I wasn't sure where this Israel, Iran and China debacle should go, so I thought I would start a new thread and post it here:

Interesting article disusing Israel's actions in trying to destabilize Iran and how it monumentally backfired and brought China into the Middle East... it's kind of crazy

 

"To the extent that Netanyahu played a role here, his plot has backfired monumentally. If the China deal goes through, Iran is much strengthened and its hard liners are entirely unleashed. The positioning of Chinese security forces in Iran will make it increasingly risky for other countries such as Israel or the US to strike Iran, lest they come into conflict with nuclear-armed China."

Edited September 10, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

Russian troops eating rations 5 year out of date, or looting for food........Putin hat in hand to the Chinese for more.   Yup, going like clockwork.  

59 minutes ago, do or die said:

Russian troops eating rations 5 year out of date, or looting for food........Putin hat in hand to the Chinese for more.   Yup, going like clockwork.  

MRE 4 ever!

On 2022-03-12 at 9:11 AM, Mark H. said:

Meanwhile: the majority world's electricity is generated from fossil fuels and non - renewables

36% coal; 23% gas; 10% nuclear; 16% hydropower; 5% wind; 11% other sources

And, Hydropower creates issues with mercury level and flooding

The world could be 100% EV, and we would still need almost as much fossil fuel as we ever did

I don't see EVs as the way to put fossil fuels behind us - that is just not realistic

What EVs WILL DO, is create a system where fossil fuels are burned only in certain areas, as opposed to all over the highways, the way they are now

There will be a much greater ability implement the latest and best CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES, such as scrubbers for coal and biomass, burning oil at higher temperatures, etc.

 

I agree. Also, the mining and smelting required for battery production will create massive environmental damage. Until the world can produce clean electricity and can find ways to eliminate the massive byproduct of pollution from mining, the EV is just replacing one set of problems for another. It's no magic bullet for the environment. Governments around the world need to stop putting the cart before the horse and invest climate change dollars in clean energy production before making spending dollars trying to force everyone to transition. Upgrades to electrical grids, the phasing out of dirty electricity need to happen ASAP and that s where the dollars need to go. I mean you can disagree if you like, but what part of producing dirty energy to power clean energy makes any sense whatsoever.

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by GCn20

On 2022-03-13 at 1:23 AM, SpeedFlex27 said:

I used to drive Thompson to Lynne Lake. I told my story about hitting the ditch driving back to Thompson in minuis 45 temps. No way an EV could last in that. 

It would be tough for sure. Serious battery tech is needed for our winters.

On 2022-03-13 at 8:08 PM, WildPath said:

China is completely complicit in this and could shut Russia down if they wanted to. We are extremely hesitant as a nation/alliance to put pressure on China to do the right thing because of how intertwined our economies are. One action that individuals can do - stop/reduce buying Chinese goods. We've funded that regime with our desire for cheap goods for years, while casting aside human rights issues.

Thinking about ordering my gas and groceries from China, guess I'll have to reconsider. 

 

CNN reported:  The Biden-led sanctions have caused the Russian economy to collapse and soon default on its debt.

Russia has sent the clearest signal yet that it will soon default — the first time it will have failed to meet its foreign debt obligations since the Bolshevik revolution more than a century ago.
The default could come as early as Wednesday, when Moscow needs to hand over $117 million in interest payments on dollar-denominated government bonds, according to JPMorgan Chase. Although Russia has issued bonds that can be repaid in multiple currencies since 2018, these payments must be made in US dollars.
Putin can’t pay Russia’s debts because most of the country’s dollars are frozen due to Biden’s sanctions.
Russia is brutalizing Ukraine with its military, but the Russian economy is living on borrowed time. President Biden’s sanctions are working. The Russian economy has reached its worst point in the last one hundred years because of Biden’s leadership.
Putin could end the invasion today, but the economic damage will linger on in Russia for years. Putin had one card to play, and that is his military. A crippled Russian economy will not be able to keep its war machine funded.
The Russian dictator may think he is winning the battle, but the world will win the war.

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

. Also, the mining and smelting required for battery production will create massive environmental damage.

sorry but the only type of pollution is CO2 pollution. The masses have spoken. 

It really saddens me that CO2 dominates the discussion so much. 

24 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

sorry but the only type of pollution is CO2 pollution. The masses have spoken. 

It really saddens me that CO2 dominates the discussion so much. 

 

Which greenhouse gas would you rather discuss? Methane maybe? Much more potent than co2.  Sadly, also a byproduct of oil production.

 

 

1. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

U. sinclair.

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by Mark F

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

 

Which greenhouse gas would you rather discuss? Methane maybe? Much more potent than co2.  Sadly, also a byproduct of oil production.

 

 

1. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

U. sinclair.

how about some focus on topics that aren't just greenhouse gases? 

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

how about some focus on topics that aren't just greenhouse gases? 

Plastics? 

5 minutes ago, JCon said:

Plastics? 

plastics are a good one, still a whole lot of deforestation going on in the world, there's all sorts of pollutants going into water ways. 

I just find the singular focus on environmental policy being climate change is a really, really narrow way to look at environmental issues.

                                       

Can't report on the atrocities that Putin and his rag tag soldiers are doing if you kill all the journalists.

37 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Can't report on the atrocities that Putin and his rag tag soldiers are doing if you kill all the journalists.

Purveyors of fake news and enemies of the people. 
Moscow didn't even need to come up with this on their own......

5 hours ago, JCon said:

Plastics? 

Lol that is a good one.

plasticseurope says

"Plastics are derived from natural, organic materials such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt and, of course, crude oil.
 

The production of plastics begins with the distillation of crude oil in an oil refinery.
.......

One of these fractions, naphtha, is the crucial compound for the production of plastics."

so ... sure lets talk about plastics.

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by Mark F

3 hours ago, bustamente said:

Can't report on the atrocities that Putin and his rag tag soldiers are doing if you kill all the journalists.

So far, Putin's troops have killed a total of four journalists in Ukraine- three males and one female. The two males were stopped at a Russian checkpoint but were shot for unknown reasons.  An intercepted and recorded radio conversation between Russian troops near Kyiv revealed that they had been told to see civilians as targets of opportunity.

4 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Lol that is a good one.

 

plasticseurope says

 

"Plastics are derived from natural, organic materials such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt and, of course, crude oil.
 

The production of plastics begins with the distillation of crude oil in an oil refinery.
 

One of these fractions, naphtha, is the crucial compound for the production of plastics."

 

so ... sure lets talk about plastics.

Jesus ******* christ....this isn't about oil and gas, this is about pollution! And yes plastics are largely derived from oil products but plastic pollution is different than greenhouse emissions and climate change. 

 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Jesus ******* christ....this isn't about oil and gas, this is aboutmpollution.

 

Huh? 
 

oil and gas doesnt involve pollution now?

 

this is pretty silly.

Anyway, sure go ahead and post about plastic, or mining, or any pollution you are want . 

 

anyway on to the jets game.

 

Edited March 16, 20223 yr by Mark F

 

1 hour ago, bustamente said:

 

Dumbass Jr. flat out said they don't care if american banks lend them money, they get all the money they need from russia. 

 

It's been in plain sight from the get go. 

20 hours ago, Mark F said:

 

Which greenhouse gas would you rather discuss? Methane maybe? Much more potent than co2.  Sadly, also a byproduct of oil production.

 

 

1. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

U. sinclair.

I thought that the environmentalists were saying that most of the methane was from cows. You mean I substituted refried beans for beef for nothing?

18 hours ago, 17to85 said:

plastics are a good one, still a whole lot of deforestation going on in the world, there's all sorts of pollutants going into water ways. 

I just find the singular focus on environmental policy being climate change is a really, really narrow way to look at environmental issues.

It sure is. Dirty energy is dirty energy. Avoiding one environmental catastrophe by creating another just seems really, really dumb to me. Especially when it can be avoided if people didn't play politics with it and really made an effort to actually, you know...clean up the world instead of peacocking on environmental policy.

14 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I thought that the environmentalists were saying that most of the methane was from cows. You mean I substituted refried beans for beef for nothing?

It sure is. Dirty energy is dirty energy. Avoiding one environmental catastrophe by creating another just seems really, really dumb to me. Especially when it can be avoided if people didn't play politics with it and really made an effort to actually, you know...clean up the world instead of peacocking on environmental policy.

You're going to have to start citing sources if you want to be taken seriously.  While cattle contribute methane to the atmosphere, no one has ever said that MOST methane comes from cattle.

You can't complain about people "playing politics" when you are repeating ridiculous political talking points.

16 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I thought that the environmentalists were saying that most of the methane was from cows. You mean I substituted refried beans for beef for nothing?

It sure is. Dirty energy is dirty energy. Avoiding one environmental catastrophe by creating another just seems really, really dumb to me. Especially when it can be avoided if people didn't play politics with it and really made an effort to actually, you know...clean up the world instead of peacocking on environmental 

Apparently EVs cost the environment more to both make and destroy. If your source of electricity is coal then combustion engines will  cost the enviroment less than EVs. If your source of electricity is hydro/ nuclear/ wind / solar.... then EVs will cost the environment far less.

But none of that might effect whether or not EVs become the norm. 10 or 15 years ago I was listening to a car show ( which I never do ) and the interviewer asked the " expert "  if he thought EVs  would ever become popular. His tone was dismissive and obviously he didn't think much of them. To his surprise the expert said they would push combustion engines off the market. Not because of a desire for a greener world but because they have far less moving parts, will cost far less to produce and the profit margins will be far greater. 

 

9 minutes ago, the watcher said:

Apparently EVs cost the environment more to both make and destroy. If your source of electricity is coal then combustion engines will  cost the enviroment less than EVs. If your source of electricity is hydro/ nuclear/ wind / solar.... then EVs will cost the environment far less.

But none of that might effect whether or not EVs become the norm. 10 or 15 years ago I was listening to a car show ( which I never do ) and the interviewer asked the " expert "  if he thought EVs  would ever become popular. His tone was dismissive and obviously he didn't think much of them. To his surprise the expert said they would push combustion engines off the market. Not because of a desire for a greener world but because they have far less moving parts, will cost far less to produce and the profit margins will be far greater. 

 

Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions.

• FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.

  
  Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. Learn more about electricity production in your area.

  EPA and DOE’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator can help you estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging and driving an EV or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) where you live. You can select an EV or PHEV model and type in your zip code to see the CO₂ emissions and how they stack up against those associated with a gasoline car.

 

 

Myth #5: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.

• FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

  
  Some studies have shown that making a typical electric vehicle (EV) can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).

  For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHGs from EV manufacturing are higher (shown in blue below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

20 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions.

• FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.

  
  Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. Learn more about electricity production in your area.

  EPA and DOE’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator can help you estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging and driving an EV or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) where you live. You can select an EV or PHEV model and type in your zip code to see the CO₂ emissions and how they stack up against those associated with a gasoline car.

 

 

Myth #5: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.

• FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

  
  Some studies have shown that making a typical electric vehicle (EV) can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).

  For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHGs from EV manufacturing are higher (shown in blue below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

My information was from a DW documentary which is Germany's public broadcaster.

"FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing." 

That's not what I was challenging.  I said it depends on your energy source, how you produce your electricity.

 

" FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging." 

Do you know what type of electricity generation is being used to calculate that ? If it is hydro I % 100 agree. So if it's in Canada , I agree. If it's nuclear let's say in France, I agree. If it's in countries that rely on Coal generated power (especially older plants ) I disagree. If it's a world wide average, I have no idea.

 

 

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

I thought that the environmentalists were saying that most of the methane was from cows. You mean I substituted refried beans for beef for nothing?

It sure is. Dirty energy is dirty energy. Avoiding one environmental catastrophe by creating another just seems really, really dumb to me. Especially when it can be avoided if people didn't play politics with it and really made an effort to actually, you know...clean up the world instead of peacocking on environmental policy.

All energy sources have their  enviromental costs , yes.  BUT  those costs  aren't equal. 

On methane from cows :  

I have pasture I rent out. I have crop land I rent out. My pasture will be green and removing CO2 from the atmosphere before seeds are in the ground on the crop ground. When my renters are cutting ripe grain in August on the crop ground my pasture will still be removing CO2 for months to come. I don't believe that was ever worked into the calculation of methane removal. AND marginal land is usually used for pastures. It saves it from being grain farmed. On the other hand there is a good argument about the amount of water cows consume and the amount of food a cow consumes to produce 1 pound of tasty beef. Can 7 billion people be sustained when we feed so much to cows and pigs.

Answers are never simple. People who produce studies will always have a point of view they wish to promote. Our age of information it  making it  increasingly difficult to ferret out what to believe.