GHE theory says that without it Earth would become a -18 C, 255 K, ball of ice.
That is just flat wrong.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic shows 396 W/m^2 of LWIR “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a 16 C BB (violating LoT1), 333 “back” radiates (violating LoT 2) with a duplicate net 63 reaching ToA (violating LoT1 and GAAP).
To add to the ridiculousness of carbon capture, William Happer has shown [without refutation] that infrared absorption by CO2 is nearly saturated, and that doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would result in less than 1C temperature increase, so further reductions in CO2 are pointless. It is hard to understand why any one is working on carbon capture or, for that matter, reducing carbon emissions, when further increase in CO2 will have no effect on global temperature.
This is an extremely important point, Donald. Thank you for bringing it up. Happer's research is irrefutable, and the truth of it is well known in scientific circles. This, too, shows that they are using CO2 as a smokescreen to hide their true agenda: land grab, depopulation, preventing access to reliable/affordable electricity, world government.
The only deployed carbon capture system in the United States, at the Petra Nova power plant, had a capital cost of $8/watt. It lasted a few years and was then abandoned because it didn't work. This is described in my new book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" (no apologies for the shameless plug).
Suggest that where possible that the authors write a CALL to Action with a short message we can send to the ones we want to know that we do not like what they ar doing
Very important point, Barbara. Thanks for raising it. Of course it's essential to write to your U.S. Representative and both U.S. Senators. But it's also important to educate state and local elected (and appointed) officials. Depending on the location, these carbon capture decisions are made at the county level and/or by an appointed public utilities commission at the state level. It's crucial to stay on top of these Agenda 2030 items implemented at these close-to-home levels.
Excellent point, it's a loosing game - nothing comes free. I've done a similar calculation showing EVs add a more CO2 to the atmosphere than a gas powered vehicle, even if you assume a slight efficiency increase in the point of use energy consumption. I looked at CA's EV mandate and my assessment shows that they would need to build at least ~22 base-load power plants to satisfy the increased EV electrical power demand.
HHV LHV
(Btu) (Btu)
CA Reforumulated Gasoline per Gal 113,927 122,174
COAL (Wet Basis) per Lb 9,773 10,304
Natural Gas per lb 20,267 22,453
Natural Gas per cuft 983 1,089
CONVERSION Therm to Btu 100,000
CONV: Barrel to Gal 42
CONV: Btu/hr to Kw (Kw/(Btu/hr) 0.000293071
CONV: Btu to kWh 0.000293071
Gasoline consumption CA (barrels per day) 790,000
Gasoline consumption CA (Gal per day) 33,180,000
Gasoline energy consumption CA per day thermal (Btu ) 3,916,915,590,000
Gasoline energy consumption CA per day thermal (kWh) 1,147,934,641
Average automobile efficiency (thermal to Kinetic energy) 30%
Motor vehicle Kinetic energy per day (kWh) 344,380,392
Electric motor/car efficiency - Electric to kinetic 98%
Electrical energy to produce motor vehicle kinetic energy per day (kWh) 351,408,564
Average power production to supply electrical energy (kW over 24hrs) 14,642,023
Electric power transfer losses 2%
Electric power conversion efficiency AC-DC 98%
Base load power production needed for electric vehicles kw (over 24hr period) 15,245,755
Base load power production needed for electric vehicles mW 15,246
Base load power production needed for electric vehicles gW 15.246
# of Small Modular Nuclear reactors running at 85% capacity (BWR300) 59.8
# of combined cycle gas-fired plants (85% capacity 820mW) 21.9
There's a book that offers answers to environmental wackomoles. Get Real: A Positive Solution to Climate Change by David Munson. Munson is a rancher and scientist and hits all the hot buttons.
The C-capture conspiracy theories smacks of money laundering and fraud to me.
EPA might be demanding CCS, but no rational utility management would install CCS on an existing coal plant and no rational utility commission would approve such an investment.
Thank you for your observation, Michael. Yes, #1 is a fringe benefit of carbon capture technologies, and #2 is a short-term goal. In fact, there are many goals, including the aim to strain our food supplies (since much of the affected land is farmland, and the easements that private companies are trying to obtain by eminent domain prevent landowners from access to the land in perpetuity). The overarching long-term goal is the decades-running land grab.
This is what happens when we allow solutions to come from the top-down instead of the bottom-up. Top down solutions are always centralized and thus corruptible.
We need entirely new systems of problem solving. Like collective “swarm” intelligence systems.
GHE theory says that without it Earth would become a -18 C, 255 K, ball of ice.
That is just flat wrong.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic shows 396 W/m^2 of LWIR “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a 16 C BB (violating LoT1), 333 “back” radiates (violating LoT 2) with a duplicate net 63 reaching ToA (violating LoT1 and GAAP).
That also is just flat wrong.
There is no GHE.
GHGs do not do anything.
CAGW is a big fat NWO scam!
The subsidy of CO2 sequestration (CCUS) rising from $50 to $85 a ton is a bad joke.
The actual cost (subsidy) is at least twice that, not to mention the fact that CCUS, energetically, is a 100% waste from the outset.
CCUS, as described in Net Zero 2050, would remove 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2050!
That means CCUS is also a very expensive bad joke, costing over $130 trillion if it is ever implemented.
By comparison, photosynthesis alone removes about 50 PPM of CO2 annually.
Our brave new world leaders would accomplish in 30 years what photosynthesis does in one week.
So, all of humanity's plans are actually irrelevant compared with plants and thankfully so.
However, our political leaders are clearly GODS in their own minds.
To add to the ridiculousness of carbon capture, William Happer has shown [without refutation] that infrared absorption by CO2 is nearly saturated, and that doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would result in less than 1C temperature increase, so further reductions in CO2 are pointless. It is hard to understand why any one is working on carbon capture or, for that matter, reducing carbon emissions, when further increase in CO2 will have no effect on global temperature.
This is an extremely important point, Donald. Thank you for bringing it up. Happer's research is irrefutable, and the truth of it is well known in scientific circles. This, too, shows that they are using CO2 as a smokescreen to hide their true agenda: land grab, depopulation, preventing access to reliable/affordable electricity, world government.
The only deployed carbon capture system in the United States, at the Petra Nova power plant, had a capital cost of $8/watt. It lasted a few years and was then abandoned because it didn't work. This is described in my new book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" (no apologies for the shameless plug).
Plugs welcome, Van! Thanks for the reference.
Suggest that where possible that the authors write a CALL to Action with a short message we can send to the ones we want to know that we do not like what they ar doing
Very important point, Barbara. Thanks for raising it. Of course it's essential to write to your U.S. Representative and both U.S. Senators. But it's also important to educate state and local elected (and appointed) officials. Depending on the location, these carbon capture decisions are made at the county level and/or by an appointed public utilities commission at the state level. It's crucial to stay on top of these Agenda 2030 items implemented at these close-to-home levels.
Excellent point, it's a loosing game - nothing comes free. I've done a similar calculation showing EVs add a more CO2 to the atmosphere than a gas powered vehicle, even if you assume a slight efficiency increase in the point of use energy consumption. I looked at CA's EV mandate and my assessment shows that they would need to build at least ~22 base-load power plants to satisfy the increased EV electrical power demand.
HHV LHV
(Btu) (Btu)
CA Reforumulated Gasoline per Gal 113,927 122,174
COAL (Wet Basis) per Lb 9,773 10,304
Natural Gas per lb 20,267 22,453
Natural Gas per cuft 983 1,089
CONVERSION Therm to Btu 100,000
CONV: Barrel to Gal 42
CONV: Btu/hr to Kw (Kw/(Btu/hr) 0.000293071
CONV: Btu to kWh 0.000293071
Gasoline consumption CA (barrels per day) 790,000
Gasoline consumption CA (Gal per day) 33,180,000
Gasoline energy consumption CA per day thermal (Btu ) 3,916,915,590,000
Gasoline energy consumption CA per day thermal (kWh) 1,147,934,641
Average automobile efficiency (thermal to Kinetic energy) 30%
Motor vehicle Kinetic energy per day (kWh) 344,380,392
Electric motor/car efficiency - Electric to kinetic 98%
Electrical energy to produce motor vehicle kinetic energy per day (kWh) 351,408,564
Average power production to supply electrical energy (kW over 24hrs) 14,642,023
Electric power transfer losses 2%
Electric power conversion efficiency AC-DC 98%
Base load power production needed for electric vehicles kw (over 24hr period) 15,245,755
Base load power production needed for electric vehicles mW 15,246
Base load power production needed for electric vehicles gW 15.246
# of Small Modular Nuclear reactors running at 85% capacity (BWR300) 59.8
# of combined cycle gas-fired plants (85% capacity 820mW) 21.9
There's a book that offers answers to environmental wackomoles. Get Real: A Positive Solution to Climate Change by David Munson. Munson is a rancher and scientist and hits all the hot buttons.
The C-capture conspiracy theories smacks of money laundering and fraud to me.
EPA might be demanding CCS, but no rational utility management would install CCS on an existing coal plant and no rational utility commission would approve such an investment.
Some videos for you John:
Climate Alarmist After 50 Years of Coerced & Unrestrained Astronomically Blatant Fraud: https://bitchute.com/video/J6IznHFqEiEm [12:51mins
Harsh Excerpts from Thomas Massie's Interview With Hypocrite John Kerry on the Climate Change Con: https://bitchute.com/video/U3lW0RJ1YrWd [51seconds]
Hilarious: Climate Con Man John Kerry Humiliated for His Lies—1.6 Quadrillion Needs Spending: https://bitchute.com/video/Y9gEH5mSTGPE [1:54mins]
Just Greta Making a Mockery Of Her "How Dare You!" Stage Performance for the Climate Change Fraud https://bitchute.com/video/abHzYe39m42q [25seconds]
BEYOND CRIMINAL Greenhouse Gas Cartoon Targeting Children: https://bitchute.com/video/lr1VSZdIY5tS [2:52mins]
Climate Change Warriors Are Buying And Destroying Food to Stop Climate Change: https://bitchute.com/video/FF7UnyHFfRw0 [29seconds]
There are two obvious answers to the question you pose:
1 Because it supports the myth of a climate crisis, which is a major plank of the globalists' totalitarian takeover bid.
2 Money. I assume I don't need to enlarge.
Thank you for your observation, Michael. Yes, #1 is a fringe benefit of carbon capture technologies, and #2 is a short-term goal. In fact, there are many goals, including the aim to strain our food supplies (since much of the affected land is farmland, and the easements that private companies are trying to obtain by eminent domain prevent landowners from access to the land in perpetuity). The overarching long-term goal is the decades-running land grab.
Very informative, thank you.
This is what happens when we allow solutions to come from the top-down instead of the bottom-up. Top down solutions are always centralized and thus corruptible.
We need entirely new systems of problem solving. Like collective “swarm” intelligence systems.