Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 162

Thread: Gassed up today

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,264
    Here's a quote from the North Face website "We’ve set an ambitious goal to ensure all products we make are made with recycled, regenerative, or responsibly-sourced renewable fabrics—which are fabrics derived from materials that will replenish over the course of a lifetime. We’re on track to hit our goal with all our apparel in 2025, and all footwear and equipment by 2030."
    https://www.thenorthface.com/en_ca/sustainability.html

  2. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Here's a quote from the North Face website "We’ve set an ambitious goal to ensure all products we make are made with recycled, regenerative, or responsibly-sourced renewable fabrics—which are fabrics derived from materials that will replenish over the course of a lifetime. We’re on track to hit our goal with all our apparel in 2025, and all footwear and equipment by 2030."
    https://www.thenorthface.com/en_ca/sustainability.html
    A month or 3 ago, a O&G service company in the area ordered 400 jackets for employee thank-you gifts from TNF; the apparel maker refused it, "wrong messaging." (Certainly within their right!!)

    The head guy at the service company wrote them an open letter - its available on line for those that wish. Gist of the letter: 100% of the subject jackets are made with O&G derivatives - the shell, lining, insulation, zippers, snaps, thread, and even the logo. It has ZERO natural content. ...Just really good messaging!

    Some interpretations:
    recycled: maybe 8-10% of content, before their elite 'high-performance' fabrics degrade.
    responsibly-sourced: they bought it from Exxon or Chevron, not ARAMCO.
    renewable: basically a lie in this case. No cotton, wool, bamboo, hemp, or linen. Not even algae.
    replenish: they'll need more polymer feed-stock.

    (I spent a few early years in plastics processing biz; current co. has quite a chemicals/polymer footprint.)

    *************

    A man from NY accosted me standing at a bar in Jamaica ...when he saw a company logo on my sunglasses, "You are going to have to do something about that frac'ing $#!%!"

    I looked at him and realized from his physique that he didn't row a boat there, and the sunburn said 'non-sailor', if you know what I mean. I'll let you decide how he got to an island; I didn't ask. As I scanned up, he was wearing Crocs (EVA), swimsuit (rayon probably, but 'poly' for sure), swimshirt (polyester), sunglasses (polycarbonate), and a gimme hat (nylon, mostly).

    Me, "My drinks are ready, but you have a really nice trip!"

    **************

    How do you spell hypocrisy?

  3. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    ... how the efforts to fight climate change is killing anyone.
    5 Million? Wonder how many died of 'weather' - - pre-climate change, of course.

    A couple of decades ago, a group of 'pure' scientists released a paper describing the dire future and doom humans faced in the next several years due to CO2. As 'applied' scientists, ASME realized that engineers would be key to actually teaching and implementing this new science. So, they commissioned a group of senior engineers and professors to do a peer-reviewed study of how humans could execute this. They invited other engineering disciplines to participate, with equally rigorous peer-review requirements. They published their findings in the ASME magazine. I read it, then tossed it, regrettably. Had I a crystal ball, I'd have tattooed it on my forehead.

    I cannot find a copy online for love nor money. The web has swallowed it whole. Perhaps someone else can find a hard-copy in a library somewhere..?

    This group looked at everything under the sun, tried to balance one thing against another (as that supply drops, production of this increases), and even assumed the application of some very interesting human ingenuity. They looked at power curtailment, renewables, nuclear, biomass, lack of lighting, factory productivity and mods (LOTS of skylights), transportation bottlenecks and increase spoilage, farming - fertilizer, planting/harvesting/storage inefficiencies, even some farming reverting to draft animals and the resulting conversion of human crops to animal silage. And of course, government intervention. I have touched - gently - on perhaps 10-15% of the article's content.

    Their conclusion -- with a world population of 5,000,000,000 or so at the time -- 1/3 to 1/2 of the human population would die of starvation, war, or disease. We're at 7,000,000,000 now - give or take a billion here and there.

    Find it. Read it. Refute it. I welcome the sanity check.

    Clearly, the dire loss of life has NOT come to pass - - largely because the original timeline has - so far - been ignored, in my opinion.

    ******
    I posted much the same thing in a thread long ago POOF'd. Maybe this will reach a reader or 2.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,264
    Malcome, I'm confused. You said in an earlier post "If we avoid the serious environmental issues and kill 3,000,000,000 humans is that a good trade? 1,000,000 humans? 10 humans? Where is your tipping point? (My personal goal is 0!)" Then when I link a study that claims climate change causes 5 million heat related deaths per year, your response is
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod View Post
    5 Million? Wonder how many died of 'weather' - - pre-climate change, of course.
    Are you disputing the study? Are you aware of a study that claims fighting climate change is or will be the cause of any deaths?
    I recall the ASME study but don't recall all its conclusions and can't find it either. I do recall one point that was made and that was that fighting climate change was a challenge for the engineering profession and that the engineering profession had successfully met previous challenges like the one involving the hole in the ozone layer. This is obviously a bigger challenge and one the world cannot meet without engineering input. I also recall the study suggested we as engineers should look at this as an opportunity, and that while some sectors may shrink as we transition away from fossil fuels there are many opportunities for other sectors to grow. I suspect energy companies that aren't part of the transition away from fossil fuels will decline in the next few decades.
    Before I retired most of my work as an engineer was in thermal power generation mainly in the pulp and paper industry (biomass and black liquor recovery boilers) but also in utility power generation including oil, gas and coal fired power plants, waste to energy boilers, gas fired combined and simple cycle power plants and coal fired power plant ash handling. Long before I retired I saw the writing on the wall that it was a sunset industry. Looking at one of my former employer's website, they are getting into things like CO2 scrubbing, solar and energy storage, here's a quote from their website "The long-lasting effects of global climate change are considered detrimental to our world’s ecosystem, which is why B&W is dedicated to providing clean power production technologies to support the energy transformation and our future."

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,264
    Not the ASME study Malcome referred to but came across this one while looking. Worth a read in my opinion. Here's a quote from it "Climate solutions are coming fast because customers demand it, investors demand it, and employees demand it. The pathway is clear and baked in. Companies that ignore these pressures do so at their peril. The only question now is which companiesand which countrieswill lead. The United States can still lead. Texas, a state whose identity is tightly bound to the petroleum industry, could still lead. The countries and companies that move the fastest and smartest will make a lot of money. The deniers and laggards will lose. As an American and a Texan, I hope we dont side with the laggards."
    https://www.asme.org/topics-resource...te-of-optimism

  6. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Malcome, I'm confused. ...
    No problem... 'Malcolm' has 2 M's, 2 'L's', and no E's. It's right there at the top of all my posts.

    Are you disputing the study?
    Not at all. Let's assume Bloomberg and Ms. Lombrana are totally unbiased. Let's assume the researchers (Guo, et.al.) are totally unbiased. Let's take the news report at it's oh-so-clickable-headline and story's face value: 5 million people die annually due to climate-change-related extreme weather. ...The majority of which have recently been due to 'cold'.

    There is zero reference to any pre-industrial, pre-climate-change extreme weather deaths. Were there no deaths in this era? Were the no extreme weather events in this era? I think we all know the answer to this. So, as heinous as it may be to call this era's human deaths "base-line", I'd think the researchers should have included this base-line data. Maybe Ms. Lombrana or her editor should have pushed for a more complete story. And just maybe some of that 5M is base-line. YMMV

    Are you aware of a study that claims fighting climate change is or will be the cause of any deaths?
    I recall the ASME study but don't recall all its conclusions and can't find it either.
    First, thank you for at least validating the ASME study's existence. I DO recall it's conclusions, as I was shocked at the potential for my professional participation in this 'fix'. And so the emphatic answer is, "Yes! I am aware of a study that claims fighting climate change is or will be the cause of any deaths."

    If we assume a 2- or 3-ish decade old human population of 5B, and the ASME study was right (within the UCS's timeline), but at the 'low end' (1/3), then we loose 1.65B human lives.

    But let's assume that our decades-old ASME with their chosen minions were really dumb, or my memory is really bad, and the original ASME study was wrong by a massive and incompetent 50% (:: only 1/6 of the population lost). That is a mere 825M human lives. That's equal to 165 years of Prof. Guo's estimated losses - - just for comparison.

    In your professional career, I'm guessing you are quite familiar with the process hazards that exist at the extreme ends of a control curve. In the case of climate change, doing nothing is one end. Doing too much, too fast is the other. I try to stay in the middle and I am notorious with my peers for always asking, 'How can this go wrong?' My (in)actions may cost lives, but not all of them. I trust you can say the same.

    My company now has an entire business division dedicated to commercialization of carbon capture and sequestration. Another group sits down the hall from me, actively looking for methane leaks within our BU - down to fugitive emissions from compressor shaft packing - using tech* that would amaze you. As mentioned elsewhere, elimination of routine flaring is a focus, and about 5years ahead of company plan for our BU. (We do still have some emergency flaring, but it is simply to prevent catastrophic failure.)

    It took humans way more than 100 years to get 'here' CO2-wise. Common sense says we won't get back in 10.

    ...Stick figure pounding of keys thus endeth. Enjoy.

    *- They can literally see you fart on our tank battery sites.
    Last edited by Malcolm McLeod; 07-07-2022 at 11:59 AM. Reason: typo / tiny bit of humor

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod View Post
    No problem... 'Malcolm' has 2 M's, 2 'L's', and no E's. It's right there at the top of all my posts.


    Not at all. Let's assume Bloomberg and Ms. Lombrana are totally unbiased. Let's assume the researchers (Guo, et.al.) are totally unbiased. Let's take the news report at it's oh-so-clickable-headline and story's face value: 5 million people die annually due to climate-change-related extreme weather. ...The majority of which have recently been due to 'cold'.

    There is zero reference to any pre-industrial, pre-climate-change extreme weather deaths. Were there no deaths in this era? Were the no extreme weather events in this era? I think we all know the answer to this. So, as heinous as it may be to call this era's human deaths "base-line", I'd think the researchers should have included this base-line data. Maybe Ms. Lombrana or her editor should have pushed for a more complete story. And just maybe some of that 5M is base-line. YMMV


    First, thank you for at least validating the ASME study's existence. I DO recall it's conclusions, as I was shocked at the potential for my professional participation in this 'fix'. And so the emphatic answer is, "Yes! I am aware of a study that claims fighting climate change is or will be the cause of any deaths."

    If we assume a 2- or 3-ish decade old human population of 5B, and the ASME study was right (within the UCS's timeline), but at the 'low end' (1/3), then we loose 1.65B human lives.

    But let's assume that our decades-old ASME with their chosen minions were really dumb, or my memory is really bad, and the original ASME study was wrong by a massive and incompetent 50% (:: only 1/6 of the population lost). That ls a mere 825M human lives. That's equal to 165 years of Prof. Guo's estimated losses - - just for comparison.

    In your professional career, I'm guessing you a quite familiar with the process hazards that exist at the extreme ends of a control curve. In the case of climate change, doing nothing is one end. Doing too much, too fast is the other. I try to stay in the middle and I am notorious with my peers for always asking, 'How can this go wrong?' My (in)actions may cost lives, but not all of them. I trust you can say the same.

    My company now has an entire business division dedicated to commercialization of carbon capture and sequestration. Another group sits down the hall from me, actively looking for methane leaks within our BU - down to fugitive emissions from compressor shaft packing - using tech that would amaze you. As mentioned elsewhere, elimination of routine flaring is a focus, and about 5years ahead of company plan for our BU. (We do still have some emergency flaring, but it is simply to prevent catastrophic failure.)

    It took humans way more than 100 years to get 'here' CO2-wise. Common sense says we won't get back in 10.

    ...Stick figure pounding of keys thus endeth. Enjoy.
    First I apologise for misspelling your name, I guess that addition of an e to my last name several posts back was a subtle poke that I missed. My bad.
    Second if you find the Bloomberg study biased how about the World Health Organization, New York Times, National Geographic, CDC etc all have published studies or articles on the subject. When I Google "how does fighting climate change cause deaths" I get lot's of returns on how climate change causes death, none claiming fighting it does. Perhaps the Google algorithm is finding results based on my past searches so I did an anonymous search using Bing and got many of the same returns and none suggesting fighting climate change causes deaths. Perhaps you can do a search and post a link to an article that claims fighting climate change causes deaths.

    I don't recall the ASME study saying that fighting climate change would cause any deaths, and I don't understand the statement "If we assume a 2- or 3-ish decade old human population of 5B, and the ASME study was right [about what?](within the UCS's timeline), but at the 'low end' (1/3), then we loose 1.65B human lives." What would the cause of death from fighting climate change be?

    Sounds like your company is doing what the ASME article I linked to says is what needs to be done so I don't understand why you seem to want to push back on the need to fight climate change.

  8. #143
    https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-cen...lobal-warming/ <<< y'all should read this, just for kicks, this 'climate change' thing ain't new-
    ========================================
    ELEVEN - rotary cutter tool machines
    FOUR - CO2 lasers
    THREE- make that FOUR now - fiber lasers
    ONE - vinyl cutter
    CASmate, Corel, Gravostyle


  9. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Second if you find the Bloomberg study biased ...
    I quite specifically said "totally unbiased". Maybe just incomplete? Please decide for yourself.

    Perhaps you can do a search and post a link to an article that claims fighting climate change causes deaths.
    ....
    This is just from the top of the list on quick search. Note, "which warned rising fertilizer costs would drive up food prices and could lead to famine." This linked situation clearly is driven by short term n.gas production shortfalls, but please ask yourself how abruptly killing O&G as part of the 'fight' will result in a different outcome. And again, our relative perspectives may be vastly different - but for me, that word "famine" means people are likely to die.

    Emphasis on quick; no fact checks; no look at author's other work; no source bias reviews. Easy to find if you look.

    ...and the ASME study was right [about what?]
    Please review post #138, that covers "about what".

    ...so I don't understand why you seem to want to push back on the need to fight climate change.
    I have never disputed the need, merely the popular and quite grotesque over-simplification of the solution. I don't understand your apparent participation in the latter. (Plenty of misunderstanding. Enough to supply everyone.)

    Please carry on. I am sure the Mods are having kittens and poised over the POOF! button, so I am done here. PM me if you feel it warranted.

  10. #145
    USA just sold lots of oil from our strategic-stash to China. Not getting a lot of press , could be its part of a deal to get our frozen Chinese food into new territory.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,179
    The CEO of EXXON-Mobil said recently that he expects almost all passenger vehicles to be EV by 2040. He also said that the oil & gas industry will still be in business, producing as much as they were in 2013-2014 and be just as profitable due to the continued demand for all the other products (fertilizer, plastics, etc.) that will be needed.
    Hobbyist

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod View Post
    I quite specifically said "totally unbiased". Maybe just incomplete? Please decide for yourself.


    This is just from the top of the list on quick search. Note, "which warned rising fertilizer costs would drive up food prices and could lead to famine." This linked situation clearly is driven by short term n.gas production shortfalls, but please ask yourself how abruptly killing O&G as part of the 'fight' will result in a different outcome. And again, our relative perspectives may be vastly different - but for me, that word "famine" means people are likely to die.

    Emphasis on quick; no fact checks; no look at author's other work; no source bias reviews. Easy to find if you look.


    Please review post #138, that covers "about what".


    I have never disputed the need, merely the popular and quite grotesque over-simplification of the solution. I don't understand your apparent participation in the latter. (Plenty of misunderstanding. Enough to supply everyone.)

    Please carry on. I am sure the Mods are having kittens and poised over the POOF! button, so I am done here. PM me if you feel it warranted.
    I think we are making progress and we're not as far apart as some may perceive from some of our posts. I assumed (my bad) that you were being sarcastic when you said unbiased I agree that the article may be incomplete but what article isn't? It's a very complicated subject and one article can't cover all aspects of the topic. The article you posted authored by a company that makes fertilizer from fossil fuels (unbiased?) predicts rising food costs if natural gas prices rise due to increased demand as the world comes out of a pandemic (nothing to do with the climate change fight) without considering the impact of droughts and extreme heat on food production caused by climate change. Interesting that one of the causes they state for reduced production of ammonia was a hurricane that took out one of their plants. According to NASA climate change may not increase frequency of hurricanes (might actually reduce them) but "the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger."
    I totally agree we cannot abruptly kill oil and gas usage, I have said several times that we can't go cold turkey. I don't understand why you would think I participate in or agree with " the popular and quite grotesque over-simplification of the solution." I do not.
    As for post #138, you recall (but I don't) that they predicted massive deaths from starvation war or disease as a result of fighting climate change. Hard to debate that conclusion if we can't find the article. The only way I can think of is if we mismanage the fight by, for example, going cold turkey. Do you recall (as I do) that they considered fighting climate change as a great opportunity as described in the ASME article from 2022?

    Don't know why you are concerned that the mods are having kittens over this discussion, I think we are both being respectful and polite in this discussion.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the Land of Lincoln
    Posts
    2,239
    Don't know why you are concerned that the mods are having kittens over this discussion, I think we are both being respectful and polite in this discussion.[/QUOTE]

    It was thought by some of the other thread was staying civil (myself included), but I didn't see what might have been posted in the 24-48 hour period leading up to it getting nuked. So it might have degraded dramatically from where it had been.
    Last edited by Ronald Blue; 07-07-2022 at 7:32 PM. Reason: corrected grammar

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Blue View Post
    It was thought by some of the other thread was staying civil (myself included), but I didn't see what might have been posted in the 24-48 hour period leading up to it getting nuked. So it might have degraded dramatically from where it had been.
    Ron can you edit your post to move your content outside the quote of my content? My experience here in BC does not match yours in Illinois. "VANCOUVER: Starting April 1, electricity bills for BC Hydro customers will be reduced by an average of 1.4 per cent, following interim approval by the BC Utilities Commission.The rate decrease is part of a three-year rate application that, if approved, marks a period of the lowest rate increases in B.C. over the past 15 years."
    No doubt there will be rate increases during the transition away from coal but I suspect eventually the rates will be lower. According to Bloomberg "It's now cheaper to build and operate new large-scale wind or solar plants in nearly half the world than it would be to run an existing coal or gas-fired power plant."

    Yeah I have no idea why the other thread was
    closed

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the Land of Lincoln
    Posts
    2,239
    That remains to be seen. With no current incentives the market has stalled for new wind turbines. In fact Siemens Gamesa which has a blade plant near me is laying off most of the work force due to the lack of new orders. They aren't the only supplier of course but I'm sure other suppliers are feeling a similar pinch. I don't know if the solar industry is in a similar place or not. I'm not sure if the intent is to force electric rates so high that "clean energy" will stand on it's own without subsidies or not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •