'Untold human suffering' is in the near future as U.N. warns climate change is pushing Earth closer to extreme warming

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, userabcd said:

Worlds baby boom never stopped.

 

 

Every new initiative implemented by govt and private industry contributes additionally to global warming.

 

There are just too many consumers the world over all wanting global warming stuff (making more babies, controlling and restricting wildlife, housing, land, travel, cars, phones, jobs, water, electricity holidays, offices, farms, etc..)

 

Deforestation in SE Asia

 

Similar is happening in South America.

 

 

 

SE Asia? Or perhaps just a sample of it called Borneo?

 

Until relatively recently, the term "baby boom" commonly applied to Europe and some other countries impacted by population losses after the C20 world wars followed by brief very productive recovery periods. In Europe, that trend has now reversed. Africa is now having the most babies, with many more surviving far longer than they used to. So baby-booming is a dynamic variable, by region. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by nauseus

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Sorry, not correct. EV's are no more efficient than ICE cars when they are refueled from a coal, oil or gas burning power station. It's only when they are recharged from nuclear or renewable power stations the claim of efficiency stacks up. In point of fact, the energy input into the manufacture of an EV is greater than that of of an ICE, those big batteries require a lot of carbon emissions to make.

 

The running COST of an EV is considerably less, however, that should not be confused with efficiency.

 

The car industry aspect has limited significance anyway. If I was to replace every ICE in Australia with an EV overnight, it would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a mere 8%. Fossil-fuelled generators are the real culprits.

 

It's irrelevant to me anyway. I'll be dead before the real <deleted> happens. It's just the stupidity and ignorance of climate deniers that would not know the laws of thermodynamics from a teapot cosy that depresses me.

The efficiency of electrical power generation is considerably higher than that of an internal combustion engine.

 

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The efficiency of electrical power generation is considerably higher than that of an internal combustion engine.

 

 

 

 

Burning coal, oil and gas at a power station to generate electricity is the same process that an ICE employs. Explain how said process magically improves in efficiency when they are both based on combustion of a fossil fuel.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Burning coal, oil and gas at a power station to generate electricity is the same process that an ICE employs. Explain how said process magically improves in efficiency when they are both based on combustion of a fossil fuel.

Well, for one thing, you're not taking into account the greater efficiency of an electric motor and the restorative effects of regenerative braking. 

[still kicking]

On 10/29/2022 at 4:39 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Long past the point of no return IMO. Forcing us to drive electric cars ain't going to fix it either.

Adding to that I am 75 years old I can't buy any car let alone an electric one can't even get a credid card

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, for one thing, you're not taking into account the greater efficiency of an electric motor and the restorative effects of regenerative braking. 

LOL. Surely you are not claiming that an increase in efficiency by electric cars ( a tiny, tiny number of vehicles worldwide ) is going to make any difference to world pollution? I'm pretty sure car numbers are increasing, not decreasing, so any increase in efficiency is cancelled out by greater numbers of vehicles.

[Lacessit]

A confused poster here, apparently claiming power stations use regenerative braking to enhance efficiency. I get the feeling my post was completely misunderstood......

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Surely you are not claiming that an increase in efficiency by electric cars ( a tiny, tiny number of vehicles worldwide ) is going to make any difference to world pollution? I'm pretty sure car numbers are increasing, not decreasing, so any increase in efficiency is cancelled out by greater numbers of vehicles.

You sure you want to go with that? You have a problem with a concept called the future? As EV's and renewables' shares of their respective market increases and ICE declines, you're claiming that this will make no difference to what would be the case were there no EV's?

Edited October 30, 2022 by placeholder

[Eleftheros]

Whatever the competing claims of EVs may be, the reality is that the world is now transitioning to fossil fuels, not away from them, as Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser is reported to have said.

 

In particular, coal use is increasing across the world, according to the International Energy Agency, having risen 6% in 2021 and returning to the record high levels of 10 years ago. It will, IEA says, be several years before coal use starts to fall again.

 

So no matter how many high-sounding platitudes are issued by the 30,000 jet-setters at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, the reality on the ground is rather different.

 

It will be hard for Western economies to protect themselves from being victims of their own green policies that neither produce the required energy nor save the planet.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Burning coal, oil and gas at a power station to generate electricity is the same process that an ICE employs. Explain how said process magically improves in efficiency when they are both based on combustion of a fossil fuel.

It seems you are unaware of the principles of ‘efficiency in energy conversion’ while at the same time oblivious you to fact that an increasing percentage of electricity generation is coming from renewable sources.

 

Power stations are very much more efficient at converting fossil fuels into energy than are Internal Combustion engines.

 

EVs  then use that electrical energy at a very high efficiency, typically north of 85%.

 

The result is EVs use considerably less energy for a given journey.

 

Now factor in the fact much of that electrical energy comes from renewables and you have your answer.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Surely you are not claiming that an increase in efficiency by electric cars ( a tiny, tiny number of vehicles worldwide ) is going to make any difference to world pollution? I'm pretty sure car numbers are increasing, not decreasing, so any increase in efficiency is cancelled out by greater numbers of vehicles.

Surely there is data?

 

 

 

Yes there is:

 

https://www.iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Whatever the competing claims of EVs may be, the reality is that the world is now transitioning to fossil fuels, not away from them, as Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser is reported to have said.

 

In particular, coal use is increasing across the world, according to the International Energy Agency, having risen 6% in 2021 and returning to the record high levels of 10 years ago. It will, IEA says, be several years before coal use starts to fall again.

 

So no matter how many high-sounding platitudes are issued by the 30,000 jet-setters at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, the reality on the ground is rather different.

 

It will be hard for Western economies to protect themselves from being victims of their own green policies that neither produce the required energy nor save the planet.

You are citing reports from the Saudi Oil Industry.

 

Do you think they might be a tad biased?

[Eleftheros]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are citing reports from the Saudi Oil Industry.

 

Do you think they might be a tad biased?

I'm citing a tweet from the Saudi Oil industry, and a report from the International Energy Agency, which is a very keen supporter of renewable energy.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You sure you want to go with that? You have a problem with a concept called the future? As EV's and renewables' shares of their respective market increases and ICE declines, you're claiming that this will make no difference to what would be the case were there no EV's?

You sure you want to go with that?

Electric cars rely on difficult to obtain raw materials that are mainly produced in China, and if the Chinese decide to restrict sale of those materials to the west, electric car industry goes poof.

However, had the better option of hydrogen been used instead of batteries, there would be no problem as hydrogen can be made anywhere there is water. Also no need to build bigger and expensive electrical generation infrastructure. IMO we got sold a lemon by those looking to cash in on the climate change thing.

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Whatever the competing claims of EVs may be, the reality is that the world is now transitioning to fossil fuels, not away from them, as Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser is reported to have said.

 

In particular, coal use is increasing across the world, according to the International Energy Agency, having risen 6% in 2021 and returning to the record high levels of 10 years ago. It will, IEA says, be several years before coal use starts to fall again.

 

So no matter how many high-sounding platitudes are issued by the 30,000 jet-setters at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, the reality on the ground is rather different.

 

It will be hard for Western economies to protect themselves from being victims of their own green policies that neither produce the required energy nor save the planet.

Well said. While electric vehicles may be popular among western woke luvvies, the idea that they will take over in remote parts of the world with barely any infrastructure is laughable.

For a start they are too expensive for any but rich people, are too dependent on hi tech to be repaired in a village workshop, and who is going to pay for the charging infrastructure?

I have nothing against using ordinary vehicle batteries to mobilize simple technology electric vehicles that can be fixed by a local village workshop, and that technology has existed for a long time. Electric cars were used in the 1870s.

[thaibeachlovers]

44 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

So no matter how many high-sounding platitudes are issued by the 30,000 jet-setters at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, the reality on the ground is rather different.

Oh the sheer hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" mob. They could do it by teleconferencing, but lux resort holiday at taxpayer expense is so alluring they just can't resist.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I'm citing a tweet from the Saudi Oil industry, and a report from the International Energy Agency, which is a very keen supporter of renewable energy.

You forgot to mention the IEA report identifies the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on gas supplies is driving a ‘replacement with coal’ and the fact the growth also includes post COVID recovery.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said. While electric vehicles may be popular among western woke luvvies, the idea that they will take over in remote parts of the world with barely any infrastructure is laughable.

For a start they are too expensive for any but rich people, are too dependent on hi tech to be repaired in a village workshop, and who is going to pay for the charging infrastructure?

I have nothing against using ordinary vehicle batteries to mobilize simple technology electric vehicles that can be fixed by a local village workshop, and that technology has existed for a long time. Electric cars were used in the 1870s.

You let your ‘woke luvvies’ thing get the better of you again.

You might have seen a few EVs and Hybrids running around ‘non Western’ Thailand.

 

 

[Walker88]

On 10/29/2022 at 3:31 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

You have reputedly made a connection between those who support tackling climate change and ‘Globalists’.

 

Can you please explain the basis of the connection you make?

 

"Globalist Agenda" is a buzzterm those without a coherent argument, and those susceptible to the silliest conspiracy theories, embrace.

 

I suspect we're only moments away from Ten Foot Shape-Shifting Lizard People from the rogue planet Nibiru shooting mind-controlling chemtrails over our heads so we'll buy illicit drugs run from Afghanistan by the CIA and a company headed by Queen Elizabeth, the Rockefellas, the Rothschilds and George Soros, because one conspiracy is never enough.

 

Oh, and then admonish us to 'do your research'. which is to say goal seek on the internet.

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Surely there is data?

 

 

 

Yes there is:

 

https://www.iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles

This report says absolutely nothing and has no data concerning the relative efficiency of power stations and ICE's when both are burning fossil fuels.

 

You are correct in saying an EV is much more efficient than an ICE when it is fueled by renewable energy.

 

Mae Moh supplies the majority of electrical power in Northwest Thailand. It generates electricity from lignite, the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet. It is currently expanding capacity.

 

Lignite has to be chemically treated first, to remove impurities such as arsenic. The incoming fuel contains approximately 32% water.

 

This power station is converting such fuel to electricity more efficiently than an ICE burning straight diesel or gasoline? That has to be up there with some of the most ridiculous and stupid propositions posted on ASEAN.

 

I suggest you post facts, not your beliefs.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said. While electric vehicles may be popular among western woke luvvies, the idea that they will take over in remote parts of the world with barely any infrastructure is laughable.

For a start they are too expensive for any but rich people, are too dependent on hi tech to be repaired in a village workshop, and who is going to pay for the charging infrastructure?

I have nothing against using ordinary vehicle batteries to mobilize simple technology electric vehicles that can be fixed by a local village workshop, and that technology has existed for a long time. Electric cars were used in the 1870s.

Remote parts of the world are not contributing to greenhouse gas. They barely can afford transportation. Poor attempt at denialism and diversion.  

[Eleftheros]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You forgot to mention the IEA report identifies the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on gas supplies is driving a ‘replacement with coal’ and the fact the growth also includes post COVID recovery.

Yes. But why is western Europe, in particular, so reliant on gas supplies from Russia?

 

Because that was a key plank of the Green fantasy demand to quickly transition to "cleaner" fuels. They were warned directly about the dangers that posed, not least in a geopolitical sense, but they chose to laugh off those warnings.

 

And now they are, literally, paying the price for their foolishness.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You sure you want to go with that?

Electric cars rely on difficult to obtain raw materials that are mainly produced in China, and if the Chinese decide to restrict sale of those materials to the west, electric car industry goes poof.

However, had the better option of hydrogen been used instead of batteries, there would be no problem as hydrogen can be made anywhere there is water. Also no need to build bigger and expensive electrical generation infrastructure. IMO we got sold a lemon by those looking to cash in on the climate change thing.

That's the case now, but it won't be for the future. Already rare earth mines are being developed outside of China.

 

As for the better option being used...you think there was a committee and they decided let's go with batteries instead of hydrogen? At the time, hydrogen seemed a far less promising choice. There have since been some major development and hydrogen may well end up winning out. Developments are way ahead predictions. Much like the case with solar, wind, and batteries. Certainly there's a of promise in hydrogen being used to store excess wind and solar power.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes. But why is western Europe, in particular, so reliant on gas supplies from Russia?

 

Because that was a key plank of the Green fantasy demand to quickly transition to "cleaner" fuels. They were warned directly about the dangers that posed, not least in a geopolitical sense, but they chose to laugh off those warnings.

 

And now they are, literally, paying the price for their foolishness.

The decision to use Russian gas was not part of any ‘Green Agenda’, it’s a decision made in the late 70s early 80s when Russian gas fields opened offering extremely cheap energy.

 

But energy security is an issue, and a very significant benefit of renewables.

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

This report says absolutely nothing and has no data concerning the relative efficiency of power stations and ICE's when both are burning fossil fuels.

 

You are correct in saying an EV is much more efficient than an ICE when it is fueled by renewable energy.

 

Mae Moh supplies the majority of electrical power in Northwest Thailand. It generates electricity from lignite, the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet. It is currently expanding capacity.

 

Lignite has to be chemically treated first, to remove impurities such as arsenic. The incoming fuel contains approximately 32% water.

 

This power station is converting such fuel to electricity more efficiently than an ICE burning straight diesel or gasoline? That has to be up there with some of the most ridiculous and stupid propositions posted on ASEAN.

 

I suggest you post facts, not your beliefs.

I suggest you go back and read TBL’s post I was responding to.

 

And yes, power stations are more efficient than internal combustion engines.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station

[BritManToo]

20 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes. But why is western Europe, in particular, so reliant on gas supplies from Russia?

 

Because that was a key plank of the Green fantasy demand to quickly transition to "cleaner" fuels. They were warned directly about the dangers that posed, not least in a geopolitical sense, but they chose to laugh off those warnings.

 

And now they are, literally, paying the price for their foolishness.

Trump warned Germany not to rely on Russian oil and gas ....... and they laughed at him .......

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-usa-germany-idUSKCN1M527Y

 

Who's laughing now?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/25/trump-accused-germany-becoming-totally-dependent-russian-energy-un-germans-just-smirked/

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yes, power stations are more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Assuming you don't pick a war with Russia!

When they sell you all your oil and gas.

 

It'll be an interesting winter in Germany.

Edited October 31, 2022 by BritManToo

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes. But why is western Europe, in particular, so reliant on gas supplies from Russia?

 

Because that was a key plank of the Green fantasy demand to quickly transition to "cleaner" fuels. They were warned directly about the dangers that posed, not least in a geopolitical sense, but they chose to laugh off those warnings.

 

And now they are, literally, paying the price for their foolishness.

Nonsense. Germany began importing Russian gas in 1970, before climate change was even an issue. The motivation was the belief that commerce would lead to peaceful relations between the West and Russia. Actually, it wasn't Russia but the Soviet Union.  Have you already forgotten the cold war. The German phrase used to justify this commerce was Wandel durch Handel. Peace through trade

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Assuming you don't pick a war with Russia!

When they sell you all your oil and gas.

 

It'll be an interesting winter in Germany.

Germany has plenty of gas for its heating in winter. 90+ full reserves

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Assuming you don't pick a war with Russia!

When they sell you all your oil and gas.

 

It'll be an interesting winter in Germany.

Nobody picked a war with Russia.