NAS & electric energy consumption or impact to pocket/environment

[WST16]

Ok. You‘ve convinced me!
Bruno, cancel the yacht. Let’s get the Learjet :p

 

[jeyare]

my digital silence week has ben on sailing yacht
pure sailing, pure physics, out of civilization, just Old man and the sea

 

[jeyare]

maybe some of you lost a reason of this topic in this forum. In these days when some people try find “simple” solution for our nature preservation, we can listen many approaches how to do it better. There is no simple solution. There is just one way, use facts as base of thinking. Hooray our thoughtless behavior can bring more troubles. Causality will catch us.
Sufficient preparation can help us find a proper way. Same as in NAS environment.

 

[WST16]

@jeyare for president

 

[jeyare]

Thx Gents,
if you like read more facts, here is a link to one of my favorite factfulness science author- Vaclav Smil.
I totally understand his attitude, written in The Guardian article:
“I was brought up in Czechoslovakia during the era of the Soviet bloc. Having spent 26 years of my life in the evil empire, I do not tolerate nonsense. I grew up surrounded by commie propaganda – the bright tomorrow, the great future of mankind – so I’m as critical as they come. It’s not my opinion. These are the facts. I don’t write opinion pieces. I write things that are totally underlined by facts.”

When you still not read Hans Rosling, do it also. He is an author of Factfulness terminology. And his one of famous (8y old) 4 minutes presentation about world.

 

[jeyare]

Because I like a data, I would like show you small data interpretation from fast research.

1. When TOP20 countries (by CO2 emissions) will save 1,9% of their emissions(2017), then it will cover worldwide total aviation emissions. Then we can stop all the aviation and move it to sail boat transport and nothing will happen.

2. Dtto for additional 2,4% cutting of their emissions(2017), then it will cover worldwide International shipping emissions.

3. Worldwide Aviation produced 1,5% of Total world CO2 Emissions. Increase from 1990 to 2017 was about 210%.

Top20 countries:

India in 1990 produced 606Mt CO2, what is little bit more than Today's world aviation. But India in 2017 produced 2455Mt CO2, what was similar increase as in 17 countries (in total) from TOP20.

Top5, Top10 and Top20 share from worldwide CO2 emissions:

Btw, 5 EU countries (Germany, France, Italy, Poland and UK) have still same share from rest EU28 = 62% (1990-2017). And Germany has 2x more than Italy+France.
What does mean for EU? In EU we have roundly 310M passenger cars and 42% from them are diesel based. When 40% of them are Euro4 and older specs (restricted diesel engines) and when CO2 emissions for these engines are roundly 200g/km. When avg yearly mileage is 20k km, then we have CO2 saving: 260Mt CO2, what is 7% of EU28 total emissions. It is counting.
... but in comparison with worldwide CO2 emissions it is saving about 0.56% (waw). Then it is a game about Don Quijote de la Mancha. We can save CO2 from diesels, but TOP3 will kill us.

 

[durin]

boats? nothing. People behavior.

Re Gretta’s vessel.
First, the vessel is really bigger than standard pleasure sailing boat, it’s about 60fts.
Second, the building cost of such vessel (4M GBP) is too far from standard e.g. Beneteau Oceanis 41 (41fts) pleasure sailing boat (from 135k GBP). What about the operation and maintenance cost? Then you can’t compare such two different worlds.
Third - did you tried North Atlantic by such pleasure sailing boat? In 15days? No way for each persons, no way for 15days. An example: min. 3290 Nautical miles from London to New York, if you are lucky with that boat and you will get non stop 8kts (8 NM per hour) speed, then you can reach New York over 17 days. But every skipper will tell you, that you never get direct line between two points. Then final line can gets more than 30% in common. Then if you finish this trip with health and boat in full operation, it will be more than 25days (weather, wind, direction). Then you need prepare a “service” for the crew or passengers (food, comfort, ...). then you need bigger boat for bigger cost. bigger photovoltaic panels, bigger hydro-generators, then bigger boat, ... it’s a physics & math.

I’m going to bookmark this thread as something to show to my daughter when she gets to the same age as an example of how far some people are willing to go to belittle a 16 year-old girl with Aspergers who happens to have an inconvenient message.

It's a good example what she'll have to learn to cope with if she hopes to make a difference in this world.

 

[jeyare]

@durin - I can't take away your feelings. It is your right of opinion.
I like more facts than feelings when planet needs to be saved and I don't need by initialized by such action which affect to feelings.
But pluck this part from whole context of the topic is same as evaluate CO2 emission just by CO2 per capita value, where is China at 42nd place. It just bad interpretation, or a purpose?

Finally:
- it will be better to open pragmatic discussion, than "because Greta". To save this planet by pragmatic point of view
- CO2 increase in emerging markets is linked with GDP growth. Then there is huge potential of such TOP20 members to dramatic increase of the CO2 emissions. When you linked it with all this topic, you will see, what you can expect next 5y.
- no less aircraft, or more boats or international shipping will save this planet. Just immediate preparation of arrangements, called a plan - to reduce more than 10% of CO2 emissions in TOP20 emission producers, because rest of the world will brings just peanuts in comparisons with the TOP20.
- no photovoltaic or wind turbines (today's technology) will save us, because there is no business case for us (just for the owners of the alternative power plants)
- it will help us prepare better and more strategic plan for next 50 years to decrease the emission by one of existing project, e.g. put the (big) part of CO2 under sea. Google about it.

Then we need to be prepared that android phone price will increase to 1000USD, because when China will reduce production of Aliexpress sh.ts, lot of factories will move back the production back. And it will be a discomfort for the masses. Never ending growth must end once. And it will hurt, also in USA.

Then you can be cooperative (to educate others by education of your self) or just a critic w/o proposals - how to do it better. Howg

 

[WST16]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182143935134744576

 

[jeyare]

What’s fueling China?
Decades of rapid economic growth have dramatically expanded China’s energy needs. China is now the world’s largest consumer of energy, the largest producer and consumer of coal, and the largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

Over the last half century, China’s large manufacturing-based economy has primarily been fueled by coal. From 1990 to 2015, China increased its coal consumption from 1.05 billion tons to 3.97 billion tons. In 2016, coal made up 62 percent of China’s energy use. Since 2011, China has consumed more coal than the rest of the world combined.
While urban household CO2 emissions predominantly come from natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, coal contributes to over 65 percent of China’s rural household emissions. Furthermore, roughly 72 percent of the electrical power generated in China in 2015 came from coal-powered plants, making coal the primary contributor to household CO2 emissions.

Conclusion:
now you can better understand, why China is so biggest CO2 producer from fossil sources in worldwide scale (30%).

Btw: 3rd India is in same line of China. They have 75% of electricity from coal. Answer about the India air pollution.
27% in U.S.
18% Russia
... then how to switch off 10% of the power plants sources in China and India to save world?
PS: I have read an article, that less SUVs in roads will save the world CO2 (change the SUV to small passenger cars). What an illusion. Less of 40g CO2 per 1km (difference between avg car and SUV) will save yearly 100Mt of CO2, what is peanut from the China emission.
Still same approach - out of the core problem.