Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

[Old_Trapper70]

They got embarrassed with the Olympics and it's hurting them but it's the pollution they are fixing, not co2.
Kinda had no choice really.

The pollution is CO2

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/

 

[The Scotsman]

Still need a source.

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cop21/

Do you mean these plants?

no GKM Mannheim, MIBRAG Profen, RWE Niederaussem, GETEC Buttel, Dow Stade etc. etc.
http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/...7/$file/130408_BDEW-Kraftwerksliste-final.pdf

GKM Mannheim... commissioned May 2015

Im Herzen der Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar gelegen, produziert die Grosskraftwerk Mannheim AG (GKM) Strom für über 2,5 Millionen Menschen, Gewerbe und Industrie sowie Fernwärme für rund 120.000 Haushalte. Zudem bezieht die DB Energie GmbH rund 15 Prozent des deutschen Bahnstroms aus dem GKM. Durch die Inbetriebnahme von Block 9 im Mai 2015 ist das GKM zum größten Energiestandort in Baden-Württemberg aufgestiegen und trägt maßgeblich zur Versorgungssicherheit in Süddeutschland bei.

 

[dogtowner]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06...17-the-sun-is-slumping-and-headed-even-lower/

The sun is headed to its predictable solar minimum and it's looking pretty minimal indeed. May want to consider sweaters. May be wishing co2 caused global warming.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cop21/

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cop21/

I don't see a cost factor in there. Saying there are approx. 45,000 expected delegates does not make the cost at a billion dollars, nor does it make the cost specifically for one country.

no GKM Mannheim, MIBRAG Profen, RWE Niederaussem, GETEC Buttel, Dow Stade etc. etc.
http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/...7/$file/130408_BDEW-Kraftwerksliste-final.pdf

GKM Mannheim... commissioned May 2015

GKM Mannheim has been around for a lot longer then 2 years. I don't read German, however, it would appear that coal is primarily a back up source of energy:

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/

 

[Old_Trapper70]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06...17-the-sun-is-slumping-and-headed-even-lower/

The sun is headed to its predictable solar minimum and it's looking pretty minimal indeed. May want to consider sweaters. May be wishing co2 caused global warming.

Set in your garage with the doors closed, and the motor running, then tell us CO2 does not kill. In fact, check out how low a level of CO2 is needed too kill:

https://www.quora.com/Is-breathing-...e-proportion-of-CO2-to-oxygen-and-other-gases

 

[The Scotsman]

It seems the main argument against the Paris agreement is that it will cost developed countries money.

No mate the main argument against the COP21 is that it was a waste of time and effort it was the example of politically motivated symbolism over substance. The aspirations of the world leave action on climate change pretty much at or near the bottom of their list of choices - play with the choices.... you mentioned Bangladesh, action on climate change came 12th out of 16 in their list of priorities....
http://data.myworld2015.org/

After two weeks, huge amounts of political rhetoric, and much activity behind closed doors, we have a treaty. While there will be celebrations among activists, the Paris Treaty will do very little to rein in temperature reductions. The Paris Treaty promises to keep temperature rises below 2°C. However, the actual promises made here will do almost nothing to achieve that. It is widely accepted that to keep temperature rises below 2°C, we have to reduce CO₂ emissions by 6,000Gt. The UNFCCC estimates that if every country makes every single promised Paris Treaty carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent possible and there is no carbon leakage, CO₂ emissions will be cut by 56 Gt by 2030.
The math is simple: in an implausibly optimistic best-case scenario, Paris leaves 99% of the problem in place.

http://lomborg.com/news/we-have-a-climate-treaty-but-at-what-cost

 

[The Scotsman]

however, it would appear that coal is primarily a back up source of energy:

yeah right...

 

[The Scotsman]

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/

Which bit of this article are you refering to.......

Coal is not going away in France and Germany as both countries need it to keep the lights on when nuclear units in France are down for inspection and as Germany’s energy transition brings in intermittent renewable energy to replace its retiring nuclear units. Coal, particularly lignite coal, is indigenous to Germany and supplies the majority of its power despite the dramatic growth in Germany’s wind and solar power industry.

..... thank you for confirming my point...????

 

[The Scotsman]

GKM Mannheim has been around for a lot longer then 2 years

Then you should take that point up with GKM as they say they commissioned their plant in May 2015 one assumes they have a bit of knowledge about their own facilities?.... Oh and by the way it ain't no back up facility....

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Then you should take that point up with GKM as they say they commissioned their plant in May 2015 one assumes they have a bit of knowledge about their own facilities?.... Oh and by the way it ain't no back up facility....

Don't have to since you didn't do your research. What was "commissioned" in 2015 was one "block" of the facility:

http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/...fired-power-plant-to-grosskraftwerk-mannheim/

Alstom has recently handed over its part of the newly constructed Block 9 of the GKM coal-fired power station to Grosskraftwerk Mannheim AG (GKM). This was preceded by the successful completion of the trial operation, which served as the proof of performance for the reliable operation of the new power station block. The new block – one of the most modern in Europe – has been in commercial operation since May 2015."

As to its being a "back up" read the article I posted where it clearly shows that coal is being used as a "back up" while renewable energy is being installed.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Which bit of this article are you refering to.......
..... thank you for confirming my point...????

Gets tiring "debating" with people who can't read, or comprehend what they are reading:

"both countries need it to keep the lights on when nuclear units in France are down for inspection and as Germany’s energy transition brings in intermittent renewable energy to replace its retiring nuclear units"

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No mate the main argument against the COP21 is that it was a waste of time and effort it was the example of politically motivated symbolism over substance. The aspirations of the world leave action on climate change pretty much at or near the bottom of their list of choices - play with the choices.... you mentioned Bangladesh, action on climate change came 12th out of 16 in their list of priorities....
http://data.myworld2015.org/


http://lomborg.com/news/we-have-a-climate-treaty-but-at-what-cost

You didn't read the whole article as most don't. Yes, few people are worried about climate change as even you appear to be. Yet the waters are warming, coral reefs are dying, ocean life is being decimated, etc. And while the Paris is not the answer, it is a beginning which involves all countries not just a few.

If you had read the entire article (you have to click on the spot where it says 'read the full article') you would have read this at the end:


"The Gates innovation push is great news and the only way we can start tackling the 99% of the climate problem not addressed by Paris.

After Paris, I will be advocating for an even greater investment in green energy research and development. Funding in the region of $100 billion annually is what is needed."

 

[The Scotsman]

The new block – one of the most modern in Europe – has been in commercial operation since May 2015."

yeah.... absolutely right it's newly built and came on stream in 2015 older units have been retired and they built a new one to replace them...

The Gates innovation push is great news and the only way we can start tackling the 99% of the climate problem not addressed by Paris.

Yeah I read a while ago and its very good article and for those that haven't read it you should!
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/
Paris was a political fuck up and I would rather have someone like Gates in the forefront than some of the insane politcians and whacked out scientist's that crapped all over the real science being done and pushed the politicians into accepting a pile of smoldering pseudo-scientific babblethat layed the foundations of COP21!
I will happily and totally agree with you that Gates is a far better exponent of the practical rather than COP21s version of the fantastical!

oh yeah... and

Gets tiring "debating" with people who can't read, or comprehend what they are reading:

On the limits of wind power and solar photovoltaic cells:
Wind has grown super-fast, on a very subsidized basis. Solar, off a smaller base, has been growing even faster—again on a highly subsidized basis. But it’s absolutely fair to say that even the modest R&D that’s been done, and the various deployment incentives that are there, have worked well. Now, unfortunately, solar photovoltaic is still not economical, but the biggest problem of all is this intermittency. That is, we need energy 24 hours a day. So, putting aside hydro—which unfortunately can’t grow much—the primary new zero-CO2 sources are intermittent. Now, nuclear is a non-CO2 source, but it’s had its own problems in terms of costs, big safety problems, making sure you can deal with the waste, making sure the plutonium isn’t used to make weapons. So my view is that the biggest problem for the two lead candidates is that storage looks to be so difficult. It’s kind of ironic: Germany, by installing so much rooftop solar, has it that both their coal plants and their rooftop solar are available in the summer, and the price of power during the day actually goes negative—they pay people to take it. Then at night the only source is the coal, and because the energy companies have to recover their capital costs, they either raise the price because they’re not getting any return for the day, or they slowly go bankrupt.

There are many people working on storage—batteries are a form of storage, and there’s a few others, like compressed air, hot metals. But it’s not at all clear that we will get grid-scale economic storage. We’re more than a factor of 10 away from the economics to get that.

On the self-defeating claims of some clean-energy enthusiasts:
They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated.

Bill Gates

 

[Old_Trapper70]

yeah.... absolutely right it's newly built and came on stream in 2015 older units have been retired and they built a new one to replace them...

Not what you said to begin with. Backpedaling is getting to be a habit with you.

You said: "GKM Mannheim... commissioned May 2015" One "block" is not the entire plant,

Yeah I read a while ago and its very good article and for those that haven't read it you should!
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/
Paris was a political fuck up and I would rather have someone like Gates in the forefront than some of the insane politcians and whacked out scientist's that crapped all over the real science being done and pushed the politicians into accepting a pile of smoldering pseudo-scientific babblethat layed the foundations of COP21!
I will happily and totally agree with you that Gates is a far better exponent of the practical rather than COP21s version of the fantastical!

http://www.financialexpress.com/wor...ys-deeply-concerned-with-the-decision/698745/

Bill Gates was also the one that started the Green Climate Fund at the Paris accord:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-g...n-fund-at-paris-climate-conference-1448877338

oh yeah... and






View attachment 937

Bill Gates

Coal is that light gray, or purple, color. Did you happen to notice it is also the one in the deepest decline?

 

[Aus22]

Now everybody is producing graphs and opinion to prove their point. There is little consensus in these arguments. It is easy to produce graphs over a limited period to prove that there was a pause in global warming but none of these graphs cover 200 years. Opinions can be produce to say that some places are getting colder but there is no scientific evidence that this is a world wide trend. Explanation that this a natural change and that it will change in the future is just opinions You can not forecast how NATURE WILL REACT IN THE FUTURE.
EVEN OPINIONS ABOUT THE EFFECT Co2 are DIVIDED . I have tried to read SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS ABOUT CO2 BUT find them CONFUSION. EXAMPLE THE FIRST ONE I SAW WAS Richard Jordy in New Phytologist. He seems to say that sometimes CO2 comes with global warming , sometimes it does not.
Statements that new coal mine are being open in various parts of the world prove nothing. New mines are replacing old mines because they are less polluting. Clean coal in being experiment with . It might work but it would be better than keeping dirty old mines open.
In theUSA I understand most of the mines in the rust belt states have been closed. The companies that ran them have gone bankrupt. To open them would cost a fortune and being old mines they will be dirty.