Why do so many people "deny" manmade Global Warmng?

[longview]

The bottom line does not change. Lithium ion batteries did not have just one inventor.

Unless you want to credit the first person to build a prototype as the engineer-inventor, and that wasn't Whittingham. The development of the practical lithium ion batteries (another way of crediting invention) was down to engineers at Sony.

Why you're so intent on giving credit to Exxon I can't imagine. Is it some twisted defence of fossil fuels?

We do have a way of legally deciding who invented something, it is who was awarded the patent!
The oil companies are often blamed for discouraging battery powered cars, it is ironic that they invented the technology making those cars possible?
By the way, I do not defend fossil fuels, but rather think nature got it right when it evolved hydrocarbons as the best high density energy storage device.
As we move towards a sustainable energy future, one where a portable, high density energy storage device is required,
it is best if we do not ignore how nature stores energy!
The oil companies mostly do not sell oil, but finished fuel products. They also know that the cheap/easy oil supplies are running out.
Keep in mind that the company that is forward looking enough to have been funding the development of lithium ion as an energy storage device in the 1970's,
likely has also been working on man made hydrocarbon fuels!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You don't know about scientific bias? How about how scientists and doctors used to claim that smoking was not harmful?

I just did what is known as a slam dunk.

Do you want to reject all science just because some scientists in the past have been wrong? Also it was only a small minority of scientists that was corrupted by the tobacco and fossil fuel companies. While those few scientists was able to create doubt among the general public because they there used as part of the tobacco and fossil fuel companies' massive propaganda.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

Smoke & Fumes

www.smokeandfumes.org

There a big part in creating doubt was also that media often invented a scientists that acknowledge the urgent need for action to debate a scientists that was against it, so the media could be "balanced". Even if the scientists that refuted the need for action was and is a small minority. So the media should have done like John Oliver and invited three scientists that refuted the urgent need for action and ninety sevens scientists that acknowledged the urgent need for action.

John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Oliver tackles media climate false balance, the 97% expert consensus, and what a representative climate debate should look like

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bodi]

Do you want to reject all science

yes

just because some scientists in the past have been wrong? Also it was only a small minority of scientists that was corrupted by the tobacco and fossil fuel companies. While those few scientists was able to create doubt among the general public because they there used as part of the tobacco and fossil fuel companies' massive propaganda.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

Smoke & Fumes

www.smokeandfumes.org

There a big part in creating doubt was also that media often invented a scientists that acknowledge the urgent need for action to debate a scientists that was against it, so the media could be "balanced". Even if the scientists that refuted the need for action was and is a small minority. So the media should have done like John Oliver and invited three scientists that refuted the urgent need for action and ninety sevens scientists that acknowledged the urgent need for action.

John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Oliver tackles media climate false balance, the 97% expert consensus, and what a representative climate debate should look like

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Stars Tremble]

We do have a way of legally deciding who invented something, it is who was awarded the patent!

One or some of the patents. I have never disputed that.

The oil companies are often blamed for discouraging battery powered cars, it is ironic that they invented the technology making those cars possible?

Considering that it benefits in the short term, gas development (to generate the electricity) it might not be ironic at all. However, there wasn't such a close relationship between gas and oil, back in the 70's and 80's, so it's a bit puzzling why Exxon would do a favor for coal mining and coal generation ... or indeed nuclear, which wasn't dead in the water back then.

The story of Xerox is also apt. Xerox PARC invented many of the basics of personal computers, long before Apple or the PC. While nerds elsewhere were working on kernels and processors, PARC were interested in the interface between computer and human. Xerox funded research on that despite making very little use of it, and when the PC revolution happened Xerox were left in the dust. They made floppy disks and a few overpriced devices. Well maybe Exxon were like that too, when they funded research that really wasn't in their own business interests.

If you noticed that Exxon and Xerox have almost the same letters in their names, don't read too much into it. Probably just a coincidence ...

By the way, I do not defend fossil fuels, but rather think nature got it right when it evolved hydrocarbons as the best high density energy storage device.

Misuse of the world "evolved" there. There is an argument that all that carbon could not have been kept in the biosphere and must therefore have polluted the atmosphere, but the mechanism of organic stuff getting buried was geological not biological. Unless you believe rocks evolve to fit niches, you really have to phrase that better.

In short, it's luck not evolution. You want irony? The natural disasters we all fear, may have saved us from becoming a poisonous baking hell like Venus!

As we move towards a sustainable energy future, one where a portable, high density energy storage device is required,
it is best if we do not ignore how nature stores energy!
The oil companies mostly do not sell oil, but finished fuel products. They also know that the cheap/easy oil supplies are running out.
Keep in mind that the company that is forward looking enough to have been funding the development of lithium ion as an energy storage device in the 1970's,
likely has also been working on man made hydrocarbon fuels!

They likely are. But there will be carbon taxes one day, at least it's a high enough probability that oil majors should be planning for it. Counting on coal or gas to generate electricity would be a bad investment. The main problem with renewables is storage and distribution, so if they're smart they will be planning for synthetic fuel plants wherever the power is cheapest.

Solar farms have a strong future, and I expect them to become hubs for various industries. Oilers have pipelines and supertankers to move their product, so they could set up where there is geothermal, and if they also use atmospheric CO2 as their feedstock I could almost approve a subsidy. Though it grinds my gears a bit.

 

[longview]

One or some of the patents. I have never disputed that.



Considering that it benefits in the short term, gas development (to generate the electricity) it might not be ironic at all. However, there wasn't such a close relationship between gas and oil, back in the 70's and 80's, so it's a bit puzzling why Exxon would do a favor for coal mining and coal generation ... or indeed nuclear, which wasn't dead in the water back then.

The story of Xerox is also apt. Xerox PARC invented many of the basics of personal computers, long before Apple or the PC. While nerds elsewhere were working on kernels and processors, PARC were interested in the interface between computer and human. Xerox funded research on that despite making very little use of it, and when the PC revolution happened Xerox were left in the dust. They made floppy disks and a few overpriced devices. Well maybe Exxon were like that too, when they funded research that really wasn't in their own business interests.

If you noticed that Exxon and Xerox have almost the same letters in their names, don't read too much into it. Probably just a coincidence ...



Misuse of the world "evolved" there. There is an argument that all that carbon could not have been kept in the biosphere and must therefore have polluted the atmosphere, but the mechanism of organic stuff getting buried was geological not biological. Unless you believe rocks evolve to fit niches, you really have to phrase that better.

In short, it's luck not evolution. You want irony? The natural disasters we all fear, may have saved us from becoming a poisonous baking hell like Venus!



They likely are. But there will be carbon taxes one day, at least it's a high enough probability that oil majors should be planning for it. Counting on coal or gas to generate electricity would be a bad investment. The main problem with renewables is storage and distribution, so if they're smart they will be planning for synthetic fuel plants wherever the power is cheapest.

Solar farms have a strong future, and I expect them to become hubs for various industries. Oilers have pipelines and supertankers to move their product, so they could set up where there is geothermal, and if they also use atmospheric CO2 as their feedstock I could almost approve a subsidy. Though it grinds my gears a bit.

I did not misuse the word evolve! Nature needed to store energy seasonally, to be able to capture energy from the long duration days, for nights and winter.
The energy storage device that was the "fittest" ended up being hydrocarbons.

Very few serious scientist think that we Humans have the capability to make Earth like Venus, there is no warming tipping point!

Actually the CEO of Exxon came out in favor of a carbon tax back in 2010 I think.
You are correct that the main problem with renewables is storage and distribution, which is why utilizing hydrocarbon energy storage will solve both problems.
The oil industry already has a distribution network for finished fuel products, there is no requirement that those products be made from oil!
There is also no reason that a modern refinery cannot make the synthetic fuel.
Consider that most refineries already have large power grid connections, and the capability to assemble olefins into any desired fuel.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I did not misuse the word evolve! Nature needed to store energy seasonally, to be able to capture energy from the long duration days, for nights and winter.
The energy storage device that was the "fittest" ended up being hydrocarbons.

Very few serious scientist think that we Humans have the capability to make Earth like Venus, there is no warming tipping point!

Uh-huh. So Venus is just super-hot at the surface, because it's a bit closer to the Sun. Well I'm glad you've cleared that up for me.

Actually the CEO of Exxon came out in favor of a carbon tax back in 2010 I think.
You are correct that the main problem with renewables is storage and distribution, which is why utilizing hydrocarbon energy storage will solve both problems.

Depending on how efficient they can make it. We've been working on internal combustion engines for over a century and they're still not very efficient. Then you add production efficiency (which should be better, big plant is always more efficient than small plant, but still) and transport.

What it competes against is basically the grid. Hydrocarbon fuel will be needed for jets, for the foreseeable future, but even those might suffer from fast underground transport we could build with masses of cheap electricity. Cars and trucks, electric. Shipping, probably hydrocarbon for a while to come due to long service life and the related risk-aversion of ship buyers, but electric or nuclear will make inroads.

The grid isn't currently very efficient over long distances. Hence why I mentioned some industries moving to where the power is.

Overall the development and continuing rollout of lithium ion batteries is a disaster for fossil fuels. They'll sell more gas over a decade or so, but less oil. The synthetics market you speak of won't have room for all of them. Good luck to Exxon if they're the one, but they're not the only one and don't be surprised if the others use their lobbying power to put taxes on synthetic fuel.

The oil industry already has a distribution network for finished fuel products, there is no requirement that those products be made from oil!

Isn't a lot of that distribution network trucks? They don't last forever.

There is also no reason that a modern refinery cannot make the synthetic fuel.
Consider that most refineries already have large power grid connections, and the capability to assemble olefins into any desired fuel.

Yeah, I'm not sure that putting small molecules together to make liquid fuel really has much overlap with extracting carbon from the atmosphere. Let alone processing organic waste.

 

[longview]

Uh-huh. So Venus is just super-hot at the surface, because it's a bit closer to the Sun. Well I'm glad you've cleared that up for me.



Depending on how efficient they can make it. We've been working on internal combustion engines for over a century and they're still not very efficient. Then you add production efficiency (which should be better, big plant is always more efficient than small plant, but still) and transport.

What it competes against is basically the grid. Hydrocarbon fuel will be needed for jets, for the foreseeable future, but even those might suffer from fast underground transport we could build with masses of cheap electricity. Cars and trucks, electric. Shipping, probably hydrocarbon for a while to come due to long service life and the related risk-aversion of ship buyers, but electric or nuclear will make inroads.

The grid isn't currently very efficient over long distances. Hence why I mentioned some industries moving to where the power is.

Overall the development and continuing rollout of lithium ion batteries is a disaster for fossil fuels. They'll sell more gas over a decade or so, but less oil. The synthetics market you speak of won't have room for all of them. Good luck to Exxon if they're the one, but they're not the only one and don't be surprised if the others use their lobbying power to put taxes on synthetic fuel.



Isn't a lot of that distribution network trucks? They don't last forever.



Yeah, I'm not sure that putting small molecules together to make liquid fuel really has much overlap with extracting carbon from the atmosphere. Let alone processing organic waste.

As for Venus, consider the length of a day, 116 days!
Feel free to cite a peer reviewed paper that shows a path of how Human activity can make Earth like Venus?

Do you understand why an IC heat engine has limits on how efficient it can be? Look up Mr. Carnot!
Where IC heat engines beat battery electrics is in energy density, even counting the fact that a heat engine can only extract 20% of the energy from gasoline,
gasoline still carries about 5 times the energy per pound as the best batteries. Energy densities
Batteries could get better, but a 5X improvement in energy density is unlikely short of a major breakthrough.
We also have to consider the possible improvements to how hydrocarbon fuels can be used!
A steam reformer, combined with a fuel cell, could allow ~60% of the energy in gasoline to be used,
and both technologies already exists separately.
Toyota Mirai
Steam reformation

For fuel cells​

There is also interest in the development of much smaller units based on similar technology to produce hydrogen as a feedstock for fuel cells.[23] Small-scale steam reforming units to supply fuel cells are currently the subject of research and development, typically involving the reforming of methanol, but other fuels are also being considered such as propane, gasoline, autogas, diesel fuel, and ethanol.[24][25]

The battery electric vehicles are a limited market, great for a second city car, but not viable for how most people use their cars in an annual cycle.
Perhaps they could include a free fuel car rental for when people want to do things outside the capability of the battery electrics.
I see serial hybrids taking most of the market, perhaps IC, until the fuel cell vehicles are optimized.

Actually trucks are the last few miles, most of the distribution is pipelines.

It takes about 4 lbs of carbon to make a 6 lb gallon of gasoline, if that carbon is extracted from atmospheric CO2,
when the fuel is burned, no new CO2 is emitted!

I am not sure what organic waste there will be from splitting hydrogen out of water, and separating carbon form CO2,
the only emission is oxygen.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

As for Venus, consider the length of a day, 116 days!
Feel free to cite a peer reviewed paper that shows a path of how Human activity can make Earth like Venus?

I never said that. I said that if the geological processes had not sequestered so much carbon, the atmosphere would be vastly more dense and largely composed of carbon dioxide. It's necessary to consider not just known reserves of fossil fuel, but unknown reserves anywhere in the crust, also clathrates, then subtract from that your estimate of how much plant life and topsoil could possibly hold. Then also consider that a large quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere would settle (gravitation overcoming osmosis, and CO2 being ~50% heavier than either O2 or N2) making animal life impossible.

Do you understand why an IC heat engine has limits on how efficient it can be? Look up Mr. Carnot!
Where IC heat engines beat battery electrics is in energy density, even counting the fact that a heat engine can only extract 20% of the energy from gasoline,
gasoline still carries about 5 times the energy per pound as the best batteries. Energy densities

Energy density is only critical for aircraft. You admit that gasoline engines are terribly inefficient, that's all that matters for now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Batteries could get better, but a 5X improvement in energy density is unlikely short of a major breakthrough.
We also have to consider the possible improvements to how hydrocarbon fuels can be used!
A steam reformer, combined with a fuel cell, could allow ~60% of the energy in gasoline to be used,
and both technologies already exists separately.
Toyota Mirai
Steam reformation

The battery electric vehicles are a limited market, great for a second city car, but not viable for how most people use their cars in an annual cycle.

Not bothered. All-electric vehicles haven't reached the market share where economical recharging stations are available. People taking long trips across the country stop for breaks anyway (or they should, if they care to arrive alive) and truckstops are an obvious place to put chargers.

Perhaps they could include a free fuel car rental for when people want to do things outside the capability of the battery electrics.
I see serial hybrids taking most of the market, perhaps IC, until the fuel cell vehicles are optimized.

Actually trucks are the last few miles, most of the distribution is pipelines.

Most of the distance, but only a tiny fraction of the cost. Why would you measure by distance, when we're talking about efficiency and its correlate, cost?

It takes about 4 lbs of carbon to make a 6 lb gallon of gasoline, if that carbon is extracted from atmospheric CO2,
when the fuel is burned, no new CO2 is emitted!

Where did you get that figure? The only other ingredient is hydrogen, which doesn't weigh a third. Oh and by the way, you'll have to get hydrogen either from electrolysis or by a chemical process. That costs energy too.

I am not sure what organic waste there will be from splitting hydrogen out of water, and separating carbon form CO2,
the only emission is oxygen.

I was thinking household and farm waste, actually. Being solid (or squishy) the carbon in it is already part of bigger molecules. It might be a shortcut, and save methane emissions. Not sure though.

You've put energy into making oxygen, I think you should sell it instead of just venting it to the atmosphere.

 

[longview]

I never said that. I said that if the geological processes had not sequestered so much carbon, the atmosphere would be vastly more dense and largely composed of carbon dioxide. It's necessary to consider not just known reserves of fossil fuel, but unknown reserves anywhere in the crust, also clathrates, then subtract from that your estimate of how much plant life and topsoil could possibly hold. Then also consider that a large quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere would settle (gravitation overcoming osmosis, and CO2 being ~50% heavier than either O2 or N2) making animal life impossible.



Energy density is only critical for aircraft. You admit that gasoline engines are terribly inefficient, that's all that matters for now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density


Not bothered. All-electric vehicles haven't reached the market share where economical recharging stations are available. People taking long trips across the country stop for breaks anyway (or they should, if they care to arrive alive) and truckstops are an obvious place to put chargers.




Most of the distance, but only a tiny fraction of the cost. Why would you measure by distance, when we're talking about efficiency and its correlate, cost?

What you said was,

The natural disasters we all fear, may have saved us from becoming a poisonous baking hell like Venus!

Almost no one fears this!

Energy density matters in ships, tractors, trucks, and even cars. If the energy density is so small that I need a 1200 lbs of batteries to go 300 miles, it is a problem.

What matters is that a complete and functioning distribution system is in place, Charging stations, hydrogen stations, not so much!

Where did you get that figure? The only other ingredient is hydrogen, which doesn't weigh a third. Oh and by the way, you'll have to get hydrogen either from electrolysis or by a chemical process. That costs energy too.

It was rough, actually gasoline is 84% carbon by mass C8H18, but that just means they need to extract more CO2 from the atmosphere.
The overall process is between 60 and 80% efficient in the published literature.

I was thinking household and farm waste, actually. Being solid (or squishy) the carbon in it is already part of bigger molecules. It might be a shortcut, and save methane emissions. Not sure though.

You've put energy into making oxygen, I think you should sell it instead of just venting it to the atmosphere.

True, oxygen is a viable byproduct, and could reduce the costs of goods sold of the fuel!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I can't help but want to comment an some of this.

Uh-huh. So Venus is just super-hot at the surface, because it's a bit closer to the Sun. Well I'm glad you've cleared that up for me.

Well, that's only part of it. Venus has 93 times the atmospheric pressure as the earth, and 96.5% COI2 instead of 0.413%. That means a column of atmosphere on Venus has 217,300 times more CO2 than the earth.

What it competes against is basically the grid. Hydrocarbon fuel will be needed for jets, for the foreseeable future, but even those might suffer from fast underground transport we could build with masses of cheap electricity. Cars and trucks, electric. Shipping, probably hydrocarbon for a while to come due to long service life and the related risk-aversion of ship buyers, but electric or nuclear will make inroads.

This is where carbon neutral synthetic fuels will probably have a future. In my opinion. I think its very likely unless we have a dramatic increase in battery storage.

The grid isn't currently very efficient over long distances. Hence why I mentioned some industries moving to where the power is.

Part of the grid is very efficient. When you are transferring electricity at very high voltages with relatively low line resistance, it can be very efficient. The problem with AC power, is you have inductive loss with it. The inductive loss becomes very noticeable as the power is lost like the power lines are just an inefficient transmitter antenna. The longer the lines, the more the inductive loss becomes. This isn't due to physical resistance in ohms, but radiative loss. Long haul power transfers can be very efficient, but only if the are HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current.) I believe above 90%. You have zero inductive loss with HVDC. You only have line loss due to the physical resistance, and some parasitical loss. We only have a small handful of HVDC in the US. My claim is we need to build a nationwide network all connected, so that any place power is prodiced, a HVDC tap is available not too far away to send electricity, to any place its needed.