, which is why there are restrictions on advertising alcoholic beverages. However, these restrictions are a compromise, for the sake of the economy. It's too difficult for most people to conform to many of the Buddhist precepts. "The Buddhist layman is expected to conform as closely as possible to certain moral injunctions known as the Five Precepts. These list five immoral actions which a lay-Buddhist should train himself or herself to avoid, namely: destroying life; taking what is not given; wrong-doing in sexual desires; false speech (including lies, harsh words, tale-bearing and idle gossip); and consumption of distilled and fermented intoxicants causing carelessness. "

I asked ChatGPT that question. Here's the answer. "Thai monks are exempt from military conscription in Thailand. The Thai Constitution states that monks, novices, and persons undergoing religious education are exempt from military service."

You seem to have missed the point I've been making. When talking about predatory animals we tend to think only of carnivores such as Lions, Tigers, Snakes, and so on. These are animals that are far more developed than insects, ants, microbes and bacteria, and are far more visible to us humans, so we tend to ignore the incessant predation that occurs amongst the tiny and microscopic creatures whose existence is essential for our survival. All favourable conditions are favourable because the good guys eat the bad guys. Any animal or human can only be in good health as a result of the good bacteria in the biome killing and/or eating the bad bacteria, and the immune system killing, and/or eating harmful germs and viruses. The following article describes the situation. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061002214703.htm#:~:text=CD8%2B T-cells are specialized,as viruses in the body "CD8+ T-cells are specialized white blood cells that serve an important role in the body's immune system. The cells attack and destroy disease "invaders" such as viruses in the body." "If you use a fluorescent dye to stain infected cells, you can literally watch T-cells consume membranes and outer surfaces of diseased cells." "While we don't fully understand why this happens, one possibility is that the T-cell consumes virus-infected cells to fuel itself in the continued fight against an ongoing infection." "Further investigation revealed that the CD8+ T-cells, often referred to as "killer" T-cells, were literally ingesting parts of the virus-infected cells that they were attacking."

And my point was that no life-form can exist in a non-predatory environment, as far as I understand. Every life-form is either directly predatory, or indirectly predatory in the sense they rely upon others (whether microbes, insects, animals, or humans) to do the killing on their behalf.