True, CO will get you pretty fast since it basically stops your breathing at the blood level.
But CO2 will also kill you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
Energy - Fossil, Renewable, Nuclear
- Thread starter Eriol
- Start date
But CO2 will also kill you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
It sure will, but you don't need a car for that, you can just put a plastic bag over your head.
The primary concern with cars (or generators, or grills) being used in enclosed spaces is the accumulation of carbon monoxide, which can go unnoticed until it's too late.
--Patrick
Dude, telling Eriol to do that seems a bit too personal... pls dial it down.
It's true that I feel Eriol sometimes overlooks things I might consider obvious, or sometimes misinterprets what I say, but I doubt he read that and somehow thought I was saying ZOMG DRINK BLEACH LOLZ KTHX, just like I doubt he thought I was suggesting he go blow up a lake. At least, I hope he didn't.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Guess it depends on the situation you call "dangerous."
Carbon Dioxide is about as dangerous as water, in that yes, you can have too much of it and it can kill you, but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.
That's very different from carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount. Just because you can be smothered with a bed pillow doesn't mean it's in the same "danger" category as a ka-bar.
Carbon Dioxide is about as dangerous as water, in that yes, you can have too much of it and it can kill you, but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.
That's very different from carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount. Just because you can be smothered with a bed pillow doesn't mean it's in the same "danger" category as a ka-bar.
Carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin the same way oxygen does, which means your blood's ability to carry oxygen is impaired. Additionally, CO combines with hemoglobin hundreds of times more readily than oxygen, which means your treasonous blood cells will happily give up their ability to carry oxygen for hours, causing their overall oxygen-carrying capacity to drop. This can impair judgement and actively prevent you from moving somewhere safe. Your body is wired to respond to excessive CO2. If you stop breathing while asleep, you (usually) reflexively wake up enough to take a deeper breath (aka "sleep apnea"). But if you get too much CO while you're asleep, you just slip deeper into unconsciousness and die.
--Patrick
Yeah, that's the point, we really need to stop adding water in the room... and saying it's just water isn't a good argument against people saying we should stop.
Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...
So you do admit global warming is man made after all...
Well, no, haemoglobin isn't that rare in your blood that "any" amount will kill you.
It's just a whole lot less then CO2.
Woosh?!
GasBandit
Staff member
You keep flip flopping between two arguments... are you saying that you thought that why running a car in a closed garage kills people was because it global warmed them to death?
Best just cut your losses before everyone here thinks you're a complete waste of time to talk to.
Oh wait.
Analogies, how do they work? Truly a mystery for the ages...
Hint: the garage thing was about the claim that CO2 is safe... although, as pointed out, the better example would be putting a bag on your head... so it was literally a different argument then global warming itself.
Just because you don't (or refuse to) get an argument doesn't mean it's a bad one... see: anti-vaxxers & trump supporters etc.
Last edited:
Ya about that: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/putting-the-brakes-on-acceleration/
(harder to find clean graphs that are newer, but 2011 is still fine)
Basically: it isn't accelerating. It hasn't since records have been kept. Somewhere between 1-2mm per YEAR, and it's been a remarkably constant increase. That's of course discounting local effects, which means we really only have satellite ones from recent decades, as the ground SINKING is the bigger problem in many many places.
GasBandit
Staff member
And yet you tried to use one argument to support the other. Kthxbye.
And, as we all know, arguments all exist in their own vacuum dimension, and could never do that...
UNPOSSIBLE!!!!
I mean, who tries to disprove one piece of evidence someone else presents in support of their claim, and then try to pretend that makes the whole claim have less evidence?
ONLY CRAZY PEOPLE!!!
So is your argument that we're not drowning at an ever increasing rate, but a steady one?
And lets say you think they're overstating the problem... what exactly is the down side of having cleaner air, less garbage in the oceans and more plant life again?
That the reduction of CO2 is an impediment to all of that is the downside. Cheap abundant energy enables being able to do those other things.
It's also anti-poverty, as carbon taxes are virtually ALWAYS regressive in nature as they increase the price of everything to a great degree. n addition, cheap energy also gets people in the 3rd world away from needing cookfires, which are HUGE causes of bad health. Mechanization of farming allows yields (and health) to skyrocket as well.
Do I need to go with all the benefits of having cheap energy? Since without HUGE subsidies, that all doesn't apply to renewables (except hydro, which is opposed by environmentalists as well). Natural gas, Oil, etc, are all GREAT for helping people out of poverty and bad health.
The one exception is Coal. Just from the distribution of Mercury into the atmosphere alone, its bad (and that's the primary thing for me why it's horrific). You won't see me arguing for that here, or anywhere.
But you're a conservative so this should be a plus for you.
What year are you currently in? Coz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fossil_fuel_subsidies
Also, there was always nuclear, so unless you're in pre-1950's, that was never true.
And why mention hydro just as something "the other ppl" are against? If it's better in your opinion, shouldn't you push for it?
It totally depends on the province.
Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear, with a fair chunk of hydro (Niagara Falls!), and using natural gas as the source to deal with the the fluctuations in demand throughout the day.
I think Quebec uses significantly more hydro.
Whomever wrote that section has NO bias whatsoever, given the second sentence. Also, given that "subsidies" is often code for "They're not paying their "true" amount" (see Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the USA) I have never seen a good argument (including those links, which were mostly bullshit) that says it's true. Given that millions are paid for leases on Gulf of Mexico oil (recently) the definition of "subsidy" is usually fairly bogus in this context.
I can't tell which parts of my original argument you are conflating with nuclear. That it gets subsidies? Used to? What? They've been regulated into the ground (possibly legitimately, given the too-cavalier attitude of many operators in the past) but I didn't mention nuclear above. Overall I AM an advocate for Nuclear power, but more in things like LFTR or other safer alternatives to the Light-water reactor.
Because in the early part of the 20th century in North America and Europe, just about everywhere that was practical to produce Hydro from was developed. Sure there's a number of sites that still aren't, but the majority of that capacity to generate electricity is tapped, and what little isn't is usually opposed on environmental grounds because it will destroy the upstream ecology (literally flooded out), and sometimes downstream as well (fish bypasses and such needed). So talking about "more hydro" is pretty much a "where?" question first. Hydro's great, but it's near its practical limit.
Oh and @Gruebeard be careful about "listed capacity" and "actually delivered" for solar/wind. Example graph for New Zealand for wind:
I haven't looked at whatever source you got for Ontario, but I'd suspect it's similar.
My source is Ontario, itself, giving actual usage stats for the year 2015Whomever wrote that section has NO bias whatsoever, given the second sentence. Also, given that "subsidies" is often code for "They're not paying their "true" amount" (see Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the USA) I have never seen a good argument (including those links, which were mostly bullshit) that says it's true. Given that millions are paid for leases on Gulf of Mexico oil (recently) the definition of "subsidy" is usually fairly bogus in this context.
I can't tell which parts of my original argument you are conflating with nuclear. That it gets subsidies? Used to? What? They've been regulated into the ground (possibly legitimately, given the too-cavalier attitude of many operators in the past) but I didn't mention nuclear above. Overall I AM an advocate for Nuclear power, but more in things like LFTR or other safer alternatives to the Light-water reactor.
Because in the early part of the 20th century in North America and Europe, just about everywhere that was practical to produce Hydro from was developed. Sure there's a number of sites that still aren't, but the majority of that capacity to generate electricity is tapped, and what little isn't is usually opposed on environmental grounds because it will destroy the upstream ecology (literally flooded out), and sometimes downstream as well (fish bypasses and such needed). So talking about "more hydro" is pretty much a "where?" question first. Hydro's great, but it's near its practical limit.
Oh and @Gruebeard be careful about "listed capacity" and "actually delivered" for solar/wind. Example graph for New Zealand for wind:
I haven't looked at whatever source you got for Ontario, but I'd suspect it's similar.
When it comes to capacity, not usage, my link says this:
.
Hm. Interesting. According to www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ, 32.9% of my electricity comes from Natural Gas sources, 32.7% from Nuclear (fun fact: Palo Verde is the largest nuclear power plant, largest net generator of electricity, and second-largest power plant by capacity of any kind in the nation), 25.7% from coal, and only 5.1% from Hyrdo. Non-hydro Renewables makes up 3.6%.
Grue, that's the problem. Example: https://blog.ospe.on.ca/featured/on...-energy-in-2016-enough-to-power-760000-homes/
So your link doesn't say about "the plated capacity is X, it actually generated Y amount" of energy.
If you want a world-wide view on this, end of 2018, lots of graphs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/21/another-look-at-the-fuel-mix/
It's always a bit of a blow when you get the facts from the source for the first time, eh?
(I was surprised that Hydro didn't account for more of Ontario's power back when I first started paying attention)
Click on the link, read the first couple paragraphs, and then tell me doesn't say it actually generated Y amount of energy.
Err, the first couple paragraphs after the first couple charts.
Grue, if you mean this:
A few problems here:
1. They don't break out Wind, Solar, and Bioenergy from each other. i.e. if you burn wood to boil water, to turn a turbine, it's the same as wind in this calculation.
2. The link I provided above said "The province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity". In the link they go more into how that was wasted and what I means, but combined with what your link says, it means that more than HALF of the "renewables" generated went to 100% waste. And that's not even considering the amount that got exported at a loss!
And even though that was what was generated, it doesn't do a nice "here's what the plate capacity of it is, and here's what percentage actually got generated by it." So let's do some math!
From here: http://www.aweo.org/windunits.html
That's 25%. So 6 hours a day at full capacity. Times by 4 to get "full" usage: 8760MWh Your link from the government above claim 4,500MW of non-hydro renewables. So multiply the capacity by the 8760 (since it's for 1) and we get: 8760*4500=39,420,000MWh = 39.42TWh (1TW = 1,000,000 MW)
So now divide the 14.2 (which includes biomass, not just wind/solar) by that number: 14.2/39.42=36% or 8 hours a day of FULL wind. But of course if you took out biomass, it'd be even LESS, so the graph above from New Zealand is probably accurate! Less than a third (closer to 25%) of the plated capacity is what you actually have.
So you have a third of the capacity you say you do. Whereas the hydro, nuclear, and gas is 100% of the plated capacity. And it's not reliable to be there when you need it.
If you want real fun, start calculating the economics of wind/solar if you're required to have on-site storage capacity for a week of "non-functional" and how uneconomic it gets. You know, like a REAL power plant needs fuel on-site.
The way we're contracting wind/solar right now is insane. If you treated them like any other producer and required them to provide stable power, then they could be counted in the mix, but it's completely uneconomic to do so. So everybody gets hosed on higher power prices.
Dude. You're arguing with me over a whole topic that was an afterthought.
You know, I started by saying that Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear and hydro, with a bit of natural gas thrown in. Then I figured I'd back that up with the most basic of stats - energy generated. I only even bothered mentioning "Green" sources so the percentages would hit 100. It was an afterthought.
Pretend I had originally said "Other (not coal)" instead of "Green" and leave me out of your Quixotic crusade.
I've said it before (probably in this thread), Toronto's air got so much cleaner after Ontario stopped burning coal. There used to be so many smog days throughout the summer, air advisory warnings, that endless brown haze on the skyline.
Best thing any large population can do is stop burning coal.
Well, unless every RTS/4X ever has been lying to me, the best thing that any population can do as it climbs the tech tree is to abandon the less efficient, higher-pollution methods as more efficient and cleaner methods become available.
I suddenly have an idea for a new RTS/4X, one where as you climb the tech tree, every time you try to implement new technology, you have to fight against financial/political/regional pressures that work to keep you from scrapping your older, lower-tech facilities before you're allowed to put in the new ones, and even after you do, some of them will get sabotaged and have to be rebuilt. And all of this will still be happening from within even as the main aliens or whatever are trying to break through your front lines.
--Patrick
Given I think that Wind Power is almost-always a HUGE waste of money, I give you credit for your far-beyond-appropriate Don Quixote reference.
/bow
I don’t know the economics of the turbines, but just like boats, guns, engines, knives, and meal portions, bigger is not always better. Materials science says there are going to be limits.
—Patrick
Also just plain practicality. To the best of my knowledge, the blades are still either one or two pieces - I've never seen one in three or more. Produced right on the coast and moved by boat you can get pretty big, but if moved by trucks, there's a pretty stiff upper limit to how big a blade can be and still be transported around by road. I think the largest I've seen were about 100m per blade - and those were at sea. I don't see how you'd get longer parts than that moved around on land.
He means that each blade itself comes either as a single, monolithic blade, or as two pieces that must be joined to form one complete blade.
--Patrick