• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

June 2021: Earth’s fifth-warmest June on record, warmest over land areas

The oil companies are changing alright, but not because of government regulation, those costs are simply passed on to consumers.
The larger oil companies look like they are preparing to switch to carbon neutral manmade fuels, because of market forces, that is where the greater profits will be.
In addition, it may eliminate some of the smaller competition.
Oil is a commodity just like any other raw material, and has a cost to get it to the refinery.
When the cost to make their own feedstock from atmospheric CO2, water and electricity is less than getting it from oil, that is the path they will follow.
The question is where is that price breakpoint?
That comes back to the efficiency of the Power to liquid process, AND, the wholesale costs of electricity.
Sunfire energy is projecting an 80% efficiency at large scale.
For the sake of discussion I will use a 70% efficiency.
A gallon of gasoline contains 33 Kwh of energy, at 70% efficiency, it would take 48 Kwh of electricity to make a gallon of fuel.
at a wholesale price of $0.05 per Kwh, that is $2.40 per gallon.
A barrel of oil yields about 35 gallons of usable fuel, so $2.40 times 35, equals $84 a barrel oil.
If the efficiency were higher, of the electricity price lower, the economic viability breakpoint will be lower.


I don't think it practicable for the oil industry to switch to carbon neutral manmade fuels via "market forces" to an significant degree. Maybe you have evidence of a recognized source you can cite with a link than your theoretical math.
 
I don't think it practicable for the oil industry to switch to carbon neutral manmade fuels via "market forces" to an significant degree. Maybe you have evidence of a recognized source you can cite with a link than your theoretical math.
Why? They operate on profits, when the profit from making their own feedstock from atmospheric CO2, water and electricity, is less than making it from purchased oil,
that is the path they will take. keep in mind that the difficult part of making artificial liquid hydrocarbon fuels, lies in assembling the atoms
in the correct ratio, what refineries already do after they crack oil.

US navy synthesizes jet fuel solely out of seawater; costs $3-6 gallon
 
Everyone here I don't doubt agrees that legislation against pollution is a very good thing ?

How then does this pertain to CO2 which is a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas ?

Still if there is too much of a “naturally occurring gas”? Could that be a problem?
 
Everyone here I don't doubt agrees that legislation against pollution is a very good thing ?

How then does this pertain to CO2 which is a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas ?
Politics as usual. Money, votes, and power.
 
Quantify what too much is and when does it become a problem ?

Way more human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere over what is “natural” at the present time which becomes a problem when it produces global warming and subsequent climate change which is leading to more frequent and more severe extreme weather events which will be highly negative for humans and other flora and fauna.
 
Way more human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere over what is “natural” at the present time which becomes a problem when it produces global warming and subsequent climate change which is leading to more frequent and more severe extreme weather events which will be highly negative for humans and other flora and fauna.
When does an extra 100PPM of CO2 (0.01% of our atmosphere) represent a problem ?

Quantify its effect by citing peer reviewed validation ?
 
Politics as usual. Money, votes, and power.
Annual global funding of this agenda is expected to reach $2.3 Trillion next year (up from $1.5 Trillion in 2015). To make that number live for you that represents well over three times the annual US defence budget and indeed nearly 50% more than the entire global defence budget

Why is nobody asking who is benefitting from this money and why to date this vast taxpayer funding has achieved absolutely nothing and continues to do so.

Where's the accountability for all this ? :(
 
Last edited:
When does an extra 100PPM of CO2 (0.01% of our atmosphere) represent a problem ?

Quantify its effect by citing peer reviewed validation ?

It represents a problem right now as the atmosphere heats up and is thereby causing an increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events. You can do your own research. There is plenty out there. I am not your Google bitch.
 
Annual global funding of this agenda is expected to reach $2.3 Trillion next year (up from $1.5 Trillion in 2015). To make that number live for you that represents well over three times the annual US defence budget and indeed nearly 50% more than the entire global defence budget

Why is nobody asking who is benefitting from this money and why to date this vast taxpayer funding has achieved absolutely nothing and continues to do so.

Where's the accountability for all this ? :(
Must be in banks of the Cabal.

Have to wonder after the global things we see, if The Blacklist isn't on to something.

Cabal: "The Cabal is a vast shadow government that has infiltrated several nation-states in both their governments and economies. "
 
It represents a problem right now as the atmosphere heats up and is thereby causing an increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events. You can do your own research. There is plenty out there. I am not your Google bitch.

I asked you to scientifically validate your claims and you failed. I'm happy to let others draw their own conclusions from your response :rolleyes:
 
For the people who think 2021 is exceptionally warm, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis just published the August 2021 global temperature.
So for the average for 2021 is .2C cooler than 2020, 1.051C vs 0.808C, with only 4 months remaining in the year it is unlikely that 2021 will be warming than 2020!
At this point, 2021 is shaping up to be the coolest year since 2014.
 
I asked you to scientifically validate your claims and you failed. I'm happy to let others draw their own conclusions from your response :rolleyes:

That’s fine. The intelligent and thoughtful chatters here have long ago drawn their conclusions about your facile inputs and, believe me, it’s nothing you should be proud of.
 
For the people who think 2021 is exceptionally warm, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis just published the August 2021 global temperature.
So for the average for 2021 is .2C cooler than 2020, 1.051C vs 0.808C, with only 4 months remaining in the year it is unlikely that 2021 will be warming than 2020!
At this point, 2021 is shaping up to be the coolest year since 2014.

I suppose it will require yet another reshuffling or deletion of inconvenient weather station results in order to keep the ball rolling this year ;)
 
What evidence do you have that any action taken will make the slightest difference to the climate ?


We've already taken such action, evidence of which I've given you.
 
What effects have you suffered?

Can you prove we need to?


It's not about me. It's about we. Many have and are suffering, incl by displacement.

It's been proved ad nauseum. Must I prove to you a triangle has 3 sides? If you're standing on a railway and see a train coming down the tracks, do you know to get out of the way as those before you are knocked off the rails?
 
We've already taken such action, evidence of which I've given you.
We see no results though that can be quantified, other than things like the 1970's EPA type actions clearing the skies.
 
We see no results though that can be quantified, other than things like the 1970's EPA type actions clearing the skies.
Which is of course an entirely different issue altogether. Nobody here has ever argued that tackling pollution isn't an important priority.

CO2 isn't pollution though its currently a cash cow diverting vast sums away from tackling that very pollution into useless crackbrained money making schemes and agendas

By demonizing CO2 theres currently no way to lose .... ker ching ! :(
 
Last edited:
Which is of course an entirely different issue altogether. Nobody here has ever argued that tackling pollution isn't an important priority.

CO2 isn't pollution though its currently a cash cow diverting vast sums away from tackling that very pollution into useless crackbrained money making schemes and agendas

By demonizing CO2 theres currently no way to lose .... ker ching ! :(

What makes you think that excess human-produced CO2 over and above “natural” does not fit the definition of pollution?
 
What makes you think that excess human-produced CO2 over and above “natural” does not fit the definition of pollution?

Because unlike pollution it is beneficial to the biosphere as the current observed recent greening of the planet bears witness
 
Back
Top Bottom